Background
The right to publicity—the right for individuals to protect their name, image, and likeness from commercialization by others—has consistently been a challenge in the music and entertainment industry. A notable consequence from this longstanding controversy is the Personal Rights Protection Act (PRPA) of 1984, which was largely influenced by Elvis Presley’s legacy in the “Music City” and the debate over his post-mortem rights. A predecessor of the ELVIS Act, this bill criminalized the exploitation of any artist’s name, image, and likeness for commercial purposes.
However, the PRPA does not account for the emerging challenges associated with artificial intelligence (AI). In the wake of modern technology, AI-powered vocal simulations of artists via deepfake technology have repeatedly interfered with the livelihood of musicians and entertainment groups. Notably, rap artist Drake deemed an AI-generated song that used his voice as his “final straw”, demonstrating the frustration of the entertainment industry. Though streaming platforms have often removed AI-generated songs to protect artists, they are not legally obligated to do so. Thus, performers have pushed for greater protections against the digital exploitation of their voices.
The ELVIS Act, or the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024, amends the PRPA to include voice as a protected property right in Tennessee. Through its recognition of AI as a significant threat to artists and the establishment of liabilities for exploitative uses of AI, the Act aims to uplift the music industry. The bill’s sponsors see the policy as vital to the success of the state in general, given that Tennessee’s music industry supports over 61,000 jobs and contributes $5.8 billion to the state’s GDP.
The Case for the ELVIS Act: Protecting Artists’ Voices in the Wake of AI
Supporters of the legislation include organizations such as the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Academy of Country Music, and Nashville Musicians Association.
Supporters praise the Act’s unique protection of musicians’ voices in the face of rapidly advancing technologies. By specifically addressing AI in ways the PRPA did not, the ELVIS Act ensures that it cannot infringe upon or take advantage of existing loopholes. This protects artists from having their voices cloned by deepfake technology. Proponents also point out that the Act prohibits both the non-consensual publishing of someone’s likeness or voice and the unauthorized use and distribution of software, tools, and algorithms used to reproduce someone’s likeness for publishing purposes.
As others argue, the legislation does not only protect recording artists in the music industry, but additional key players in the entertainment industries; podcasters, voice actors, and other individuals whose voices are vital to their careers, are also protected under the ELVIS Act. On a larger scale, this ensures that these professionals’ personal brands, self-expression, creativity, and livelihoods are not endangered by the growing use of AI and heightened risk of its exploitation.
The Case Against the ELVIS Act: Ambiguity and Unintended Consequences
By attempting to address all aspects of vocal simulations, critics argue that the ELVIS Act is too broad and therefore inadvertently punishes individuals whose activities are harmless and do not require regulation. For instance, the Motion Picture Association argues that the legislation obstructs the company’s ability to portray real people and events in films. Others have grievances with the likelihood that the Act will punish creators who produce parodies, documentaries, or news-related content. Many believe this steers too far from the original objective of preventing the replication of a person’s voice for commercial purposes.
In addition to having unintended, detrimental impacts on the film and entertainment industries, the legislation’s ambiguous nature also raises issues with the free market. Since certain forms of entertainment, including satire and documentaries, could be at risk of a lawsuit under the ELVIS Act, producers of such entertainment may be discouraged from creating such content, which could enact further negative impacts on productivity and economic growth.
Conclusion and Future Outlook By recognizing voice as a protected right, the ELVIS Act demonstrates promise in safeguarding the rights, expressions, and identities of music and entertainment professionals. However, the broadness of the ELVIS Act has sparked concern over its potentially detrimental impact on the entertainment and music industries. As other states begin to adopt legislation concerning the right of publicity in an increasingly digital age, it is crucial that forthcoming regulations appropriately consider measures regarding the protection and preservation of creativity so as not to accidentally limit it.