"Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of 2025"; enact to expand protections against artificial intelligence deep fakes.
Impact
The act is expected to provide robust protections against unauthorized use of an individual’s likeness, especially in light of the growing concerns surrounding artificial intelligence and deep fakes. It introduces civil remedies for affected individuals, who can sue for damages or seek injunctions against such unauthorized uses. Furthermore, it classifies violations as misdemeanors, carrying possible jail time or significant fines. This legislation aligns Mississippi with other jurisdictions seeking to modernize privacy protections in the digital age while balancing the demands of freedom of expression under the First Amendment, specifically enumerating fair use exceptions that are critical for media and commentary.
Summary
House Bill 768, known as the 'Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of 2025', introduces significant legal protections regarding an individual's likeness, voice, and image, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence advancements. The bill establishes that every individual possesses a property right over the use of their name, photograph, voice, and likeness, stating that these rights are exclusive, freely assignable, and extend beyond the individual's death, thereby allowing heirs to manage these rights posthumously. This marks a notable shift in Mississippi law, aiming to enhance personal autonomy over media portrayals and prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation of personal attributes.
Contention
Despite widespread acknowledgment of the need for enhanced protections, the bill may face scrutiny regarding its scope and implications for free speech. Critics may argue that the broad definitions of likeness and violation could inadvertently stifle artistic expression, satire, or criticism, especially in the realms of media and the arts. Moreover, the enforcement mechanisms and potential legal liabilities introduced could dissuade content creators from freely using public figures in their works, raising questions about the balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining a vibrant creative landscape.