Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act; enact.
SB 2796 would create Mississippi’s “Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security Act of 2025,” establishing a statutory property right in an individual’s name, photograph, voice, and likeness. The bill applies to living and deceased individuals, makes those rights freely assignable and licensable, and extends posthumous protection for 10 years after death, with a possible continuation if the right is commercially used and not left unused for a specified period. It also defines key terms such as “voice,” “photograph,” “likeness,” and “definable group,” and sets out when a use is considered commercial exploitation.
The bill would add a new Mississippi legal framework for publicity rights and unauthorized commercial use of identity, creating both civil liability and criminal penalties. It authorizes lawsuits for unauthorized advertising, fundraising, or public dissemination of a person’s voice or likeness, including use of technology, software, or tools that produce an identifiable person’s image or voice without consent. Remedies include injunctions, seizure and forfeiture of contraband items and instrumentalities, impoundment and destruction of infringing materials, actual damages, profits, attorney fees in some cases, and treble damages for violations involving members of the armed forces. It also creates a Class A misdemeanor for unauthorized use and includes fair-use exceptions for news, public affairs, sports, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, fleeting/incidental use, and certain audiovisual works.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to protect individuals and their families from unauthorized commercial exploitation of identity, while also preserving First Amendment-related exceptions. The overall framing is protective and enforcement-oriented rather than controversial on its face, but the lack of recorded discussion makes the actual legislative sentiment unclear.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the property right, the inclusion of deceased individuals, and the bill’s reach into modern technologies such as algorithms, software, and voice or likeness simulation. Media, advertising, and digital platform interests could object to the scope of liability, the seizure/forfeiture provisions, and the criminal misdemeanor penalty, while artists, athletes, and estates may support stronger control over commercial use of identity. Another likely issue is the balance between publicity rights and free speech, which the bill addresses through explicit fair-use and First Amendment carveouts. The bill text also contains an internal date inconsistency in the effective/repeal clause, which could raise drafting concerns.