Senate Committee Advances Bill to Protect Name, Image, Likeness and Voice Against Unauthorized AI Use

The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary unanimously advanced by voice vote S. 4591, formally titled the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026 (NO FAKES Act), on June 18, 2026. The bipartisan bill now moves to the full Senate for approval.

If passed into law, the NO FAKES Act would combat the ability for generative artificial intelligence (AI) to create digital replicas of a person's voice or visual likeness without that person's consent. Such AI-generated "deepfakes" have already been used to produce songs mimicking real artists without the artist's consent, create fraudulent advertisements and recordings of public figures and exploit ordinary individuals – including minors – for harmful purposes. No uniform federal framework currently exists to address this problem, leaving individuals to rely on a patchwork of state right-of-publicity and privacy laws.

At its core, the NO FAKES Act would create a new federal intellectual property right giving every individual – whether a celebrity or a private citizen – the right to control how their voice and visual likeness are used in digital replicas.

Key Provisions

• Individual Rights Over Digital Replicas: The bill grants every person (famous or not) a licensable property right in their own voice and visual likeness, creating individual ownership over how AI-generated versions of their voice or image can be created or distributed.
• Liability for Unauthorized Use: Individuals and companies can be held liable if they produce or distribute an unauthorized digital replica of someone's voice or visual likeness. Online platforms can also be held liable if they host unauthorized digital replicas and have knowledge that the replica was not authorized by the person depicted.
• Notice-and-Takedown Process: Borrowing from the framework established by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the bill creates a streamlined notice-and-takedown process such that if a person finds that their voice or likeness has been used without permission, they can demand that the content be promptly removed from online platforms rather than being forced to immediately pursue costly litigation. As is the case under the DMCA, if someone's content is taken down via the notice-and-takedown procedure, the person who posted it can file a counter-notice asserting that the material was removed by mistake, the replica was authorized or it falls within one of the bill's exclusions. The platform must then send the original complainant a copy of the counter-notice, and if no lawsuit is filed within 14 days, the content is restored. Importantly, anyone who knowingly files a false counter-notification faces penalties of $25,000 per counter-notification or actual damages plus fees, whichever is greater.
• First Amendment Protections and Exclusions: The NO FAKES Act excludes certain uses of digital replicas that are protected by the First Amendment such as news reporting, parody, criticism and similar forms of speech. It also creates exemptions for nonprofit libraries, archives and accredited nonprofit educational institutions engaged in non-commercial research activities.
• Subpoena Powers: The bill includes provisions that facilitate the issuance of subpoenas to gather evidence in cases involving unauthorized use of someone's voice or likeness.
• Federal Preemption: Though the bill would preempt future state laws regulating digital replicas, it would not preempt causes of action under state statutes or common law in existence as of January 2, 2025, regarding digital replicas. For example, the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act – the Tennessee law creating state name, image, likeness and voice rights – would not be preempted by the NO FAKES Act.

Although the legislation passed unanimously out of committee, some senators articulated concern with whether the bill protects "legitimate first amendment speech" and agreed to work with the bill sponsors as the legislation moves to the Senate floor. A companion bill has also been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, although the House Committee on the Judiciary has yet to take up the measure.

Holland & Knight Can Help

Holland & Knight brings a forward-looking perspective shaped by our work across AI governance, data strategy, intellectual property and emerging technology regulation.

If you have any questions about how this legislation may impact your company – from protecting AI-generated assets to building compliant and adaptable AI governance programs – please contact the author or another member of Holland & Knight's Intellectual Property Group or Artificial Intelligence Policy & Regulation Team.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.