Digital Voice Rights Bill Sparks Debate

Summary#

The NO FAKES Act of 2026 would create a new federal law; it does not amend a named existing Act. It would give people and certain rights holders control over specified uses of a person’s voice or visual likeness in realistic digital replicas, and allow civil lawsuits over unauthorized uses. Its stated goal is to protect intellectual property rights in people’s voices and visual likenesses.

  • A person, or a rights holder such as an heir or licensee, would have a property right to authorize digital replicas. The right would continue after death, subject to time limits and renewal conditions.
  • Making an unauthorized replica public, or making certain replica-making products or services available, could lead to a civil lawsuit. Liability depends on the bill’s knowledge rules and exceptions.
  • Covered online services would have to register a designated agent. To qualify for the bill’s safe harbor, services must follow its notice process, which includes removing or disabling access to specified material; some must also address matching copies uploaded after a valid notice.
  • The bill sets exceptions for uses such as bona fide news, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, and certain documentary or historical works. Those exceptions do not apply when the replica depicts sexually explicit conduct.
  • A person’s lifetime licence would generally need to be written, describe intended uses, and last no more than 10 years. Licences involving minors have added limits, including court approval under state law.
  • The bill would take effect 180 days after enactment. It has been introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee; it is not law.

What it means for you#

  • People and rights holders: You could authorize uses of your voice or likeness in a qualifying digital replica. While you are alive, the right could not be assigned, but it could be licensed. After death, the right could pass to heirs or other rights holders and generally last up to 70 years, subject to the bill’s renewal rules.
  • People whose likeness is used without authorization: You, or an eligible rights holder, could sue. A disclaimer saying a replica is unauthorized or AI-generated would not by itself be a defence.
  • Online services: Covered services would need a designated agent and a process for notices and counter-notices to qualify for the safe harbor. Some would also need to remove later-uploaded copies matching a digital fingerprint. The bill does not require services to monitor for replicas generally.
  • People posting or making replicas: The bill would not ban all AI-generated replicas. Authorization or a listed exception may avoid liability. But a person or business could face a lawsuit for making an unauthorized replica public, or for distributing a product or service that meets the bill’s tests for unauthorized replica production.
  • Libraries, schools, and other users: The bill includes specific exclusions for qualifying nonprofit libraries and archives, accredited nonprofit educational institutions acting without commercial advantage, and certain related employees and service providers.

Money#

No publicly available information gives an estimate of public costs or private compliance costs.

  • The Copyright Office would have to keep public online directories of designated agents and certain post-death rights. It may charge reasonable fees for these directories and some rights filings.
  • Covered services would need to handle notices and, where required, matching-copy removals. The bill gives no estimate of staffing or technology costs.
  • Lawsuits could lead to statutory damages or actual damages and attributable profits, plus possible injunctions and, in some cases, punitive damages. Statutory amounts vary by defendant and violation; for example, they can reach $750,000 per work or product for some online services that have not made a good-faith effort to meet the bill’s obligations.
  • Knowingly making material misrepresentations in a notice or counter-notice could lead to liability of at least $25,000 per notice or counter-notice, or higher amounts under the bill’s damages rules.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define key terms such as “highly realistic,” “readily identifiable,” or “materially altered.” Their interpretation could affect what counts as a replica.
  • It leaves important standards, including what counts as a “good faith” effort and a “limited commercially significant” purpose or use, open to interpretation.
  • The Copyright Office would set requirements for some filings and notices. Those rules, and the practical costs of running the systems, are not yet available.
  • The bill’s notice system includes a counter-notice signed before a notary, but it does not explain how difficult or costly that step might be for users.
  • The bill would preempt some state-law claims about replicas in expressive works, while preserving specified state-law claims. How that division would apply in particular cases is unclear.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to give people a way to control realistic replicas of their voices and likenesses, including after death.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that written licences with specific uses and time limits make permission clearer, especially for minors.
  • The notice process and safe harbor give online services a defined way to respond to complaints, while requiring more action for certain later-uploaded matching copies.
  • The listed exceptions preserve room for news, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, and some documentary or historical works.

Case against#

  • One concern is that undefined terms and fact-specific exceptions could make it difficult for creators, publishers, and services to know in advance what is allowed.
  • Removing material after a notice could restrict lawful speech if a complaint is mistaken. The counter-notice process may be burdensome, including its in-person notary requirement.
  • The bill creates significant potential damages and legal costs. Smaller services or creators may find it hard to assess the risk of a disputed replica.
  • It is unclear how the federal right and preemption rule would interact with the state-law claims the bill preserves.