Digital Replication Right

Summary#

This bill creates a new federal right that lets people and their heirs control and license the use of a person’s voice or visual likeness when those are used in highly realistic computer-generated “digital replicas” (for example, deepfakes). It requires online services to take down unauthorized digital replicas after a specified notice, sets who can sue, and sets damages and other remedies. The law starts 180 days after it is enacted.

• Creates a “digital replication right”: a property-like right in an individual’s voice and visual likeness that survives death and can be transferred or licensed by heirs for specific time periods.
• Defines “digital replica” as a newly created, highly realistic computer-generated voice or image that either depicts someone who did not actually perform or materially alters a real performance.
• Requires online services to remove unauthorized digital replicas after receiving a formal notice and to register a designated agent with the Copyright Office.
• Allows civil lawsuits by right holders (or parents for minors, and certain music-contract holders), with statutory damages, actual damages, injunctions, and attorney’s fees.
• Contains exceptions for bona fide news, documentary, commentary, parody, and similar uses, but not for sexually explicit depictions and with special treatment for some other cases.
• Treats this law as an intellectual property law for purposes of certain platform-immunity rules.

What it means for you#

• Individuals (everyone): You would have a federal right to authorize or forbid highly realistic AI-created uses of your voice or visual likeness (a “digital replica”). That right can be licensed while you live and can be transferred after death.
• Public figures and private individuals: Both are covered. The bill does not limit the right to celebrities.
• Heirs and estates: After a person dies, heirs or whoever inherits the right can control and license the digital replication right for at least 10 years and possibly longer if they show continuing authorized public use. The right can last up to 70 years after death.
• Minors: Licenses signed while a person is under 18 are limited to 5 years and must terminate when the person turns 18. Such licenses generally must be court-approved under applicable state law.
• Sound recording artists and music industry: The bill also covers digital replicas embodied in sound recordings. Certain contract holders (for example, holders of exclusive personal-service contracts) can sue on behalf of a sound recording artist.
• Online services and platforms: If you run a website, app, streaming site, or similar service that allows user-uploaded material, you must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office, adopt and notify users of a repeat-infringer termination policy, and remove or disable access to material identified in a valid notice as soon as technically feasible. Failure to follow these steps can increase liability.
• Content creators (news, documentaries, critics, satirists): The bill exempts bona fide news, public affairs, sports accounts, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody in many cases. But the exemption does not apply if the replica falsely presents itself as authentic participation by the individual, or if it is sexually explicit.
• Users who upload content: People who upload material can be removed from platforms and could face civil lawsuits if they post unauthorized digital replicas. There is also a penalty for people who knowingly send false takedown notices.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill allows the Register of Copyrights to charge reasonable fees for maintaining directories and for registering designated agents or post-mortem renewals.
• Online services will likely face compliance costs to register agents, implement notice-and-takedown procedures, adopt repeat-infringer policies, and (if they choose) use digital-fingerprint matching tools to detect replicas.
• The bill sets statutory damage amounts for unlawful uses (examples in the text):
  • Typical statutory damages per work or product range from $5,000 (for many individuals) to $25,000 (for some online-service cases that reasonably tried to comply) up to $750,000 (for online services found not to have made a good-faith effort).
• Other costs could include legal defense, litigation fees, and the administrative burden of responding to subpoenas to identify alleged violators (the bill creates a process for courts to order platforms to disclose identities).

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to give people stronger control over realistic AI-created uses of their voice and image that impersonate them.
• It could be seen as protecting artists, celebrities, and ordinary people from misleading or harmful deepfakes by providing clear rights and remedies.
• The rules for post-mortem rights let families or estates manage a deceased person’s likeness commercially for a defined period.
• The notice-and-takedown rules aim to make online services act quickly to remove unauthorized replicas while giving providers a safe harbor if they follow required procedures.
• The bill includes special protections for minors and requires written, time-limited licenses for living people.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill may impose heavy compliance burdens on online platforms and smaller services, including costs to register agents, process notices, and implement fingerprinting systems.
• The statutory damages levels in the bill could lead to large financial exposure for platforms or individuals and increase litigation risk.
• It is unclear how some exceptions will work in practice—especially the line between protected expressive uses (news, parody, commentary) and prohibited uses that create a false impression of authenticity.
• The bill says it is an intellectual property law for platform-immunity rules; how courts will apply that to existing platform liability protections is not fully explained in the text.
• The definition of “digital replica” and how to prove whether a piece of material is an unauthorized replica may raise evidentiary and technical questions that the bill does not fully resolve.