Mississippians' Right to Name, Likeness and Voice Act; enact.
If enacted, SB2220 would empower individuals to seek legal recourse for unauthorized commercial exploitation of their names, voices, or likenesses. The act details liability for organizations and individuals that distribute or use digital replicas without consent, allowing for actions to be brought forth for damages, including actual and treble damages based on unauthorized uses. Importantly, the legislation also emphasizes that individuals retain their rights regardless of their previous commercial exploitation during their lifetime, adding significant protections concerning digital representations, particularly in a landscape increasingly defined by digital content creation.
Senate Bill 2220, known as the 'Mississippians' Right to Name, Likeness and Voice Act,' seeks to establish and protect an individual's rights related to their name, likeness, and voice as property rights. The bill introduces several new sections to the Mississippi Code, defining terms such as 'commercial use' and 'digital depiction' while stipulating that every individual possesses a property right in their own name, likeness, and voice. This right is deemed intellectual property that is transferable, descends beyond an individual's death, and can be enforced against unauthorized use.
The sentiment surrounding SB2220 appears to be largely supportive among advocates for individual rights and privacy, positing that this act establishes critical protections in a digital age where personal identities can be easily manipulated or exploited. However, there are concerns regarding potential First Amendment implications, particularly in relation to artistic expressions or news reporting that might involve an individual's likeness or voice. The bill includes provisions for a First Amendment defense, indicating a recognition of the balance that must be struck between personal rights and broader societal interests.
Notable points of contention include the specific exemptions carved out for student-athletes, who are not covered under this act while enrolled in an intercollegiate athletics program. This exclusion has raised questions about the protections available to young athletes regarding their names and images, fueling debates about fairness and the right to control one’s own identity in an environment heavily monetized by sports. Supporters argue this exclusion is necessary to avoid conflicts with existing educational frameworks, while opponents fear it undermines the personal agency of student-athletes.