Artificial intelligence has made it easier than ever to create a convincing imitation of a performer’s voice, face, style, or screen presence. For the entertainment industry, that technology is both commercially powerful and legally destabilizing. A singer’s voice can be cloned for a synthetic track. An actor’s likeness can be placed into a video they never appeared in. A deceased performer can be digitally revived. A celebrity can be made to endorse a product without ever stepping into a studio.
Congress is now moving closer to a federal response. On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026, better known as the NO FAKES Act, sending the bill toward consideration by the full Senate. The bill has not yet become law, but its movement is significant: it reflects growing bipartisan interest in creating a national framework for unauthorized AI-generated replicas of a person’s voice or visual likeness.
For artists, producers, studios, labels, platforms, talent representatives, and entertainment lawyers, the message is clear: AI replica rights are quickly becoming a core deal point.
What the NO FAKES Act Would Do
At a high level, the NO FAKES Act would create a federal intellectual property-style right in a person’s voice and visual likeness when used in a digital replica. In practical terms, the bill is aimed at situations where AI or similar technology is used to generate a realistic version of a real person’s voice or appearance without authorization.
The bill would potentially impose civil liability on individuals or companies that produce or distribute unauthorized digital replicas. It also contemplates liability for certain platforms that host unauthorized replicas with knowledge that the depicted person did not consent, while including mechanisms designed to address takedown procedures and speech-related concerns.
Importantly, the proposed right would not be limited to celebrities. Commentary on the bill describes it as applying to every individual, whether famous or not, giving people control over AI-generated uses of their voice and visual likeness.
That said, the bill remains pending. As of now, it has advanced out of committee but has not passed the full Senate, the House, or been signed into law.
Why This Matters for Entertainment Deals
Entertainment contracts have always dealt with name, image, likeness, publicity, endorsement, merchandising, and reuse rights. But AI replicas raise a different set of questions.
Traditional publicity clauses often authorize use of a performer’s name, photograph, biography, approved likeness, or recorded performance for promotion, distribution, or exploitation of a project. AI replica rights go further. They may involve creating new performances, new dialogue, new songs, new visual appearances, or new endorsements that the individual never actually performed.
That distinction matters. A contract that permits use of an actor’s likeness to promote a film may not clearly permit the studio to create an AI-generated version of that actor in a sequel, advertisement, video game, or social-media campaign. A recording agreement that allows exploitation of master recordings may not clearly authorize the creation of new AI-generated vocals trained on or imitating the artist’s voice.
Copyright Is Not Enough
One reason the NO FAKES Act matters is that copyright law does not fully solve the AI likeness problem.
Copyright protects original works of authorship, such as sound recordings, musical compositions, films, photographs, scripts, and audiovisual works. But a person’s voice or likeness, standing alone, is not the same thing as a copyrighted work. If an AI-generated track imitates a singer’s voice without copying a specific sound recording or musical composition, traditional copyright claims may be difficult or incomplete. Similarly, if a synthetic video depicts an actor in a new scene they never filmed, the issue may center less on copying a work and more on unauthorized use of identity.
That gap is why right-of-publicity law has become so important. But state publicity laws vary widely. Some states recognize robust postmortem rights; others offer narrower protection. Some are more developed around commercial advertising; others may be harder to apply to expressive works. The NO FAKES Act is designed to create a more uniform federal framework for AI-generated digital replicas, while still attempting to account for First Amendment concerns and platform issues.
The First Amendment Tension
The entertainment industry should also watch the bill’s free-speech boundaries carefully.
Digital replicas can be harmful, deceptive, and commercially exploitative. But they can also appear in parody, satire, commentary, documentary work, biopics, news reporting, fan expression, criticism, and other expressive contexts. Any federal replica right must therefore draw a line between unauthorized exploitation and protected expression.
Reports on the current bill note that it includes carveouts for certain First Amendment-protected uses and a counter-notice process intended to address improper removals.
That balance will matter to studios, streamers, documentary producers, journalists, comedians, game developers, and social-media platforms. A broad AI likeness right may protect performers from exploitation, but if drafted or applied too aggressively, it could also chill legitimate creative and critical works.
Looking Ahead
Whether the NO FAKES Act ultimately becomes law remains to be seen. What is already clear, however, is that AI-generated voice and likeness rights are moving rapidly from a theoretical concern to a practical business and legal issue.
As the entertainment industry adapts, attention is shifting from what the legislation may do to how companies, talent, and their representatives should prepare. In Part Two of this series, we examine the contract provisions, consent requirements, and risk-management strategies that entertainment industry participants should be reviewing now.
The contents of this publication are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on specific facts and circumstances. Copyright 2026.
