(CNN) – When former US President Donald Trump reposted a fake image of Taylor Swift posing as Uncle Sam’s iconic recruiting poster, he highlighted an issue that goes beyond politics: unauthorized digital replicas.
Concerned about the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, state and federal lawmakers have recently launched or pushed initiatives to protect anyone from the misuse of their name, voice, image and likeness in the digital age. For experts, Trump’s social media post highlights why such sweeping legislative efforts are happening, in addition to being one of the most visible false claims in the 2024 campaign.
Last weekend, Trump reposted several images on his Truth Social platform, including one showing Taylor Swift as Uncle Sam. The image included the text: “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.” In response to false support for his presidential candidacy, Trump posted a carousel of images (of Swift), along with the comment: “I’m in!”
A representative for Swift did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment. The pop icon has not endorsed any candidate in this presidential race.
In an interview with Fox Business On Wednesday, Trump denied creating the images when asked if he was worried about a possible lawsuit.
“I don’t know anything about them other than someone else generated them, I didn’t generate them,” Trumo said. “All of these were invented by other people. “AI is always very dangerous in that sense.”
Tennessee is one of the latest states to enact a law aimed at protecting people from unauthorized use of content that imitates their image or voice.
The Ensuring the Safety of Likeness, Voice and Image Act (ELVIS Act), which went into effect last month, expands the right of publicity existing in the state to specifically protect artists, including a person’s voice, and make it illegal to use content “in any medium”.
The law could be a vehicle for Swift, who began her career in Nashville, where she is a partial resident, to file a lawsuit.
Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a Republican who sponsored the bill, said the misuse of AI-generated content and the impact it has on artists were part of the reasons it was passed. updated.
“The rapid advancement of AI is exciting in many ways, but it also presents new challenges, especially for singers, songwriters and other music professionals,” Johnson said in a statement. press release when Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed the ELVIS Act. CNN has reached out to the governor’s office for comment.
Joseph Fishman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University whose research has focused on intellectual property and entertainment law, said one of the problems with the law is that it is so broad that it “covers almost any unauthorized use of the image or voice of a person that the distributor of the image, video or sound knows is not authorized.”
Since 2019, several states have passed laws related to the use of fake content. In the 2024 session, at least 40 states have pending legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Although the laws do not apply exclusively to AI-created content, many laws are intended to target sexually explicit content and some focus on content intended to mislead voters, the group said.
When it comes to political campaigns, more than a dozen states have enacted laws to regulate the use of so-called deepfakes: realistic fake videos, audios and other content created with AI. Depending on the state, violators could face prison sentences and heavy fines. Candidates could be forced to resign from their position or candidacy, CNN previously reported.
While there appears to be a wave of new legislation focused on AI, unauthorized use of digital replicas could be punishable under other existing laws, said Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that specializes in intellectual property, open access and freedom of expression issues.
“If you are concerned that an image of you or your face is being used and you believe it is in a defamatory manner or implies a false endorsement, you probably already have rights under defamation law, possibly even under trademark law, as if we had a lot of long-standing doctrines to address those types of situations,” McSherry said.
At the federal level, Congress has not yet approved a national framework to regulate AI, including AI-generated replicas. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has sought fines after an AI-generated robocall imitating President Joe Biden’s voice urged voters not to participate in the New York primary election. Hampshire. They used spoofing technology that violated federal caller ID laws, the FCC said.
The operator that transmitted the robocalls, Lingo Telecom, agreed on Wednesday pay a fine of US$ 1 million. Steven Kramer, the political consultant behind the call, faces a $6 million fine.
Last month, the United States Copyright Office published a report in which he urges lawmakers to pass a federal law to address unauthorized digital replicas.
“It has become clear that the distribution of unauthorized digital replicas poses a serious threat not only in the fields of entertainment and politics, but also to private citizens,” said Shira Perlmutter, registrar of copyrights and director of the Office of United States Copyright, in a statement. “We believe there is an urgent need for effective national protection against the damage that can be caused to reputations and livelihoods.”
For Darrel Mottley, a patent attorney and faculty director of the intellectual property and entrepreneurship clinic at Suffolk University, it is important to remember that regulation should focus on how AI is used and not the technology itself.
“We do not regulate technology itself, we want to regulate human behavior that uses technology in a way that is not what we consider appropriate. That’s what regulations should do,” Mottley said.
Could Taylor Swift sue Trump?
Legal experts agree that Swift could file a lawsuit under the ELVIS Act, thanks to her ties to the Southern state, but the outcome is unclear.
“The ELVIS Act could be among the laws that apply to what Trump did and under which he could be held liable,” Fishman said.
In a potential lawsuit against Trump, the former president’s lawyers could argue that the post was satire or parody, which is protected by the First Amendment, Fishman and McSherry said.
The ELVIS Act has an exemption for uses protected by the First Amendment, including criticism, satire, and parody. Fishman noted that the limits of that exemption were not spelled out in the law “so no one really knows how the courts are going to draw those lines.”
“There’s a lot of murky surrounding how this would actually play out if there was a lawsuit, but if that exemption doesn’t apply, it certainly appears that the release of these images is covered by this Tennessee law,” Fishman said.
The fact that some of the images were generated by AI made the situation “much more provocative,” Fishman said, but Trump could face an equivalent legal risk “if he had retouched a photograph (or if) he was a really good cartoonist and I would draw something. The problem would remain the same.”
In McSherry’s view, Swift could simply choose to address it outside of the court system.
“Given Taylor Swift’s reach as a celebrity, I think she could feel much more effective, frankly, if she just used her own platform to disown him, and that would accomplish as much as any lawsuit,” McSherry said.
With or without the rise of AI-generated content, legal experts agreed that you don’t have to be a celebrity to hold people accountable if their voice, likeness or image is misused to imply a false endorsement.
