Control Rights for Digital Replicas

Full Title:
NO FAKES Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill creates a new federal right for people to control and license the use of their voice and visual likeness when a computer-generated or heavily altered “digital replica” is made. It lets living people and their heirs stop or be paid for unauthorized digital replicas and it gives courts a civil remedy for violations. The bill also sets a notice-and-takedown process for online services, penalties for false claims, and rules for post‑mortem (after death) control.

Key changes:

  • New right: Individuals (and their right holders after death) gain a property-style right to authorize or forbid digital replicas of their voice or likeness.
  • Post‑mortem rules: Right continues after death for at least 10 years and can extend in 5‑year renewals, up to 70 years after death under certain conditions.
  • Civil liability: Anyone who publicly distributes unauthorized digital replicas, or sells tools mainly designed to make them, can be sued in federal court.
  • Platform rules: Online services get a specialized safe harbor if they register a designated agent, follow notice-and-takedown steps, and adopt a repeat‑infringer policy.
  • Penalties: The bill sets statutory damages ranges, allows actual damages and profits, and imposes fines for knowingly false or deceptive takedown notices or counter‑notices.
  • Preemption: The federal right largely replaces state law claims about digital replicas in expressive works, with some carved‑out state exceptions.

What it means for you#

  • Individuals (living persons):

    • You can refuse or license the creation and public use of a highly realistic digital replica of your voice or face.
    • Licenses you give while alive generally cannot exceed 10 years. Licenses for minors are limited to 5 years and must be court‑approved.
    • You (or your authorized agent) can sue in federal court if someone publicly posts or sells an unauthorized digital replica of you.

  • Heirs and estates (after death):

    • The right survives death. A right holder (heirs, executors, assignees) controls the right for at least 10 years after death, with possible 5‑year renewals if the right holder shows active authorized commercial use, up to a 70‑year limit.
    • Right holders may register notice with the Copyright Office to renew post‑mortem control; the office will keep a public directory.

  • Sound recording artists and record companies:

    • The bill specifically covers digital replicas in sound recordings and creates rules for who may sue (including certain exclusive-contract holders).

  • Online services and platforms (websites, apps, music services, search engines, app stores, etc.):

    • Must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office to receive takedown notices.
    • To keep a safe harbor from liability, platforms must adopt a repeat‑infringer termination policy, remove or disable access to identified unauthorized replicas (including matching digital fingerprints) when valid notice is received, notify right holders and uploaders, and follow the bill’s counter‑notice process.
    • Platforms that fail to make a “good faith” effort to follow the rules face higher statutory damages if sued.

  • Creators, journalists, educators, libraries, and archives:

    • The bill lists exclusions for bona fide news, documentary, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, fleeting/ negligible uses, and some educational or non‑profit uses — but these exclusions do not apply to digital replicas depicting sexually explicit conduct.
    • Nonprofit libraries and accredited nonprofit educational institutions get specific protections for noncommercial uses.

  • People who make or sell AI tools or products that can make replicas:

    • Selling, importing, or marketing a product or service primarily designed to create unauthorized digital replicas can create liability. Tools that have significant lawful uses are treated differently.

  • Users (people who upload content):

    • If your upload is removed after a notice, you can file a counter‑notice. That counter‑notice must include a notarized signature and statements under penalty of perjury explaining why the content was authorized or lawful.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible costs implied by the bill:

  • The Copyright Office may incur costs to maintain a public directory of post‑mortem rights and a directory of designated agents; the bill allows the office to charge filing fees to cover those costs.
  • Online services may need to invest in technology to match “digital fingerprints,” process notices and counter‑notices, and maintain compliance policies. Smaller services that choose not to register a designated agent may face higher liability risk.
  • Courts and litigants may see new litigation and related judicial costs from civil claims and subpoenas to identify alleged violators.
  • Providers and alleged violators could face statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney fees if found liable.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to address harms from highly realistic synthetic media. Possible arguments in favor, based on the bill text:

  • It creates a clear property right so people can control commercial uses of a realistic digital likeness of themselves.
  • It provides a federal, uniform remedy and process to remove unauthorized replicas and pursue damages, rather than a patchwork of state laws.
  • It builds a notice‑and‑takedown system modeled on existing copyright procedures, with safeguards (counter‑notices) and protections for news, documentary, and other public‑interest uses.
  • It recognizes heirs’ interests and allows post‑mortem management of likeness rights, including public registries to clarify ownership.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s design raises several implementation and trade‑off questions that could be seen as concerns:

  • One concern is that the new federal right preempts many state law claims, which could limit remedies or change longstanding state protections in ways not fully described.
  • The bill requires notarized, in‑person attested signatures on counter‑notices. This may make it harder for ordinary uploaders to challenge takedowns, potentially delaying restoration of lawful content.
  • The notice-and-takedown process and digital‑fingerprint matching may impose compliance and technology costs on platforms, especially small ones. It is unclear how feasible matching will be for all kinds of media.
  • The damages structure is complex and varies by actor and compliance; this could produce uncertainty and encourage litigation. The statutory damages amounts and the high caps for some failures to comply could be burdensome.
  • Although the bill lists exclusions for news, parody, scholarship, and other public‑interest uses, it may be unclear how those exceptions apply in borderline cases; this could chill some creative or journalistic uses.
  • The bill treats the right as an intellectual property matter for purposes of Section 230; that raises questions about how platforms’ other legal protections interact with this law.

What is unclear:

  • The bill does not provide a fiscal estimate in the text. It does not detail how digital fingerprints must be created or standardized, or how courts should resolve close questions about what counts as a “material alteration” or “highly realistic” replica in many contexts.