United StatesNO FAKES Act of 2025 (S. 1367, with House companion H.R. 2794), Voice and Visual Likeness Rights in Digital Replicas
Introduced in the first chamber, dated , as of .
An AI prohibited practices rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Prohibition, Consent, Licensing
- Audit expectation
- none
- Setting the rule reaches
- General
As of .
Where it has got to
The text described here is S. 1367, 119th Congress, as introduced in the Senate (IS). That print is BILLS-119s1367is, published .
Locally, this stage is Introduced in the Senate; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The stage above is recorded at www.congress.gov.
The House companion, H.R. 2794, was introduced on and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary; its congress.gov page shows no later action.
What it requires
- This is a bill, not law: S. 1367 was introduced in the Senate on and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and its House companion, H.R. 2794, was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Read the lines below as what would apply if it is enacted as introduced.
- Do not publicly display, distribute, transmit or otherwise make available to the public a digital replica, a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation readily identifiable as an individual's voice or visual likeness, without authorization by the applicable right holder (Section 2(c)(2)(A)).
- Do not distribute, import, transmit or otherwise make available to the public a product or service that is primarily designed to produce digital replicas of a specifically identified individual without the authorization of that individual, the right holder or the law (Section 2(c)(2)(B)).
- If you provide an online service that gives public access to user uploaded material, adopt and reasonably implement a policy that terminates repeat violators in appropriate circumstances, and inform your users of it, to keep the safe harbor (Section 2(d)(1)(B)(i)).
- If you provide such an online service, remove or disable access to the identified material as soon as is technically and practically feasible upon a compliant notification, and promptly notify the right holder and the end user who uploaded it (Section 2(d)(1)(B)(ii)).
- If you provide such an online service of the main categories, also remove or disable access to other publicly available instances that match the digital fingerprint of the notified replica and are uploaded after valid notice was processed (Section 2(d)(1)(B)(ii)(II)).
- Register a designated agent with the Copyright Office and make the agent's name, address, telephone number and email address available through the online service, including on its website (Section 2(d)(2)).
- Do not send a notification that knowingly and materially misrepresents that material is an unauthorized digital replica, and undertake a good faith review of whether the material qualifies as a digital replica before sending one (Section 2(d)(4)).
- Do not rely on a disclaimer that a digital replica is unauthorized or was generated through the use of artificial intelligence as a defense to a civil action (Section 2(e)(3)).
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of .
If you get it wrong
Private right of actionYes
Penalty structure
Section 2(e)(4)(A)(i): an individual is liable for the greater of $5,000 per work embodying the unauthorized digital replica or the injured party's actual damages plus attributable profits.
- Rule
- Per violation only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Per violation unit
- Violation
- Per violation amount
- 5,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
No agency; the right holder, a parent or guardian of a minor right holder, or an exclusive licensee of a sound recording artist enforces through a civil action in court (Section 2(e)(1)).
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Section 2 creates a liability for unauthorized digital replicas and conditions for a safe harbor, including a designated agent registered with the Copyright Office and notice and removal. It requires no log or record from a provider, and section 2(h)(2) says nothing in the section requires a provider to monitor the service.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Senate Bill 1367, the NO FAKES Act of 2025, was introduced in the Senate on by Senator Coons with Senators Blackburn, Klobuchar and Tillis, and was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate record shows no later action. The House companion bill, number 2794 in the House of Representatives, was introduced the same day by Representative Salazar and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Section 2(b) would give each individual or right holder the right to authorize the use of the individual's voice or visual likeness in a digital replica. The right is a property right that is not assignable during the life of the individual and is licensable, in whole or in part, exclusively or non-exclusively, by the right holder. A license of the right while the individual is living is valid only to the extent that its duration does not exceed 10 years.
A digital replica is a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual. Section 2(c) would make liable in a civil action any individual or entity that publicly displays, distributes, transmits or otherwise makes available to the public a digital replica without authorization by the applicable right holder.
Liability would also reach distributing, importing, transmitting or otherwise making available to the public a product or service that is primarily designed to produce digital replicas of a specifically identified individual without authorization. A provider of an online service would incur liability only if it received a compliant notification or a court order, or willfully avoided receiving one.
A provider of an online service would not be liable for user uploaded material if it has adopted and reasonably implemented a policy for terminating repeat violators and informed its users of it. The provider must also, upon a compliant notification, remove or disable access to the identified work as soon as is technically and practically feasible.
A provider of an online service that predominantly provides public access to user uploaded material must also remove other publicly available instances that match the digital fingerprint of the notified replica and are uploaded after valid notice was processed. A provider of an online service that predominantly provides public access to user uploaded material must register a designated agent with the Copyright Office.
Nothing in the section would require a provider of an online service to monitor the service for, or affirmatively seek facts about, any digital replica. The bill would exclude a digital replica produced or used consistent with the public interest in bona fide commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody. The additional exclusions in section 2(c)(5)(A) would not apply where the applicable digital replica is used to depict sexually explicit conduct.
Knowingly and materially misrepresenting in a notification that material is an unauthorized digital replica would be unlawful. A false notification would carry liability for the greater of $25,000 per notification or actual damages. The right holder, a parent or guardian of a minor right holder, or in certain cases an exclusive licensee of a sound recording artist could bring the civil action.
The action must be commenced within 3 years after the party discovered, or with due diligence should have discovered, the violation. An individual who engages in the unauthorized public display or distribution of a digital replica would be liable to the injured party for the greater of $5,000 per work embodying the replica or the injured party's actual damages plus attributable profits.
An entity that is not a provider of an online service and engages in that activity would be liable for the greater of $25,000 per work embodying the unauthorized digital replica or the injured party's actual damages plus attributable profits. In the case of willful activity in which the injured party has proven that the defendant acted with malice, fraud, knowledge, or willful avoidance of knowledge that the conduct violated the law, a court may award punitive damages.
It would not be a defense that the defendant displayed a disclaimer that the replica was unauthorized or was generated through the use of artificial intelligence. The rights established would preempt State law causes of action for the protection of voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica in an expressive work, subject to listed exceptions. Liability would apply only to conduct occurring after the date of enactment. The Act would take effect 180 days after the date of enactment.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates audio with AI, generates images with AI, generates video with AI or operates a social platform.