The assumption that your face and voice are legally yours is, for most Americans, a comforting fiction. Current federal law offers no blanket protection against the creation of hyper-realistic AI-generated imposters—deepfakes that can make anyone say or do things they never did. The bipartisan NO FAKES Act, now before Congress, aims to close that gap.
Under the legislation, individuals would gain the right to authorize or prohibit the use of their visual likeness or voice in digital replicas that are "computer-generated and highly realistic." The bill carves out exemptions for news, commentary, satire, parody, biography, and documentary use, ensuring First Amendment protections remain intact. But commercial exploitation, fraud, or performance replacement without explicit written consent would be illegal.
“When images and voices are stolen, a person’s words are no longer their own, and a sacred trust between people is broken,” wrote Sean Astin and Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, president and national executive director of SAG-AFTRA, in a statement. The union, representing over 160,000 media professionals, has been at the forefront of shaping responsible AI policy.
The problem extends far beyond Hollywood. Schools have become hotspots for AI-fueled cyberbullying, with students creating and sharing fake audio or video of classmates. The deceptive nature of these replicas—fooling friends and family into believing they are authentic—amounts to a violation of free speech, the authors argue, because the public is lied to about the source of the speech.
The NO FAKES Act has drawn support from a broad coalition, including the AFL-CIO, Google/YouTube, IBM, the Motion Picture Association, OpenAI, and the Recording Industry Association of America. The bill requires written consent that includes a specific description of the intended use and a limited term, creating a predictable licensing framework for a marketplace that has existed for decades but now faces disruption from generative AI.
For social media platforms and content creators, the legislation establishes a practical takedown system that balances rapid removal of unauthorized replicas with freedom of expression. The goal, according to the bill’s backers, is to provide legal clarity that protects individuals while offering companies an easy compliance pathway.
The push comes amid broader debates over AI regulation and digital rights. As courts have eroded privacy protections in other areas, lawmakers are under pressure to act. The NO FAKES Act represents a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on technology policy, but its fate remains uncertain as Congress tackles other priorities.
“Responsible AI development requires legal clarity,” Astin and Crabtree-Ireland wrote. They urged citizens to call their representatives and demand passage. For now, the bill sits in committee, waiting for a floor vote that could reshape how Americans control their own digital identities.
