The NO FAKES Act is a proposed US federal law that would give every person a property right to control AI-generated replicas of their voice and visual likeness, enforced through lawsuits and a notice-and-takedown system for platforms. It is not law yet. When we checked in early October 2026, the 2026 version, S.4591, had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee and was waiting on the Senate calendar, and a 30 September attempt to pass it on the Senate floor had been blocked. Until Congress finishes the job, a creator's protection against an unauthorised replica comes from state laws such as Tennessee's ELVIS Act and, only where real footage was copied, from copyright.
This page is the legal map: the bill, the state statutes already working, and where copyright fits. If you want to license your own face or voice to an AI company, the contract side is covered in our digital twin licence checklist. Sexually explicit deepfakes sit under separate laws, explained in our guide to the Take It Down Act removal process.
Where the bill stands, step by step
Several versions exist, which is why search results contradict each other. The 2025 bills, S.1367 in the Senate and H.R.2794 in the House, were introduced on 9 April 2025 and never moved beyond referral to the Judiciary committees, according to the congress.gov records for S.1367 and H.R.2794. The sponsors then reintroduced the Senate bill as the NO FAKES Act of 2026, and the congress.gov history for S.4591 shows this sequence:
- 20 May 2026: introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
- 18 June 2026: the committee ordered it reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which means a rewritten text replaced the original.
- 24 June 2026: reported to the full Senate and placed on the legislative calendar under General Orders.
- 30 September 2026: an attempt to pass it on the Senate floor was blocked by an objecting senator, as Politico reported.
To become law it still needs a Senate vote, passage in the House and a presidential signature. Even then, the reported text on govinfo says the Act takes effect 180 days after enactment and that liability covers only conduct after enactment. Treat this section as dated: check the congress.gov page before relying on it, because it is the part of this guide most likely to go out of date.
What the reported text would give creators
The bill creates a right to authorise digital replicas of your voice or visual likeness. A digital replica is a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic representation that people would readily identify as you, either in a work you never performed in or in a real performance whose fundamental character has been materially altered. Authorised remixing, sampling and remastering of a recording is carved out. The provisions working creators should know, all from the S.4591 reported text:
- You keep it. The right is a property right that cannot be assigned while you are alive, including through bankruptcy or a court-ordered transfer, but it can be licensed.
- Licences are capped. A licence signed during your lifetime lasts no longer than 10 years, must be written and signed, and must describe the intended uses reasonably specifically. Licences for under-18s stop at five years or at 18 and need court approval. Union collective agreements that deal with replicas are exempt.
- It outlives you, for a while. Heirs hold the right for 10 years after death, renewable in five-year blocks while they keep using the likeness publicly, ending no later than 70 years after death.
- Who can be sued. Anyone who publishes or distributes a replica knowing it is unauthorised, and anyone offering a product or service primarily designed to replicate specifically identified people. Platforms become liable only after a valid notice or court order.
- Takedown and staydown. To keep their safe harbour, user-upload platforms must register a designated agent, remove notified material as soon as practical and also remove later uploads matching its digital fingerprint. The uploader can counter-notify, but the counter-notice needs a notarised physical signature.
- What stays lawful. News, documentaries and biographical works, commentary, criticism, satire, parody and fleeting uses are excluded, although none of these exclusions protects a replica depicting sexually explicit conduct.
- What a claim is worth. The greater of actual damages plus profits or a set amount: $5,000 per work against an individual, $25,000 per work against a company that is not a platform or a platform that tried in good faith to comply, and for a platform that made no good-faith effort, $5,000 per instance up to $750,000 per work. Injunctions, punitive damages for wilful conduct and lawyers' fees are available, and a knowingly false takedown notice can cost its sender $25,000 or more.
- Timing and labels. You have three years from discovering the violation to sue, and a disclaimer saying the content was unauthorised or AI-generated is not a defence.
Two details matter for smaller creators. The reported text excuses a purely coincidental resemblance where the real person has not achieved public recognition or their likeness has no commercial value, so a generated face that was never modelled on you may fall outside the right, while a deliberate copy of you stays inside it. The bill would also preempt state claims about digital replicas in expressive works, but it keeps state laws that existed on 2 January 2025 and state laws aimed at sexually explicit or election-related replicas. State laws passed after that date would not get the same protection where they cover replicas in expressive works.
State and federal likeness laws at a glance
Today the working protection is mostly state law, and it differs on who is covered, which uses count and what you can recover. These are the measures we read in their official text or official summaries. Your state may have others, and many states also recognise a common-law right of publicity.
| Law | What it protects | Status | Remedy |
|---|---|---|---|
| NO FAKES Act of 2026 (S.4591) | A federal property right over realistic digital replicas of anyone's voice or visual likeness, plus a platform takedown system | Pending on the Senate calendar; not law | Statutory or actual damages, injunctions and fees, if enacted |
| Tennessee ELVIS Act (Public Chapter 588) | Name, photograph, voice and likeness in any medium, with voice defined to include a simulation; covers knowingly publishing an unauthorised voice or likeness and distributing tools whose primary purpose is producing a particular person's likeness | In force since 1 July 2024 | Civil action; news, commentary, parody and fleeting uses count as fair use where the First Amendment protects them |
| California Civil Code section 3344 | Knowing use of a living person's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on products or in advertising without consent | In force | The greater of $750 or actual damages, plus attributable profits; punitive damages possible |
| California AB 1836 | Digital replicas of a deceased personality's voice or likeness in expressive audiovisual works and sound recordings | Enacted in 2024 | The greater of $10,000 or actual damages to the rights holder |
| California SB 1050 | Explicit disclosure on video and audio ads that use AI-generated performers to sell something | Signed 16 September 2026 | Continued use of an advertisement found in violation is prohibited, per the Governor's office |
| New York S.8420-A and S.8391 | Conspicuous disclosure when an ad features a synthetic performer, meaning an AI-made human figure who is not any identifiable real person; and heirs' consent for commercial use of a deceased person's name, image or likeness | Both signed in December 2025; the ad rule took effect in June 2026 | A civil penalty of $1,000 for a first synthetic-performer violation and $5,000 for later ones |
| Illinois Public Act 103-0836 | Adds digital replicas to the Right of Publicity Act: no knowingly distributing a recording or audiovisual work known to contain an unauthorised replica, and hosts are liable after actual knowledge unless they act quickly to remove it | Became a Public Act in August 2024 | The greater of actual damages and profits or $1,000, with punitive damages for wilful violations under section 40 |
| Washington SB 5886 | A forged digital likeness, meaning a realistic fake that misrepresents your appearance, speech or conduct and is likely to deceive, used on goods or for advertising or fundraising without consent | Effective 11 June 2026 | Damages and profits, noneconomic damages for forged likenesses, and lawyers' fees for the winning side |
Notice the split. Tennessee and Illinois reach unauthorised replicas generally, while California's section 3344 and Washington's new provision are tied to products, advertising or fundraising. New York's ad rule protects consumers rather than you: it targets invented performers, which matters if you run or brief a virtual persona, and our guide to AI influencer sponsorship disclosure covers that side.
Why copyright does not cover your face or voice
Creators often reach for copyright first because platforms make it easy. The US Copyright Office's report on digital replicas explains the limit. Copyright protects the photographs and recordings a replica might be built from, so altering your actual video can infringe the copyright in that video if you own it. Copyright does not protect your identity itself, and the report says a replica of a person's image or voice alone is not copyright infringement. The same report notes that a fake endorsement can sometimes be challenged as false endorsement under the federal Lanham Act, and it concluded that a new federal right was urgently needed.
In practice: if someone re-uploads or edits your real footage, a copyright request may work. If someone generates a new clip of you from scratch, copyright usually will not, and you need publicity law, a platform's privacy or impersonation process, or a tool built for likeness such as YouTube's likeness detection. Who owns AI-assisted work you make yourself is a separate question, answered in our guide to copyright in AI-generated content.
Is this covered? A scenario checklist
Work through the scenario closest to yours. Each answer is the likely starting point, not a conclusion about your case.
- A brand runs an ad using an AI copy of your voice. Commercial use without consent is the core of Tennessee's law, California section 3344, Illinois and Washington's forged-likeness rule, and possibly a Lanham Act false endorsement claim. NO FAKES would add a federal claim if enacted.
- A stranger posts a realistic video of you saying things you never said, with nothing for sale. Tennessee and Illinois reach distribution outside advertising; Washington's provision probably does not, because it is tied to goods, ads and fundraising. NO FAKES would apply unless an exclusion such as parody fits.
- An obvious parody or commentary video uses your likeness. Both the ELVIS Act and the NO FAKES text protect commentary, satire and parody, so expect this to be hard to remove through the courts, though platform policies may still apply.
- An app sells “make a video of” you. Tennessee covers tools whose primary purpose is producing a particular person's likeness, and NO FAKES would cover products primarily designed to replicate specific people.
- Your real clips are reposted or lightly edited. This is a copyright problem first, not a replica problem.
- The fake is sexually explicit. Use the separate intimate-image laws and removal routes; under NO FAKES the usual free-speech exclusions would not apply to that content.
- A generated face just happens to resemble you. Under the NO FAKES text, a purely coincidental likeness of someone without public recognition or commercial value is not actionable.
- You signed an AI likeness licence before any of this. Your contract governs. NO FAKES would not reach back to existing licences, which is why the licence terms deserve care now.
What to do now if you find a replica
- Capture the evidence before reporting: the URL, the account name, the upload date, screenshots and a screen recording, and any sale or ad context.
- Write down, while it is fresh, that you never consented and never licensed the use, and gather any licence that does exist.
- Use the platform's likeness, privacy or impersonation route first; it is faster than a lawsuit. Provenance data can help show which version is genuine, as our guide to Content Credentials for creators explains.
- If the fake sells something, contact the advertiser and the platform's ad review team as well as the host of the post.
- Speak to a lawyer licensed in the state that fits, meaning where you live or where the use was aimed, before sending legal demands, because the right statute and its deadline depend on that choice.
Outside the US the picture is different. EU labelling duties for deepfakes are covered in our guide to the EU AI Act for creators, and the wider compliance picture for AI personas is in the AI creator compliance checklist.
Limitations of this guide
This is general information about US law, not legal advice. Bill text and status change: the NO FAKES summary reflects the substitute text reported in June 2026, and a floor amendment or House version could look different. The state entries condense long statutes and leave out exceptions, defences and deadlines, and some of these laws are likely to face First Amendment challenges that could narrow them. We did not review every state, common-law publicity rights or criminal deepfake statutes. Before you act on a specific replica, get advice from a lawyer licensed in the relevant state.