HB8915, the “NO FAKES Act of 2026,” would create a new federal intellectual property-style right in an individual’s voice and visual likeness when used in a “digital replica.” The bill defines digital replicas as highly realistic computer-generated representations that imitate a person’s voice or appearance in sound recordings, images, audiovisual works, or transmissions, including altered performances where the original person did not actually perform or where the performance has been materially changed. It also sets out detailed rules for licensing, post-mortem transfer, renewal, registration, and duration of these rights, including special protections for minors and post-death rights that can last for decades.
The bill would make unauthorized public distribution, transmission, or display of digital replicas actionable in federal civil court, and it would also target products or services primarily designed to create unauthorized replicas. It establishes notice-and-takedown procedures for online services, designated-agent registration with the Copyright Office, counter-notice procedures, subpoena authority to identify alleged violators, and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages in some cases, and attorney’s fees. It also includes safe harbors and exclusions for libraries, educational institutions, certain online services, and uses in news, documentary, commentary, scholarship, satire, parody, or fleeting uses, while expressly excluding sexually explicit uses from those exceptions.
In terms of state law, the bill would broadly preempt state causes of action for protection of voice and visual likeness rights in connection with digital replicas in expressive works, while preserving certain existing state statutes and common-law claims in place as of January 2, 2025, plus state laws specifically addressing sexually explicit or election-related digital replicas and laws regulating products or services capable of producing replicas. It also states that the new federal right is an intellectual property law for purposes of Communications Act Section 230, and it applies only prospectively to conduct after enactment, though the right itself would extend to living and deceased individuals and could vest in heirs or other successors.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s sponsorship is protective and pro-creator: the measure is framed as safeguarding artists, performers, and individuals from unauthorized AI-generated impersonations and deepfakes. No committee transcript or vote data is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s structure, however, suggests an attempt to balance that protection with carveouts for journalism, education, libraries, and First Amendment-related uses.
Likely points of contention include the scope of federal preemption over state publicity and likeness laws, the length and post-mortem nature of the right, the compliance burden on online platforms and digital music services, and the bill’s treatment of AI-generated content versus legitimate remixing or transformative uses. Another likely area of dispute is the breadth of the notice-and-takedown regime and the statutory damages, especially for platforms and creators worried about over-removal, false notices, or chilling effects on parody, commentary, documentary work, and other expressive uses.
HB8915 would create a new federal cause of action and property-like right in voice and visual likeness for digital replicas, while displacing many state-law claims in that area for expressive works. It would require online services and certain other entities to implement notice, counter-notice, and designated-agent procedures, and it would expose violators to statutory damages, injunctions, and attorney’s fees. The bill would also preserve some existing state laws and carve out specific categories of state regulation, especially for sexually explicit and election-related deepfakes and preexisting state claims as of January 2, 2025.
The bill is presented in strongly protective terms, with sponsors framing it as a response to unauthorized AI impersonation and deepfake misuse of people’s voices and likenesses. Because no votes or committee transcript are available, there is no documented opposition or support in the provided record, but the text itself indicates an effort to balance enforcement with exceptions for news, commentary, scholarship, parody, libraries, and educational institutions.
The main points of contention are likely to be federal preemption of state publicity-right laws, the creation of a transferable post-mortem right, and the compliance obligations imposed on platforms and online services. Critics may also focus on the bill’s statutory damages, notice-and-takedown framework, and potential overbreadth in covering AI-generated replicas, while supporters are likely to emphasize protections against unauthorized deepfakes, fraud, and exploitation. The carveouts for journalism, satire, parody, and documentary uses suggest the bill anticipates First Amendment concerns, but those exceptions may still be disputed in practice.