In a surprising collaboration, Republicans are currently rushing a bill through the legislature at the behest of music industry trade associations, and Hollywood unions, called the ELVIS Act.
As artificial intelligence (AI) expands, many artists are concerned about its abilities to replicate their image and voice. The existence of content like the AI generated track mimicking Drake and The Weeknd, “Heart On My Sleeve” proves this is a valid fear.
I’m a Belmont graduate, a former singer/songwriter, and for five years after college I worked at Entertainment One as a director of music licensing. Now, I run a content company, BASEDPolitics, and make my living as a political commentator. My income is very much tied to my ability to sell my thoughts, my image, and my voice.
So, I understand the concerns proponents of this bill have with the potential for AI to undercut their incomes. But those concerns must be balanced with ones of equal importance: free speech and the free market.
This bill fails on both of those counts.
Counterpoint: Critics are wrong about the ELVIS Act. Creatives needs protection from AI fraud
Bill will create an atmosphere of fear of litigation
We already have laws on the books that protect a person’s name, likeness, and image called right of publicity laws. It would be quite simple to replicate and apply them to a person’s voice. But that’s not what the ELVIS Act does.
The voices of The Weeknd (left) and Drake were used by Ghostwriter to create the song “Heart on My Sleeve” using AI.
The bill lacks the stringent, clear exceptions typically found in right of privacy laws. Existing laws only apply to advertising, merchandise, and fundraising purposes. And they include exceptions for “newsworthy” images in content that provides a “public interest,” which encompasses everything from hard news to celebrity gossip. The ELVIS Act does not restrict itself in these ways.
That means fair uses like satire, parody, documentaries, and biopics would all be fair game for lawsuits—and the bill isn’t even limited to those with a Tennessee domicile, meaning the state would be welcoming lawsuits from all over the country.
In practice, this means the vast majority of people would refrain from making content out of a fear of being sued, which would have a chilling effect on the flow of information. Documentaries on notorious figures like Jeffrey Epstein would be impossible to obtain permission to make.
Beloved movies like “Forrest Gump” would be off the table due to its use of the voices of historic figures in multiple scenes. YouTubers would have to seek out random people online to garner permission to use small snippets of things they’ve said in their videos. TikTok would likely have a huge mess on their hands with the Stitch functionality in the app.
All in all this would throw a bucket of water on the burgeoning field of content creation, right at a time where more and more people are having their lives transformed by platforms that allow them to make engaging products at a fast pace, and at a time where consumers have better access to information than they ever have before.
Proposal may help Hollywood but not ordinary Tennesseans
Would the First Amendment still trump this bill? Most likely. But that means you’d have to be able to afford an attorney and fight your case in court just to access your right to free speech.
AI replication is a problem that might require some tweaking in the law, but it certainly doesn’t require blowing up the First Amendment. There are already much better laws on the books that deal with these issues in places like Louisiana that can and should be looked to.
Hollywood unions and associations are clearly looking out for their own in this picture, but Republican lawmakers ought to be looking out for everyone else and safeguarding the right to free speech for all their constituents.
Hannah Cox
Hannah Cox is president and co-founder of BASEDPolitics
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Artificial intelligence: Tennessee ELVIS Act threatens First Amendment
