“If this legislation is approved, those protections would now include a performer's voice and likeness, making Tennessee the first state in the nation to preserve individual voice, image and likeness against irresponsible and unethical AI in the form of deep fakes and audio cloning.”
US · FederalUS Copyright Office / Library of Congress
US Copyright Office 'Copyright and Artificial Intelligence' study (NOI Docket 2023-6 and Report Parts 1-3)
The Copyright Office's August 2023 Notice of Inquiry (Docket 2023-6, ~10,000 comments) and resulting three-part report. Part 1 recommends a federal digital-replica right; Part 3 (pre-publication) concludes that generative AI training is not categorically fair use, that market dilution weighs against fair use, and that voluntary licensing markets should be allowed to develop.
Part 1 (Digital Replicas) final July 31, 2024; Part 2 (Copyrightability) final Jan 29, 2025; Part 3 (Generative AI Training) issued in pre-publication form May 9, 2025 and still not final as of July 2026. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter was removed May 10, 2025 but restored to office by a D.C. Circuit panel order of September 10, 2025 in Perlmutter v. Blanche; the Supreme Court declined to stay that order on June 30, 2026, she continues to serve while the litigation proceeds.as of 2026-06-30primary source ↗
Vehicles carry asks; asks outlive them
Asks on this vehicle
- Wants fewer rulesConfirm training on lawfully accessed works as fair use / TDM exceptionActive
- Wants more rulesCreate a federal digital-replica right (consent for voice & likeness)Partially adopted
Sorted by what filers wanted done to the rules
Claims filed here
“While Tennessee’s preexisting law protected name, image, and likeness, it did not specifically address new, personalized generative AI cloning models and services that enable human impersonation and allow users to make unauthorized fake works in the image and voice of others.”
“I'm here today to testify in support of the NO FAKES Act. Our members believe that AI technology, left unregulated, poses an existential threat to their ability to, one, require consent for the creative use of their digital representation.”
Speaker: Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director. Third-party verbatim transcript.
“SAG-AFTRA members and those who rely on their face and voice for their livelihood will be able to demand platforms remove illegal voice and image clones. Creatives will also be able to seek damages from those who intentionally cause harm.”
“this legislation that provides balanced and effective protections for all individuals against exploitative uses of their voice and likeness while supporting free speech, reducing litigation and achieving the promise of AI technology”
“By federalizing a new likeness right and coupling it to notice-and-staydown requirements, aggressive statutory damages, and easy unmasking, it creates millions in new annual costs for digital services, both small and large, which favors incumbents and creates barriers to entry.”
“Equity is calling on the government to introduce a new system of automatic rights over your voice, face and body for all. These ‘personality rights’ would allow everyone to have control over their identity in the age of AI. They would provide a new layer of protection for performers against exploitation by AI models without your consent.”
Undated campaign page; docDate records access date (2026-07-21).
“These cases demonstrate that the fair use defense enables courts to consider all the fair use factors and apply them in the context of specific facts. MPA submits that this type of inquiry is the appropriate way to deal with the many types of potential infringements that may arise under the broad umbrella of “training” a generative AI system.”
Position is case-by-case fair-use analysis, opposing categorical treatment of training as fair use; also opposes new AI-specific copyright legislation.
“We believe that, in general, training generative AI constitutes fair use under current U.S. law. Using creative works to train generative AI fits with the long line of cases that has found that non-consumptive, technological uses of creative works in ways that are unrelated to the expressive content of those works are transformative fair uses”
“Retaining the UK’s gold standard copyright protections - and ensuring the law is enforceable and respected in the face of the challenges posed by GAI - will create incentives for GAI developers to enter into licence agreements with rights holders, ensuring a steady flow of quality, human-authored works for GAI training.”
“We are clear in our view that the training of AI models is a non-expressive use of open web content, which boosts economic growth, fosters scientific advancement, and enables the creation of valuable new works.”
“techUK believes that Option 2 – the broad TDM exception – would provide the strongest competitive advantage for the UK's AI sector and create significant opportunities for economic growth and will be the preferred option of many.”
“The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI, and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.”
“And the federal government should embrace policy frameworks that preserve access to data for fair learning, advance a risk-based approach to AI applications based on existing regulations, and preempt a chaotic patchwork of state-level rules on frontier AI development.”
Same sentence carries both the fair-learning and preemption asks; recorded once per ask.
“The AI Action Plan should encourage the continued development of free market licensing to support a symbiotic relationship between content creators, publishers, and AI developers.”
“In addition, we urge the administration to clarify that existing copyright law protects the ability of developers to train models. Getting this right is critical to ensuring American competitiveness in AI.”
“Specifically, the nation’s AI policy and AI Action Plan should respect intellectual property, support the development of voluntary licensing in free markets, and promote appropriate transparency and fair competition in the AI and technology sector.”
The filed RFI comments; doc-nma-actionplan-2025 is the accompanying press release.
“We believe a broad text and data mining exception, as described in Option 2, is the most effective way to achieve the Government’s objectives to unlock and leverage the benefits of AI in the UK.”
Submitted via IPO survey 25 Feb 2025; summary published 2 Apr 2025 at the Commons SITC's request.
“The report presents thoughtful and balanced analysis of fair use in the context of AI training, emphasizing that AI training is not categorically fair use and that whether a use qualifies as a fair use is a matter of context and degree.”
“In the report, the Copyright Office takes the sensible and correct approach that AI training is not categorically fair use and that whether a use qualifies as a fair use is a matter of context and degree.”
“The Secretary of State must now definitively rule out any new copyright exception, bringing an end to the uncertainty created by this prolonged process over the past year. This will send a clear message to AI developers that they must enter into licensing agreements with the UK’s media and creative copyright owners”