The bipartisan “No Fakes Act” of 2023 seeks to standardize rules around the use of digital replicas of faces, names, and voices.
The bill – sponsored by Sens. Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, Amy Klobuchar, and Thom Tillis – aims to prevent the unauthorized production of such replicas, with exceptions for news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries, biographical works, parodies, satire, and criticism. These rights persist throughout an individual’s lifetime and extend 70 years posthumously for their estate.
Some states (like New York) have specific regulations concerning digital replicas. California has a bill pending, but the “No Fakes Act” proposes a federal approach.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) supports the bill, emphasizing the distinction between AI as a creative tool and potential infringement. The Human Artistry Campaign echoes this sentiment, pointing out the risks of AI misappropriating copyrighted material and artist likenesses.
If there is one bit of IP or AI regulation that I think everyone can agree upon, it is protection against the use of a person’s name, image, video, or voice without their consent (and compensation, where appropriate). Perhaps one day we’ll add “AI essence” to this list.
It’s science fiction for now, but my kids already asked me if I’m building an AI chat version of myself that can speak to future generations. Would an AI model of me be eligible for IP protection?
Author’s note: This is not a sponsored post. I am the author of this article and it expresses my own opinions. I am not, nor is my company, receiving compensation for it. This work was created with the assistance of various AI models, including but not limited to: GPT-4, Bard, Claude, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and others.