HB 566 creates Georgia’s “NO FAKES Act of 2026,” a new state-law framework giving individuals a property right in their voice and visual likeness for use in highly realistic digital replicas. The bill defines “digital replica” broadly to cover computer-generated, highly realistic depictions in sound recordings, images, audiovisual works, and transmissions, while excluding ordinary authorized editing, remixing, mastering, and remastering. It allows the individual, or a right holder who acquires the right by license, inheritance, or other transfer after death, to authorize use of that likeness and to license the right under specified conditions.
The bill also sets detailed rules for licensing, especially for minors, and extends post-mortem protection for up to 70 years after death, with an initial 10-year term and possible five-year renewals if there is continued authorized public use. It requires written agreements for licenses and transfers, creates registration and directory duties for the Secretary of State, and authorizes the Secretary of State to maintain public directories of post-mortem rights and designated agents for online services. The bill establishes civil liability for unauthorized use of digital replicas and for certain products or services designed to create unauthorized replicas, along with subpoena procedures to identify alleged violators.
HB 566 would significantly affect Georgia’s trade practices law by adding a new article to Title 10 governing digital likeness rights, online service obligations, notice-and-takedown procedures, and remedies. It imposes damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages in willful cases, attorney’s fees, and penalties for false notices, while also setting a three-year statute of limitations and clarifying that the law does not displace federal causes of action. The bill also includes safe-harbor style provisions for online services that adopt repeat-infringer policies and respond to valid notices, and it limits any duty to monitor for infringing material.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of performers, creators, and estates, with a strong emphasis on preventing unauthorized AI-generated impersonations and commercial exploitation of identity. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from debate or roll call history. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance rights-holder protections with exceptions for news, commentary, parody, documentary, and other First Amendment-related uses, as well as operational protections for online platforms.
Likely points of contention include the breadth of the definition of digital replica, the length and transferability of post-mortem rights, the compliance burden on online services, and the potential chilling effect on satire, journalism, and creative works. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of AI-generated content and platform liability, especially the notice-and-takedown system, fingerprint-based matching requirements, and substantial statutory damages for noncompliance. The bill also raises questions about how minors’ likeness rights are licensed and how the Secretary of State would administer and interpret the new regime.
HB 566 would amend Georgia’s trade-practices code by adding a new article that creates a state-law property right in a person’s voice and visual likeness for use in digital replicas. It would regulate licensing, post-mortem transfer, online-service notice procedures, civil remedies, and Secretary of State registration and directory functions, while also imposing liability on unauthorized users and certain services that facilitate unauthorized digital replicas. The bill would affect individuals, estates, performers, online platforms, and businesses that create, distribute, or host AI-generated likeness content.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly protective of artists, performers, and estates, while also attempting to preserve exceptions for news, commentary, parody, and other constitutionally protected uses. The overall framing suggests a pro-rights-holder, anti-deepfake policy approach with some accommodation for online platforms.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the new likeness right, the long post-mortem protection period, and the compliance obligations placed on online services, including designated-agent registration, notice response, and fingerprint-based removal of matching content. Critics may also object to the bill’s broad liability provisions and statutory damages, while supporters are likely to emphasize protection against AI impersonation, unauthorized commercial exploitation, and deceptive digital replicas. Additional tension may arise over exceptions for satire, journalism, documentary uses, and First Amendment-protected expression.