“It is imperative that we put this national standard in place for voice and visual likeness protection of creators, to protect from proliferation of harmful AIgenerated deepfakes that are created without their consent,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn during a Thursday markup — words that capture why the NO FAKES Act cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, even as debate over its fallout has only just begun.
70-year posthumous rights and near-exclusive control
The NO FAKES Act, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., would grant Americans near-exclusive rights to their own digital AI replicas and allow those rights to be inherited. The bill would let likeness and image rights pass to heirs, executors and estates for at least 70 years after an individual dies — a duration that critics say would extend control over AI-generated images far into the future.
Licensing, damages, and the mechanics the bill would create
Under the bill’s proposed framework, living creators could license their likenesses: adults via contracts lasting up to 10 years, and minors via 5-year agreements. Individuals would also gain a private right of action, allowing them to sue anyone who uses an AI-generated image without permission and recover statutory damages of up to $750,000 for violations. The legislation includes counter-notification processes and carve-outs for certain institutions, according to sponsors.
Broad support from entertainment, medical and advocacy groups
The bill sailed through the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote and comes backed by more than 40 organizations in formal support letters submitted by Sen. Blackburn. Those supporters include the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the American Medical Association, Creative Artists Agency, the Broadcasters’ Associations and the Human Artistry Campaign. Proponents argue a national standard is needed to stop the easy proliferation of convincing deepfakes.
Supporters point to a string of real-world harms: AI tools have been used to create nonconsensual pornography, sexualized images, child sexual assault material, and videos used for blackmail or humiliation. The Better Business Bureau’s Scam Tracker logged celebrity-deepfake endorsement scams — including deepfakes of Oprah Winfrey, Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift and Gordon Ramsay — as examples of how AI can be used to deceive consumers.
Tech and civil-liberties opposition warns of overreach and a "Heckler’s veto"
An alliance of technology-business groups and digital-rights organizations opposes the bill’s current form. Amy Bos, vice president of government affairs at NetChoice, said that while her organization supports preventing unauthorized AI-generated deepfakes, “good intentions do not make good law.” NetChoice asserts the bill could incentivize platforms to over-remove lawful content, saddle creators with an unworkable counter-notification process, and fail to deliver the promised uniform national standard.
A coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union, the R-Street Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging members to oppose the bill as drafted. They warned the legislation could create a “Heckler’s veto,” enabling artists, public figures and advocacy groups to flood notice systems with takedown requests and push platforms to remove contested content rather than defend it — a dynamic the groups liken to incentives under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The coalition highlighted likely collateral consequences for protected expression, citing a 2023 humorous AI image of Pope Francis in a puffy Balenciaga jacket that went viral; under the NO FAKES Act, they argue, that post “would be illegal for anyone to post until nearly 2100.”
Senators’ responses in committee and the narrow question left for lawmakers
Although the committee approved the bill by voice vote, multiple Republican and Democratic members expressed concerns and signaled a desire to continue tweaking the measure before it becomes law. Sen. Coons defended the bill in the markup, asserting, “I want to be clear, NO FAKES includes features that protect free speech. Parody, satire documentaries, biopics, newscasts, they’re all protected and we built in appropriate counter notification processes and exempted research libraries and archives.”
At the same time, opponents warn that the mechanics of enforcement — statutory damages, platform incentives, and the length of posthumous protections — could produce broad and lasting effects on online expression and the operation of platforms.
How artists, platforms, and political campaigns are likely to react
- Artists and estates: Will welcome expanded control and a legal route to monetize or block AI replicas, including long posthumous protections.
- Online platforms and intermediaries: Face pressure to act quickly on takedown notices; critics say the bill’s incentives may push platforms toward over-removal to avoid liability.
- Political actors and disinformation monitors: Will confront tighter constraints around AI-generated portrayals of public figures even as the bill’s sponsors say parody, satire and news reporting are protected.
The NO FAKES Act is now advanced from committee but remains politically fraught. It combines aggressive protections for creators and heirs with statutory enforcement tools that civil-liberties groups and tech trade associations say risk sweeping away legitimate speech. As lawmakers signal a willingness to refine the text, the central question is procedural and constitutional: can the statute protect individuals from harmful deepfakes without creating a financial and administrative dynamic that chills lawful expression? The Senate will decide whether its answer leans toward broad, long-term control for creators or tighter limits to preserve online speech.
