An updated version of what critics refer to as the AI censorship bill, Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (NO FAKES Act) has been introduced by senators Chris Coons, a Democrat, and Republican Marsha Blackburn.
The goal of the bill – that first saw the light of day last October as a discussion draft – is to ban what it calls unauthorized digital replicas while providing exemptions for parody, satire, use in documentaries, and other forms of generated content that should fall under the fair use rule.
The entertainment industry is happy with the legislative proposal, with support pouring in from Disney, the Motion Picture Association, Recording Industry Association of America, SAG-AFTRA, agencies, and more.
SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild), which wants a likeness act at the federal instead of the state level as is the case now, backed the bill, mentioning the need to protect intellectual property and performers’ likenesses and brands.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
But prominent digital rights group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), is unconvinced that these exemptions will work in real life, and fears that the bill, if passed, will result in limiting free speech.
The EFF noted that the House has its own version of the bill, called NO AI FRAUD, whereas Senate’s proposal – which explicitly refers to property rights (not protected by Section 230, and removed from the House bill) – would allow anyone to sue anybody else for creating their “digital replica” – i.e., a new, computer-generated image, voice or visual likeness.
The EFF doesn’t like this definition, calling it “broad,” while the right is given to people (that would be, celebrities), other holders of rights to their likeness, heirs 70 years after their death, but also retroactively, to those who have already died.
That the bill ultimately has to do with money (hence such enthusiasm in the entertainment industry) is one thing – but its potential to at the same time provide another avenue for undermining speech is another.
The EFF sums up one of its misgivings, over the bill’s exemptions, as not being overly meaningful – “if you have to pay a lawyer to figure out if they apply to you, and then try to persuade a rightsholder to agree.”
