Law / United States / 
Tennessee
Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq. (Pub. Ch. 588, 2024)
In force since .
An AI prohibited practices rule binding public and private bodies.
- Private right of action
- Yes
- Obligation class
- Prohibition
- Audit expectation
- none
- Setting the rule reaches
- General
What it requires
- Do not use, publish, perform, distribute, or transmit an individual's voice, photograph, or likeness, including an AI-simulated voice, without the individual's consent.
- Do not distribute, transmit, or otherwise make available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology whose primary purpose is producing a particular identifiable individual's unauthorized voice, photograph, or likeness replica.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
- NIST AI 600-1
- GAI-RISK-08Information Integrity
- GAI-RISK-11Obscene, Degrading, and/or Abusive Content
- MIT mitigations Draft
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
- ETSI EN 304 223
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Private plaintiffs: the individual whose name, photograph, voice or likeness is used without authorization may bring a civil action, and a person holding an exclusive personal-services contract as a recording artist or an exclusive license to distribute the individual's sound recordings may also bring an action to enforce the rights.
Settledness
- As of
- Open questions
- Does a general-purpose voice-cloning tool that can be pointed at any individual have "the primary purpose or function" that section 47-25-1105(a)(3) describes?
- Does "knowledge that distributing, transmitting, or otherwise making available the photograph, voice, or likeness was not authorized" in section 47-25-1105(a)(3) require the distributor to know that a particular user will produce an unauthorized replica, or only that the tool can?
What it makes you log
Logging duty
The Act creates a property right in an individual's name, photograph, voice and likeness and civil liability for unauthorized use, including for a tool built to produce an unauthorized replica. Read in full, it states no duty to create, keep, or produce a record of any kind.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Amends the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, renamed the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act, to add voice to the property right an individual holds in their name, photograph, and likeness, defining voice as a sound readily identifiable and attributable to a particular individual whether or not the sound is the person's actual voice or a simulation of it.
A person who publishes, performs, distributes, or transmits an individual's voice or likeness knowing it was not authorized is liable to a civil action, and the same liability reaches a person who distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device whose primary purpose or function is producing a particular identifiable individual's photograph, voice, or likeness, knowing that distributing it was not authorized.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates audio with AI, generates images with AI or generates video with AI.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .