Senators Propose 'Digital Replication Right' For Likeness, Extending 70 Years After Death 46
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, US Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act of 2024. The bipartisan legislation, up for consideration in the US Senate, aims to protect individuals from unauthorized AI-generated replicas of their voice or likeness. The NO FAKES Act would create legal recourse for people whose digital representations are created without consent. It would hold both individuals and companies liable for producing, hosting, or sharing these unauthorized digital replicas, including those created by generative AI. Due to generative AI technology that has become mainstream in the past two years, creating audio or image media fakes of people has become fairly trivial, with easy photorealistic video replicas likely next to arrive. [...]
To protect a person's digital likeness, the NO FAKES Act introduces a "digital replication right" that gives individuals exclusive control over the use of their voice or visual likeness in digital replicas. This right extends 10 years after death, with possible five-year extensions if actively used. It can be licensed during life and inherited after death, lasting up to 70 years after an individual's death. Along the way, the bill defines what it considers to be a "digital replica": "DIGITAL REPLICA.-The term "digital replica" means a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual that- (A) is embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work, including an audiovisual work that does not have any accompanying sounds, or transmission- (i) in which the actual individual did not actually perform or appear; or (ii) that is a version of a sound recording, image, or audiovisual work in which the actual individual did perform or appear, in which the fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered; and (B) does not include the electronic reproduction, use of a sample of one sound recording or audiovisual work into another, remixing, mastering, or digital remastering of a sound recording or audiovisual work authorized by the copyright holder." The NO FAKES Act "includes provisions that aim to balance IP protection with free speech," notes Ars. "It provides exclusions for recognized First Amendment protections, such as documentaries, biographical works, and content created for purposes of comment, criticism, or parody."
To protect a person's digital likeness, the NO FAKES Act introduces a "digital replication right" that gives individuals exclusive control over the use of their voice or visual likeness in digital replicas. This right extends 10 years after death, with possible five-year extensions if actively used. It can be licensed during life and inherited after death, lasting up to 70 years after an individual's death. Along the way, the bill defines what it considers to be a "digital replica": "DIGITAL REPLICA.-The term "digital replica" means a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual that- (A) is embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work, including an audiovisual work that does not have any accompanying sounds, or transmission- (i) in which the actual individual did not actually perform or appear; or (ii) that is a version of a sound recording, image, or audiovisual work in which the actual individual did perform or appear, in which the fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered; and (B) does not include the electronic reproduction, use of a sample of one sound recording or audiovisual work into another, remixing, mastering, or digital remastering of a sound recording or audiovisual work authorized by the copyright holder." The NO FAKES Act "includes provisions that aim to balance IP protection with free speech," notes Ars. "It provides exclusions for recognized First Amendment protections, such as documentaries, biographical works, and content created for purposes of comment, criticism, or parody."
Way too long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Way too long (Score:1)
Curious what happens when the digital creation simply looks or sounds very similar to a specific person. And how does the creator prove it isn't that person? How does that person prove that it is? Which one has the burden of proof?
Biography movies and audio books (Score:2)
How about when there is an authorized or unauthorized biography in audio or video format done by real-life look-alikes shortly after the person's death?
Those are legal now. So how does AI induced effects to make the actors more look-alike to the now-deceased person?
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Waits has been successfully suing people over sound-alike ads for decades, so it seems there's lots of precedence to defend against faked sound and I would assume images/videos/holograms wouldn't be much of a stretch.
https://www.latimes.com/archiv... [latimes.com]
Re: Way too long (Score:1)
So would the precedent be that people who sound or appear too similar to another already famous person are unemployable?
Re: (Score:2)
Marjorie prime called. She's still talking to her family.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just gonna end up fucking over the general populace like copyright does now.
Get ready for 70 years of AI-powered virtual Kiss concerts, with the grandkids of Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley living off those residuals.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Your rights should expire a year after death, not seventy!
Seventy is a giveaway of public resources to corporations, and corporations don't need any more welfare.
Re: Way too long (Score:2)
This should apply for actors. It should not apply for politicians.
What about... (Score:2)
So what about twins both related and dopplegangers? Everyone has one so if you sell your rights or give permission do they have to also? Voice twins are WAY more common, everyone has thousands...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to realize that imitation without an established intent to defraud isn't something which should be illegal, criminal, or something which requires licensing. This is a problem for a handful of famous rich people, let them go the way of the carriage drivers FFS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at that. We've not only managed to solve to come up with a solution to this pressing issue but assure the legal framework is in place to follow through with that solution. Someone should pay us!
Re: (Score:2)
I recently saw some triplets on youtube.
I honestly thought it was a clone tool used in post!
Parody use? (Score:2)
I don't think that will stand up to 1st Amendment review.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It provides exclusions for recognized First Amendment protections, such as documentaries, biographical works, and content created for purposes of comment, criticism, or parody."
These guys are like Senator Stevens (Score:2)
The new hotness loophole. (Score:2)
So you’re proposing a NO FAKES policy? Sounds like a reasonab..wait a minute.
Define “fake” first.
No no, I don’t mean the traditional common sense definition. I mean your NEW warped definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Parody? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parody would likely be covered, but a parody generally has to have some kind of distinct connection to the thing being parodied; claiming that "Shawshank Redemption" was a parody of "Bruce Almighty" and therefore gets to use Morgan Freeman would probably not fly (I know neither of them used digital avatars, but you get the idea). Satire does not require as much of a connection but also doesn't really require a specific person's image be involved, so claiming that it just must absolutely use such an image ev
Re: (Score:2)
What 'Parody' doesn't cover is the six figures of legal expenses you'll spend attempting to enforce any 'rights' this claims to give you.
Copyright is utterly busted and *anything* that tries to build on it is likewise just a sop to big biz. The little peons like us aren't helped by any of it except in rare cases.
Re: (Score:2)
" This thing is aimed at actors..."
I have to wonder why the other 99% of the population don't get protections against AI (and other automation) taking their jobs.
Or why they can't get a Lifetime+70 guarantee on... anything.
Garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like copyright law, this is way too long. I don't really care about the AI one way or the other, but people are so overly entitled.
Re:Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like copyright law, this is way too long. I don't really care about the AI one way or the other, but people are so overly entitled.
Agreed. I'm generally okay with someone protecting their likeness while they are alive. I wouldn't like it if someone was producing footage of me saying things I don't agree with, for instance.
But when you're dead, you're dead. Done. I don't personally agree with copyright extending beyond death either, in the conventional sense. Sorry, but if I write an incredibly popular book and it earns me a bunch of money, that money is the legacy of my estate. When I die, my family can inherit the money. The book becomes public domain. Death of creator seems a very clear, sensible break-point.
I think copyright should work that way, and so should likeness protection. The whole George Carlin thing... I think was overwrought. If my wife dies first, I'll be distraught, yes. But if someone goes out and starts lampooning her and making as if she was someone she was not... well... that's nasty but a drop in the bucket of sadness that is she's dead, which is all that really matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. And even then, that can easily be avoided with an exception clause for unnatural causes of death and get automatically extended for a certain period of time. Say, 5-15 years depending on how old the work is.
Re: Garbage (Score:2)
Eg. it expires on the death of the individual or 70 years after their birth, whichever is later.
(or some other reasonable value of 70, long as it is within the range of normal life expectancy)
Re: (Score:2)
What about non-digital impersonators? (Score:1)
What does current law say about an Elvis impersonator posing with a guitar in an over-the-top bejeweled outfit if he doesn't mention the name Elvis?
What does current law say about someone who just happens to be about the same build as Elvis and who happens to have a similar face and a similar hairdo wearing his great-grandpa's disco outfit while posing with a guitar?
The current laws should be the starting point about any discussion of new laws. Key questions include: "Did we get the current laws right? A
This is not to protect us from Fakes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how often I hear about some actor, musician, etc, from my younger days passing away and then look at when, and they died like 10, 15, 20 years ago?
Yes, I'm friggin' old. :sigh: But my point is that not everyone catches death notices immediately.
A saleable right? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is being presented as protection against AI fakes. But if its a saleable right, it’s no such thing, it’s just an extension of copyright for the benefit of the copyright holding conglomerates, who will purchase that right in every performance contract, right down to the extras.
Wolfenstein 3D (Score:3, Funny)
More pointless beaurocracy (Score:2)
Does not solve anything!
While the chances of anyone having an perfect twin in the world are less likely than a lottery. (I don't think one has been found yet.)
Everyone probably has like 50 people that look or sound enough like them that a person that intimately knows the principle person would mistake the 50 similar people for them initially. Way more if apparent current age doesn't have to be the same.
Whom is impersonating who? We going to stop people from becoming models because they were born looking lik
WHAT IS THIS OBSESSION... (Score:3)
...WITH 70 YEARS?
I mean god, where did that number get pulled from?
I would say that 20 or 30 years after death is way more than enough. For copyright too.
You are DEAD. 20 or 30 years is enough time for your dependants to reap the benefits of your copyrights etc and then finally set themselves up for joining real life and working for a living.
Copyright and the like is supposed to *stimulate* new works while *enruching the commons* via the public domain. Instead it has been mutated into a money generator for grandchildren.
Maybe A.I fakes are a special case, considering some important people can be made to act and say silly crap after they are dead (A CGI realistic Einstein is on TV in the UK often acting like an idiot trying to convince everyone to switch to a smart meter for lower bills, which is a lie).
Why not forever? (Score:1)
I would rather... (Score:2)