The NO FAKES ACT - Why It’s Important to the Music Industry

Henri Casadesus was an early 20th-century violist, composer, and music publisher. As co-founder of the Society of Ancient Instruments along with Camille Saint-Saëns, Casadesus helped to bring attention to early music and promote historical instruments and performing styles.

One of Casadesus’s major accomplishments was the introduction of what he presented as previously unknown works by early composers, such as Handel, Johann Christian Bach, and CPE Bach, including CPE Bach’s compositions for viola. Since the viola doesn’t have a huge repertoire of concertos like the violin, new compositions from the Bach family were a major discovery. However, as it turns out, the compositions are now confirmed to have been written by Casadesus in CPE Bach’s style.

Casadesus needed significant knowledge and skill to accomplish what now would be considered forgeries. He needed an intimate understanding of Bach’s style as well as having composition skills of his own. In short, Casadesus’ imitation required significant time, training, and craft.

This type of time, training, and skill is also required to create covers of music performed by popular artists. Unlike Casadesus’ imitations, covers aren’t passed off as the original artist. Also, since cover artists frequently add their own interpretations to the music, it’s also usually possible to tell from listening that the recording is a cover and not the original artist.

Plus, it takes time to create a cover. A musical artist must go into a recording studio with backup musicians or tracks and a recording engineer to record the cover.

AI has changed that. AI can create content that sounds like a musical artist without the need for a human performer or a recording studio, and the result can be available for distribution within hours at most. The speed and elimination of the need for a skilled human imitator sets the stage for a rapid increase in the number of imitations.

As long as there isn’t an express effort to pass off the imitation as the artist, there’s not much an artist can do at the national level to stop the AI imitation. Instead, artists must rely on a patchwork of state laws, which provide only limited protection. Meanwhile, the imitation is making money for the creator and possibly creating confusion among fans and diluting the artist’s reputation.

The NO FAKES Act, which was first introduced in 2024 and which, in June 2026, cleared a Senate Judiciary Committee, would change that. This article discusses the issue with AI imitations and how the NO FAKES Act would be a positive step for both artists and consumers.

 What Is the Current Law?

 Currently, there is a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.Thirty-eight states provide some type of name, image, likeness protection for artists from unauthorized commercial use. Some states also protect non-celebrities. Some also prohibit noncommercial use of an individual’s name, image, or likeness. Some recognize a post-mortem right, but others don’t.

 Protection of an artist’s voice is less common. In Tennessee, the ELVIS Act, adopted in 2024, protects artists from replicas. The Elvis Act, signed into law in 2024, was enacted to address the impact of AI on music and to protect artists from the misuse of their voices through AI-generated replicas. The law was intended to protect both artists and the public from deepfakes and voice cloning.

 California’s AB 2602 prohibits the use of AI-generated digital replicas of a performer’s voice or likeness without a written contract. And the law requires that the performer have professional representation when negotiating such a contract. The effect of the law is to move consent to AI-generated digital replicas from the fine print in contracts out into the open, so that artists are aware of the consequences of their consent to digital replicas.

 New York uses a different approach. It’s Digital Replica law targets exploitive contracts that allow a digital replica to in effect, replace an artist. New York’s right of publicity protects artists’ voices, but it’s not specific to AI. Nevada, Washington, and Illinois also have laws that provide some protection.

 One challenge with the current system is that because the laws were enacted at the state level, they aren’t uniform. Plus, by their nature, state laws are limited in geographic scope. This creates both a patchwork of rights and challenges in enforcement that require numerous lawsuits to try to stop AI replicas.

 Since AI replicas are distributed nationwide, it’s important that artists have a federal law to protect them. The US Copyright Office’s Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence agrees that “generative AI technology enables the production and dissemination of digital replicas at a speed and scale that calls for a national response.”

 What is the No Fakes Act?

The NO FAKES ACT, initially proposed in 2024, would create a federal property right for individuals to authorize the use of their voice or visual likeness. The NO FAKES Act define a “digital replica” as a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as a person’s voice or visual likeness. That definition isn’t limited to video. It can include a sound recording, image, audiovisual work, silent audiovisual work, or transmission.

A digital replica would not include authorized sampling, remixing, mastering, or digital remastering when the copyright holder has authorized the use. Under the bill, individuals could license but not assign during their lifetime. After an individual’s death, their estate could assign the right.

Subject to First Amendment limitations, the bill includes provisions holding companies liable for producing unauthorized digital replicas of an individual’s performance and holding platforms responsible for knowingly hosting unauthorized replicas. If passed, the NO FAKES Act would pre-empt future state laws on digital replicas, thereby establishing a single, nationwide standard going forward. Existing state laws, such as the ELVIS Act, would continue to provide alternate remedies.

 What Artists Can Do to Protect Themselves in an Imperfect Legal Climate

The law will remain fragmented and inconsistent from state to state until a law like the NO FAKES ACT becomes law. In the meanwhile, artists should focus on the areas where they can protect themselves by making their contracts as strong as possible and utilizing existing protections for their intellectual property by registering copyrights and trademarks.

Artists should have an attorney review all new and renewal contracts to ensure they expressly address the issue with AI copies. Contracts should expressly prohibit the creation of digital replicas of the artist’s voice, image, likeness, name, or performance without separate written permission, rather than relying on indirect or nonspecific contract provisions. If an artist decides to grant use for an AI copy, they should ensure the scope of the use is as they intend. For instance, since a one-time promotional use isn’t the same as the creation of a synthetic voice that can be used to generate additional new works, the scope of a contract regarding promotional use must be clear.

Artists also shouldn’t neglect registering their copyrights and trademarks. Trademark protection in particular may be useful when an artist’s name, band name, logo, or brand is used in a way that creates consumer confusion. Copyright registration won’t protect a voice or musical style. But copyright registration can make it easier to protect songs, sound recordings, photos, videos, and other creative works that may be used to create AI imitations.

Finally, artists should have an attorney or other professional on their team who can help with platform takedown notices, copyright claims, right-of-publicity claims under state law, trademark or false endorsement claims, and contract disputes. Because AI-generated imitations can travel quickly, artists and their teams need to be nimble and able to respond just as quickly.

Conclusion

Casadesus’s pieces weren’t just copies that sounded like CPE Bach’s. They were presented as being Bach’s. Since Bach was long dead and his works weren’t under copyright, Casadesus didn’t deny Bach or his heirs of financial gains. But his copies had the potential to impact Bach’s legacy.

Unlike Casadesus’s viola concerto, AI imitations may not expressly claim to be the creation or a known artist’s voice. However, unlike Casadesus’ concerto, AI imitations can impact a living artist’s economic rights by diluting their legitimate creative output.

The NO FAKES Act would be a valuable tool in artists’ arsenal against AI replicas. However, the bill still must pass several hurdles before it becomes law. For now, except in the few states like Tennessee that have laws expressly prohibiting digital “clones,” artists need to continue to rely on state right-of-publicity laws, contract language, copyright and trademark claims, and platform takedown procedures.

© 2026 by Elizabeth A. Whitman

Any references to clients and their legal situations have been modified to protect client confidentiality.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this blog is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice to any person. No one should take any action regarding the information in this blog without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Neither reading this blog nor communication with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or Elizabeth A. Whitman creates an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will exist with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or any attorney affiliated with it unless a written contract is signed by all parties.