An Act to amend and reenact § 8.01-40 of the Code of Virginia, relating to unauthorized use of voice or likeness; punitive damages; statute of limitations.
HB581 amends Virginia’s existing right-of-publicity statute, § 8.01-40, to expressly include a person’s “voice” and “likeness” alongside name, portrait, and picture. Under the bill, a person whose voice or likeness is used without written consent for advertising or trade purposes may seek an injunction to stop the use and may recover damages for injuries caused by the unauthorized use. The bill also preserves the ability of a jury to award punitive damages when the defendant knowingly used the protected identity elements in an unlawful manner.
The measure further adds a clear limitations rule: no action may be brought under this section more than 20 years after the death of the person whose identity was used. In practical terms, the bill expands the scope of protected personal identity rights in Virginia and clarifies how long posthumous claims may be filed, affecting advertisers, publishers, media companies, and others who use a person’s identity in commercial contexts.
HB581 updates Virginia law governing unauthorized commercial use of a person’s identity by extending statutory protection to voice and likeness, not just name, portrait, or picture. It also codifies a 20-year post-death statute of limitations for claims under § 8.01-40. The bill primarily affects individuals whose identities are used commercially, as well as businesses, advertisers, and content creators that rely on likeness-based or voice-based depictions in marketing or trade.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or opposition in the provided materials. The bill was enacted as Chapter 629, which indicates it ultimately received sufficient legislative support to become law. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to have been a targeted, technical expansion of existing privacy/publicity protections rather than a broadly controversial policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee or vote history. Potential areas of concern inherent in the bill’s subject matter would include the breadth of the new “voice” and “likeness” protections, the effect on First Amendment or media uses, and the practical implications of a 20-year posthumous filing window. However, the supplied materials do not show any recorded dispute over those issues.