support our nonprofit operations. scan the qr code go to cspanshop.org order your copy today. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ okay broadbandupport c-span

as a public service along with these othe television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. musician actor twigs along with other music and movie industry leaders testified before senate judiciary subcommittee about intellectual property concerns with digital replicas generative artificial intelligence. they also addressed first amendment protections, the use of deep fakes the need to hold those committing fraud with ai technology accountable. the hearing is two hours. [background noises]

this hearing and the subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee will come to order. i like to think all of our witness for participating today by colleagues for joining me. i like to specifically think ranking member at tillis and his staff are working on a consensus basis to put this hearing together and to thank senator blackburn and her staff as well for partnering with us on this hearing. about 10 months about senator tillis and i held a subcommittee hearing on artificial intelligence and copyright law. in their intersection but i opened that hearing with the debut of a new ai generated song ai ai a refund sent frank sinatra's new york new york crate with chatgpt voice quoting technology used to mimic frank sinatra's voice the song was fun

to create with permission from the rights holders of course. it also highlighted some pressing legal questions that generative ai tools. it was my song protected speech? if i had not gotten permission for the song have violated mr. sinatra's rights to his voice or his style? since that hearing ai generated replicas have only grown more pervasive from deep fakes and videos of celebritiesvi hawking products to songsgh with the voe quoting tunes posing as legitimate hits to scam calls mimicking a panicked panicked grandchild's voice. ai generated replicas of tom hanks and gayle king reese to advertise medical services a fake version of elon musk encourage consumers to invest in a crypto currency scam. drake, eminem, oriana greta, beyoncé, are a few of the musical artists who have seen the voice and mimicked by ai clones mcafee global leader in online protection found one in four american adults have

experience ai voice scam with a three quarters having lost money. scammers using ai generated replicas of a grandchild's voice to trick a grandparent out of money have become so sophisticated both the s fcc and ftc have issued warnings. these examples all relate to commercial speech but ai deep fakes do not stop there using other examples non- conceptual explicit deep fake images and videos let's addressing the defiance act senders durbin and graham have introduced. election interference addressed in the protect elections from deceptive ai acts centers klobuchar, holly, columns and i have introduced. broadly these issues are not theoretical deep fake pornographic images of taylor swift circulated broadly on exit formally known as twitter before they were taken down. voice kona president biden encourage voters to stay home during the new hampshire primary and slovak it deep fake likely

had an impact on the outcome of a national election. in summary ai tools have become increasingly sophisticated it becomes easier to replicate, distribute fake images of someone. fakes of their voice. fakes of their likeness without consent.tc we cannot let this challenge go unanswered and an action should not be an option. president biden caution during state of the unit must regulate ai voice impersonation but do so thoughtfully, strikingon the rit balance between defending individual rights and fostering ai innovation and creativity. both congress and the administration of them are working to strike to help bill lutes pruned a bipartisan group of senators young, hi rick, rounds and schumer nine ai forms last year senator schumer has encouraged committees to work on ai legislation on a bipartisan basis justvi as we are doing today. that is why is excited to release the no faked act discussion draft last october

centers tillis, blackburn and klobuchar. this bill would protect people from having their images, voices or likenesses used to create digital replicas that say or do things they never agreed too or would never say. the bill, accomplishes this brd goal in two ways. by holding individuals and companies liable if they produce an unauthorized digital replica of an individual's voice, image or likeness and by holding platforms liable if they host or distribute on authorized digital replica of the platform knows the person depicted did not authorize it. unlike current right of publicity lawsif that many stats have enacted which often are focused on celebrities, who monetize their likeness at ordinary people without a remedy note fakes x protection would all individuals but they commercialize their voices, images or likenesses. our bill tries to be careful to balance these protections against free-speech rights. first amendment will of course apply to this bill whether we say it does or not.

we made clear long recognized carveouts like parody and satire remain available to creators to continue to foster the artistic did innovative potential of ai. over the past six months we have of meetings and received extensive feedback, hundreds if not thousands of proposed revisions, tweaks, edits, wholesale changes on the discussion stakeholders who love the draft, who hated the draft, and everyone in between. that was exactly the point and i appreciate the many constructive suggestions we have received. that's also the point of having a hearing today with folks who support the bill, question the bill, who oppose the village of a real dialogue. let me close the feedback is centered around a few -- five different core technical areas. whether it should include a notice of takedown structure similar to the dmc act. whether we struck the right balance with first amendment exclusions. whether a 70 or postmortem term should bel adjusted or narrowe?

whether our bill should have preemptive impact over similar state laws? whether the bill should create some process by which individuals with limited resources and minimal damages can enforce their rights under the law. so i look forward to continuing this work with my colleagues and immediately following this hearing to work to promptly formalize note faked act for introduction next month the print center blackburn and senator tillis, their great cooperation we have assembled a wonderful panel today with diverse perspectives. i encourage you as our witnesses to tell us what you like about the draft. what you dislike about the draft be specific about what changes you would like us to consider andee why. i willag introduce the witness panel and a moment but let me next and might senator tillis to make his opening remarks. >> thank you chairman, is you are going through the description of the act i was thinking we have done a lot of love the subcommittee we actually do work here.

we actually have a bunch of it nerds or other interested party showing up we have a lot of people interested in the space. i really think the note faked act is unique among the other bills that we have carried forward in terms of intellectual property. it touches everybody. normally it's about patent holders or creators, this it touches everybody. every socioeconomic strata. it is interesting but it's also one of the reasons i've got to get it right. we've got to make sure we come up with concrete solutions. we do not want to over reach. there is a need for legislation. anyone who is in the don't ask , it ain't broke category i respectfully disagree but willte be fascinated to hear testimony of we havee witnesses that are f that position. we also do not to miss the opportunity or we do not want to stifle opportunity for innovation that's what's important to get it right.

we do not even know it ai is going to look like tenures are not interesting up ai was going to make ai more sophisticate over much shorter period of time so we have also that is got to be instructive to our policy formulation. we have all seen as chairman kunz has indicated, replicas, deep fakes, photos, videos, audios we are going to show you an example here shortly. in the number is just growing so we have to work on it we have to do the very thing. entertainers, politicians, and the public at large is subject to really fake media for the last 100 years. but now it's getting serious and it is producing a multiplying at a rate that requires congressional action. i think i want to go forward a little bit of my comments. i think center consider good job

of describing some of the challenges. some of things they want to work on. this was interesting but i use ai every morning as a part of my news feed. i interact with degenerative ai for about an hour every morning cap for about two years. since they released that date that version. it's a week orr so ago we saw te estates questioning but that is interesting for folks to file the issue as closely as us we have staff ready to that up? ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> that entire musical renditin is a product of ai. and interestingly, that image the name image and likeness of something that the property of tupac's estate. the other one is an ai generated image that was obviously done in violation to the extent it was used for commercial purposes and violation of copyright. this is a hypothetical began a week or so ago. shortly after drake released

that song. so we've got work to do. legislation addressing the issues of digital replicas. i've got to get under control. there's a lot of fresh questions that have to be asked. my office in particular is guilty of putting drafts out there. the involvement of other members who put scary step out there to give you a ghost of christmas future. we've got a lot of things we've got to work on. the questions we needst answers with individuals has a no right to license and other digital likeness unless they retain counsel. should we create an exception for harmless and noncommercial users? shouldan there be a notice and takedown provision? i mean there is a lot.

there's a litany i'm not going to go through all of them i hope you all could come up with other ones. i will submit the rest of my written statement for the re record. but we have to act. this is hopefully in this congress we can act which means we need to move very, very quickly or at eight minimum lay down a basement we can pick up we come back with the new congress. and get it right i look forward in advance to reference active collaboration. i will always give the same morning i i give everyone for te only thing that really makes me mad is when i see somebody trying to, through guerrilla warfare under when the good faith efforts of this committee and my colleague. if you're at the table you can have an influence if you're not at the table you're going to be on the table. so, why don't everyone recognize our office is open to constructive criticism. where the policy does not make sense.cy does if you are in the category of it

ain't broke don't fix it you're not up with modern times i look forward to a good productive hearing today and thank you in advance for your productive collaboration as this legislation moves forward. >> think thank you, senator tillis and thank youme for anotr positive and engaging hearing it's been a great experience serving on this committee with you. today we welcome six witnesses to testify about the note faked act. first witness robert ceo of warner music group. he has a lot of experience he spent over a decade as youtube chief business officer along with other business engagements we have twigs for joining us today thank you. singer, songwriter, producer, dancer, actor is used ai to help her create and also has had personal experience with on unauthorized ai deep fake super it's great to have her voice a present from the creative community picnics we have duncan a national executive director

chief negotiator the screen actors guild american federation of television and radio artists a labor unit representing 160,000 members who work in film, television, music and more.e also part of the creative community. senior vice president associate general counsel fordi law and policy at the motion picture association he specialized in a copyright first amendment law. thank you ben. graham seat presidency of the digital media association and an organization that represents principally audio streaming companies, platforms like spotify and youtube. he also has a history as a musician and songwriter advocate. professor of law at the university of san diego sheet teaches and writes on the intersection of free speech rights and intellectual property law. >> efforts where in the witnesses each will have five minutes to provide a summary of your opening statement the

centers have your written statements. then we will proceed to questioning. each center gets five minutes for the first round will likely have two or even three rounds of questioning time and attendance permitting. witnesses would you please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. do you swear or affirm the testimony about too go before this committee be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you all at the record reflect the witnesses have been sworn. you may proceed with your opening statement. >> chairman coons, ranking member tillis, members of the subcommittee, i am robert chief exited officer of the warner music group. being here today is something i could not have imagined as a young boy growing up behind the iron curtain communist czechoslovakia.

in 1992 across the atlantic and attended state university of new york. and there i met an amazing woman from the dominican republic who eventually became my wife and now we have two amazing american daughters. i'm a proud u.s. citizen i have deep appreciation for the freedoms at the heart of this great country having grown up without them. for the past 25 years i've been attacked and be the executive i joined warner music last year after 12 years at youtube and eight years at netflix. worded music is home to an incredible rate of artists and songwriters who are moving culture across the globe. one of those artists is here with me today. she is an extraordinarily gifted singer, songwriter, actor and performer. i would also like to acknowledge and thank duncan crabtree ireland who at the recent collective bargaining agreement negotiations between sag and record labels that addresses

concerns regarding ai and artist rights. music is so often been the canary in the coal mine with the broader trends ined our society. more than any other form of communication or entertainment you sick drives culture and innovation. that is happening again with degenerative ai. today, music companies are helping artists, rights holders and tech companies figure out this new world which is both exciting and daunting. it is our job to not only help creativity to protect their rights, their livelihoods and their identities. across the industry, legends to the beatles have embraced ai as a tool to enhance their creativity. at the same time generative ai is appropriating artist identities producing deep fakes that depict people doing, saying, or singing things that

have never happened before. my accent is a vestige of my eastern european upbringing. you can hear my voice, my identity in my voice. through ai it's very easy for someone to impersonate me. and because all manner of havoc they could speak to an artist in a way that could destroy our relationship. they could say un- true things f your publicly traded company to that the media that would damage our business. unfettered defect technology has the potential to impact everyone. even all of you. your identities could be appropriate used to mislead your constituents. the truth is everyone is vulnerable. families defrauded byyo voice clones pretending to be relatives. people placed in pornography without their consent. schoolchildren had their faces inserted into humiliating scenes. some people spoke of responsible ai as a threat to freedom of

speech. but it is precisely the opposite. ai can put words in your mouth and ai can make you say things you did not say or don't believe. that is not freedom of speech. we appreciate the efforts of this committee to address this problem. including note fakes act discussion draft authored by coons, tillis, sandra blackburn, and senator klobuchar. your leadership kickstart efforts in this area we strongly support bipartisan no ai fraud act introduced in the house earlier this year but representatives the recently enacted elvis act in tennessee. after the committee minutes for the introduction of a senate bill there are three elements the bill should contain to be effective. a one,, enforceable intellectual property right likeness and

voice. each person should be allowed to license or deny that right on the free market terms and seek redress for unauthorized users. two, respect for an important first amendment principles. without goingth any further and providing loopholes that create more victims. the read, effective deterrence. to incentivize a vibrant responsible commercial marketplace and we need to maintain consequences for ai model builders and digital platforms that knowingly and violateperson's property rights. i applaud the committee for its leadership in addressing these challenging and rapidly developing issues with urgency. congress should pass legislation this year before the genie is out of the bottle while we solve a chance to get this right. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you.

>> as artists we dedicate hard work and sacrifice and the pursuit of excellence. but expectation of achieving commercial success and critical acclaim the hope grading a body of work and reputation that is our legacy. so why am i here today? i am here because my music, my dancing, acting, the way my body moves in front of the camera and the way that my voice resonates in the eye microphone is not by chance. there's reflections of who i am. which i paint my identity and sustaining foundation of my livelihood. my very essence of my being. but yet this is under threat. ai cannot replicate the depth of my life journey at those who control have the power that like of my art, replicated broadly

claim my identity and intellectual property. this prospect threatens to rewrite and unravel the fabric of my very existence. we must enact regulation now to safeguard our authenticity protect against misappropriation of our unalienable rights. three decades ago we did not realize the internet would embed itself so deeply into the core of our everyday lives. policies and controls to keep pace with the emergence of the technology were not put in place to protect artist, young people and those who are vulnerable and run away withly us. ai is the biggest leap in technological advancements since the internet. you know the saying fool me once, shame on you. full me twice, shame on me.th if we make the same mistake with the emergence of ai it will be shame on us. let me be clear i am not against

ai. as a future facing artist new technologies are exciting tool that can be used to handle deeper emotions. create fantasy worlds touch the hearts of many people. include deep fake version of myself change my personal can all see is myns exact tone of voice to speak many languages. these are similar emerging technologies a highly valuable tools. this however is all under my control i can grant or refuse consent in a way that is meaningful. what if not acceptable, is when my art and my identity can simply be taken by a third party and exploited falsely for their own gain without my consent due ceto the access of appropriate legislative control of restriction. history has shown us time and again moments of great psych advancement those in the arts have been the first to have that their work exploited and in many

instances monetized. a more vulnerable public for the same types of image invoice related exploitation. by protecting artists with legislation such and a momentous time in history they are protecting a fibril child's future from having their voice, likeness and identity taken and used as a commodity without priorsu consent. i stand before you today because you have the power to protect artist and network from dangers of exploitation and the inherent in this technology as it remains unchecked it. i'm here on behalf of all creators whose career dependent deeply on the ability to create safe in the knowledge they can maintain tight control over their own art, image, voice and identity. our careers and our livelihoods are in jeopardy. they potentially are the wider

image related of a society. you have the power to change this and safeguard our future. as art and more importantly humanof beings, we are a facet f her given, learn developed identity. our creativity is a product of this lived experience overlaid with years of dedication to qualification, training, hard work and dare i say it, significant financial investment and sacrifice. the very essence of our being the human level can be violated by the unscrupulous use of ai to create digital facsimiles stuart purports to be us in our work is inherently wrong. it is therefore vital as an industry under legislatures we work together to ensure we do all we can to protect and create intellectual right system as well as protect the very basis of who we are.

we must get this right. you must get this right before it is too late. thank you. >> thankas you. >> think of image coons, ranking member tillis and members of the subcommittee on intellectual property my name is duncan crouch at national executive director the country's largest labor union for entertainment and media artists. i'm here today to testify in support of the note fakes act. our numbers believed existential threat their ability to require consent for the creative use of the digital representation to, their payment for to protect againsts having to compete against themselves their own orn digital selves in the marketplace. chief negotiator for thehe contracts only finalized after

the longest entertainment industry strike in over 40 years. strike that lasted nearly four months the strikes in the public response to them understand ai poses real threats to them. they fully support protections against those threats. for an artist or image and likeness of the foundations of theirr performance, prints and identity developed over time through investment and hardd work. long thought for right of publicity laws and voice and invoice and imageprotection. exponential proliferationun technologies which allow for rapid and realistic fakes of voices and likenesses in your digital works and sound reporting makes this urgent for our members. this protection is federal intellectual property right will ensure our members service broad

have the same protections to individuals images likenesses and voices that they provide and now for other intellectual propertyar rights. they write should be transferable and defendable just like any other intellectual property or any kind of property someone owns with durational limitations on transfers during one's lifetime to ensure we do not enter into an era of digital indentured servitude. about to establish the seven year rule long term abusive contracts in the old studio system. some will argue there should be broad categorical first amendment based exemptions to any legislation protecting these important rights. there are no stronger advocates for the first amendment than our members. they rely on the first amendment right to tell the stories the artists and other countries are to endanger to tell. legislation protecting this important rights. no stronger advocates for the first amendment then our members. they rely on first amendment rights to tell the stories

artists and other countries are often too endangered to tell. however, the supreme court has made clear over half a century ago that the first amendment does not require the speech of the press or any other media for that matter be privileged over protection of the individual depicted. to the contrary, apply balancing test which determine which right will prevail. balancing tests are critical and incorporated into the discussion graft. they ensure that the protected individual is protected and rewarded for the time and effort into cultivating their persona will not unduly burdening for the benefit of third parties who would misappropriate the value associated with the persona drafted. with new technologies they can depict an individual's voice or likeness which is a few seconds of audio or single photograph and constantly evolving capabilities it is more important that a broad

categoricalpi exemptions be avoided and the courts be in power to balance the interests. it's also essential action be taken to address these now. our members, the public and society are being impacted by these technologies and we must takeke timely action. just as one of many examples of these technologies during the ratification campaign for our contract after the strike last year an unknown party created an unauthorized video of me saying false things about our contract and urging members to vote againstkn it tracked i deeply believe in. there was no federal right to protect me, tens of thousands of people were misled about something that really mattered to so many of us. it's neither necessary nor appropriate to wait for broad artificial intelligence regulation to be adopted. this narrow technology neutral approach can and should proceed

expeditiouslyr forward. theti companies behind these technologies arena asking for rules so they better understand the boundaries on the conduct. the no fake act will provide important guidance while helping to ensure individuals are protected from exploitation that putsat their conditions at risk. >> members of thete subcommitte, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the motion picture association and member studios about legislation to regulate the use of digital replicas. for over a century members have employed innovative new technologies to tell compelling stories to audiences worldwide from the introduction of reported sound in the 1920s, colored in the 1930s, the dazzling special effects in movies like this year's dune, the members long used technology to allow filmmakers to bring their vision to the screen in a

most compelling way possible. artificial intelligence is the latest such innovation impacting our industry. they use great promise in ai as a way to enhance the filmmaking process and provide an even more compelling experience for audiences. but we also share the concerns of actorswi and recording artiss about how ai can facilitate the unauthorized replication of their likenesses or voices to elsupplant performances by them which could potentially undermine their ability to earna living practicing their craft. the no fake act asiz a thoughtfl contribution to the debate about how to establish guardrails against abuses of such technology. however, that is leading in this area necessarily involves doing something of the first amendment sharply limits, regulating the content of speech. it will take a very careful drafting to accomplish the goals without inadvertently killing or prohibiting legitimate

constitutionally protected uses of technology to enhance storytelling. i want to -- do not require the consent of those being depicted. take the classic 1994 film forest gump that depicted the fictional character played by tom hanks navigating american life in the 1950s through the 80s including by interacting with real people from that era. famously the filmmakers using digital replica technology available at the time had forest interact and even converse with presidents or should i say former senators kennedy, johnson and nixon. to be clear those depictions did not require the consent of the heirs and requiring such consent would effectively grant for the corporate successors the ability to censor portrayals they don't

like which would violate the first amendment. in my written testimony of the details of specific suggestions we have for improving the no fake draft so that it addresses real harms without encroaching on first amendment rights. here i will highlight four points. first, getting the statutory exemptions right is crucial and i want to thank the directors for getting much of it there. those exemptions give filmmakers the clarity and certainty they needed to determine whether to move forward with spending tens even hundreds of millions of dollars on a movie or tv series. if the exemptions are not adequate, some producers will simply not proceed with their projects. a classic chilling effect that the first amendment does not allow. second, the bill should preempt state laws that regulate the use of digital replicas and expressive works. simply adding a federal layered on top of the existing patchwork of state laws would only

exacerbate the problems associated with inconsistent walls in this area. third, the scope of the right shouldws focus on the replacemet of performances by living performers. going beyond that, risks sweeping and wide swaths of first amendment protected speech which would make the statute vulnerable to being struck down on and forth, the definition of digital replica must be focused onat highly realistic depictions of individuals. it should not encompass, for example, cartoon versions of people you might see on shows like the simpsons or south park. andd lastly, before legislating it, we urge the subcommittee to first pause and ask whether the harms it seeks to address are already covered by existing law such as defamation, fraud or state right and publicity law. often the answer will be yes indicating that a new law is not

necessary. and if there is indeed a gap in the law, for example, regarding pornographic or election related to deep fakes, the best solution is narrow, specific legislation targeting that specific problem. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and i welcome your questions. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman, ranking member and thank you to the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today. i'm representing the leading music streamers. we support the committee's efforts to bring forward legislation at the federal level which should preempt existing state laws to keep pace with new technology. we join you in the objective of making sure there's appropriate protections for individuals likenesses. this is an important issue for us all to develop a clear and balanced way forward.

members benefit from clarity and law and providing cells with great experiences. indeed members have a strong track record of licensing complex rights to deliver music to fans. they worked closely with record labels and music publishers with whom theyy have long relationships and robust contracts. this is our common objective. with any new or increased rights should be appropriate and targeted. they shouldn't come at the expense of important freedoms of speech or creative expressions. norr should they be overly broad to the point of creating confusion or needless litigation. over the true objective protecting personhood. the no fake act proposes to sweep in a broad range of legitimate replicas and downstream activities within its scope. the current finish is good and bad actors alike. new rights should not undermine

theth global content supply chas on which the streaming industry depends. we are still in the early stages of the application of ai by the artistic community. we see that the existing practices for taking down illegal or deceptive content continue to suffice in this new context. streaming services are the last point in the supply chain. only the originator of the content and the label who delivers it to the services have the information necessary to establish whether the content is legitimate or not. streaming services do not have any way to know the complex chain of rights behind the content they receive from labels and distributors. to address the harms caused by a high technology used to imitate a musical artist a celebrity or other public figure, we believe the committee's objectives would be best achieved if new legislation was developed from the existing rights of published laws. this would have a number of advantages.

first, a body of the existing case law on how first amendment protections can be balanced with the individuals rights of publicity. second, liability sits squarely with the bad actors. those who created the deceptivee content in the first place into the public sphere. and third focuses on commercial music with damages that we believe are proven to be a sufficient deterrent. establishing a federal law that preempts the existing patchwork of previously published laws is both beneficial and necessary. music streaming is a global industry. we believe the rights pertaining to the person should remain inextricably tied to the individual for the duration of their life. this ensures each person is always able to retain control of how their voice is used. the discussion by the ranking member and ascenders blackburn and klobuchar have been helpful to foster dialogues and encourage all stakeholders to think about these complex

issues. i've included more in my written testimony that is intended to support the next stages of the discussion. >> thank you. professor. >> ranking member tillis and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the first amendment implications of the proposed snowflakes act. i'm a professor of law at the university of san diego school of law. i teach intellectual property classesbc and my scholarship focuses on the potential conflicts between trademark walls and the right to freedom of expression. the first amendment of the u.s. constitution commands that congress shall maked no law tht a bridge is the freedom of speech. congress generally lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter or content. this rule is subject to a few limitedd exceptions for

historically unprotected speech such as fraudulent speech obscenity. content-based regulations are generally presumed invalid unless the government can prove the law is constitutional. snowflakes act imposes restrictions on the content of speech. it targets the harm caused by the unauthorized creation and dissemination of digital replicas of deep fakes of individuals and recordings that are nearly indistinguishable from that person's actual voice, image or visual likeness. when the act applies to impersonate people in fraudulent speech it is consistent with the first amendment. there's also no conflict with of the first amendment when the actor restricts the use of digital replicas and deep fakes without consent if they constitute obscene speech or child pornography.

the problem is the current version of the no fakes act also regulates speech that is protected by the first amendment. congress must proof that it satisfies scrutiny and it must be narrowly tailored to directly and materially further its goal and not harm speech that's protected by the first amendment more than necessary. strict scrutiny analysis may be required when the government is the unauthorized use of digital replicas and political messages, news reporting, entertainment and other types ofys noncommercl speech that is fully protected by the first amendment. as it is currently drafted, i believe the no fakes act is not consistent with the first amendment because the law is overbroad and vague. however i think a revised versionpr of the law could satiy intermediate constitutional scrutiny. there are three ways congress can better protect the first amendment interests in the law.

first it is critical that it law to suppress or chill the protected speech more than necessary. the proposed no fake act does a better job than the no ai fraud act setting forth specific exemptions from liability for certain uses of another's image, voice ora likeness. the law could still be approved in certain ways but i discuss in my written testimony. it's also important congress not an active strict liability rule for an online service providers that host expression covered by the no fakes act. specific and actual knowledge of the direct infringer's use of an unauthorized digital replica should be required for liability. service providers should implement a notice and takedown system to make it easier to remove unauthorized deep fakes that violated the law. infringers mustsh also be able o challenge that takedown by filing a counter notification withth the platform.

my second recommendation is to create separate clauses of action that target different harms caused by unauthorized uses of digital replicas. this includes number one the use of deep fakes to impersonate individuals andth number two, [inaudible] number three uses that substitute for an individual's performance that theyy typically wouldn't have created in real life such as a performance in a song or movie. these causes of action should have different requirements into distinct speech protected exemptions. my third recommendation is congress and should for each provisionti of the law absolutey protects speech interest. congress can better protect the values by allowing the new federal statute to preempt the inconsistent state laws that protect the right of publicity and digital replica rights or laws that restrict the unauthorized use of digital

replicas. if licensing of digital replica rights is allowed by the act, individuals should be able to consent for each different use of their digital replica. allowing others to control the person's identity rights in a broad licensingwe agreement will work against purposes with many of the stated goals of the proposed legislation. it could potentially lead to greater generated deception of the public. it can also stifle the rights of people to make a living through their performances and result in the use of their image or their voice and sexually explicit material that was authorized by the broader terms of the licensing agreement. i encourage congress to continue to protect the interest of both public figures in ordinary people in the no fakes act and i also encourage you to consider consulting with stakeholders, academics and attorneys with expertise in the field of law. i look forward to answering your questions as you continue to improve the act. thank you. >> thank you to all of the

witnesses for your preparation and engagement. i'm going to start with questions about exploring how theth replicas are impacting individuals and the entertainment businesses and use the subsequent round to get into the perspectives on the potential revisions to the no fakes act. thank you for sharing your personal experience in the context of the ratification for the most recent contract. given your experience, should a digital replica rights applyk o all individuals regardless of whether they are commercializing their image, voice of likeness you primarily represent people who make a living who commercialize their image, voice or visual likeness. why shouldn't we have this available to everyone? >> it's a great question. we support the right that is available to everyone. obviously myself and others have explained the impact that this can have on people who make a living and whose career is based

on their image, likeness or voice but the impacts are so obvious and so real for so many americans outside of the scope of just a commercialized use and at the example i gave in my mind is not a commercial use example, this is an example that could apply to anyone and the impact is so serious, so yes we do support this right on a broader basis and it should be applicableus to everyone. >> can you help us understand how you are using ai as a creative tool on the one hand and thenen briefly tell about yr experience with aig fakes and what you think the future of the industry looks like if we don't meet the urgent call to act. over the past year i've been creating an ai version of myself that can use my tone of voice exactly to speak in multiple languages. i've done this to be able to

reach moreio of my fans to speak to them in the nuance of their language so i've critically explored french, korean and japanese which is exciting for me. it means even with my upcoming album i can explain what in-depth it's about creatively. it also allows me to spend more time making art. often being a music artist or any artist in this day and age requires a lot of press and one-liners, something simple that doesn't require my heart i can do a one liner and give it to people to promote a piece of work and it's harmless but ultimately i cans, spend more te making something that's meaningful to my fans. and the next question, you asked how there are songs online, collaborations with myself and other artists i didn't make.

it makes me feel vulnerable because first of all as an artist i think the thing i love about what i doth is that i'm vy precise. i take my time with things and i'm very proud of my work and the fact that i think my fans trust me because they know i put so much into what i do. it leaves me very vulnerable and i think if legislation isn't put in place to protect artists, not

only will we let artists down who care about what we do and spent a lot of time developing themselves into the way we work but also it would mean fans wouldn't be able to trust people they spent so many years investing in. it would affect us spiritually, financially, and it makes him honestly i'm surprised we are even having this conversation because it feels so painfully obvious that it's hard to even find the language if i am completely honest with you. >> the surprise is not unusual. [laughter] ultimately what it boils down to is my spirit, my artists and brand i spent years developing

and it's's mine. it doesn't belong to anybody else so it's to be used in a commercial sense or cultural sense or even just for a laugh im mean, i am a human being and we have to protect that. >> thank you. if icu might briefly, we have sn a steady increase in the quality of deep fakes on streaming platforms that are virtually indistinguishable from talented artists but what are the challenges that the deep fakes are creating sort of long term forfa both the music business ad for fans as well as performers? >> i think she addressed one of those. no one can do that better than what she just did. i think the second one is that when you have these deep fakes out there, artists are actually competing with themselves for revenue on the streaming platforms because there is a fixed amount of revenue in each of the streaming platforms and

if someone is uploading fake songs and those songs are eating into that revenue pool, there's lesspl left for her authentic songs, so that is the economic impact of the long-term and the volume of content that will then flow into the digital service providers will need there is a relationship impact, spiritual, financial impact, broad ecosystem of creativity. senator tillis, i turn to you. >> thank you, chairman and thank you all for being here. i'm going to start with you and have others that may have an opinion. you mentioned the notice of takedown in your comments. this is a strict liability bill in its current form. some of us think that maybe we

have to weigh in and you also talked a bit about having i guess that individual that's been informed of the takedown having some recourse. can you talk a little bit more about that briefly? >> you might have a situation where somebody challenges your own personal use of your identity and they are the one that is that a bad actor would file a complaint with the service provider and the online service provider that wants to avoid liability and takes it down so that's one possibility. another would be that thefi pern who is disseminating this image actually has a defense. and exception applies to the particular use like the news reporting or parity so it's critical for the online service provider to be able to put that expression back up if it actually does not violate the law. under the copyright law my understanding is that once the information is put back up, it stays up unless the copyright

owner files a lawsuit, so this is what's great about the takedown notice procedure is that allows ordinary people tor getin this off these unauthorizd uses off the internet, and i think that is one benefit of having this notice of procedure and encouraging companies to adopt one. there are some challenges though thatth folks like eric goldman d others have talked about, so it's great that you're talking to interested parties when you figure out these issues. >> anyone here have an opinion counter to that? can you walk me through typically what artists, what rights typically are granted to record labels that are exclusive sound recording agreements and are likenesses included in that? >> it's a pretty wide range of rights anywhere from full

copyright and distribution only. as you can imagine as we work on open platforms with lots of generated content we are the ones who have staff of people working to issue notices and claim the content, takedown content, and increasingly we need the name, image and likeness to act on that on their behalf with the platforms. >> i think you believe that new rights need to be fully transferable? >> yes. >> why isn't a license enough? >> i think it should be at the choice of the artist. the artisten should have a choie

to transfer the license. >> state level right of publicity laws restricting commercial speech of existence for many decades have been developed and they've developed their own caselaw and they are well understood. the new digital replica right proposed by the no fakes act would affect noncommercial speech beyond what most state laws currently cover. can you explain how novel the proposed right would be in the context of existing rights of publicitynd laws and how shoulde consider preempting state level digital replica laws especially when it's such new territory? >> thank you for the question, senator and you're absolutely right to most that have existed for more than a century are limited to commercial uses. that's an advertisement or merchandise. what congress is considering

doing here is really novel although sometimes described as right of publicity we think it is fundamentally different and it would apply in expressive works like movies, tv shows, songs which are fully protected by the first amendment, so there has developed a robust body of case law in the traditional commercial right of publicity context that says it applies if you put somebody space on a billboard or use it in an advertisement or lunchbox, but it doesn't apply for example if you are making a biopic or a docudrama about somebody you can't use right of publicity law to censor thoseve portrayals. again this isr a novel form of right, which is going to be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny like professor ramsey described. because it applies in expressive works, it's important upfront to provide some clarity to film producers so when they are about

to embark on a project they know what is allowed and what's not and if it is too vague and uncertain, they are going to shy away from using this technology to engage in those sorts of betrayals and again that says a statue is being vulnerable to being struck down if it shows protected speech. >> which is why we have to get itit right. there's a general consensus and we have to make progress, but thein challenges of all this wok being struck down are significant. we have to do the legwork. thank you. i will have a second round. >> senator tillis. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member for bringing this bill before us and as you said mr. chairman, the bill has gone through a lot of input from a lot of different groups and ifi listen to your testimony accurately, it doesn't sound as

though any of you think that we should not do something that will protect i like the framing of protecting personhood. to do any of you think that we don't need toas do anything in this area? okay. so, looking at of the statute why don't we go down the list very quickly. what do you like most about the current bill and we will start with you about the current a bell and what is the most important thing that you would want to change if anything and if youdo can keep your answer really short. >> i will start with what i believe amid the campaign which is it needs consent for the use of people's name and voice. the model then creates outputs.

second, it needs to contain monetization which is fair market license that that person can exercise. but in order for that to happen, and in order for all of that to be cooperation analyzed by the platforms, we needed two things. one, which is prominence of the contentt that the generative ai models arena trained on and they are outputting to be retained which means they should keep sufficiently detailed records so that later on the prominence can be embedded into the marks are recognized by the platforms on which -- >> the point ison it sounds like consent is a critical part of this, consent of the creator. >> and prominence in the content. and we are tracing that on clothing, cheese, wind, we should be able to do it on that property as well. >> going down the line, we are

talking about this particular bill. is there something in the bill that you think is the most critical aspect of the bill that you support? and is there anything that you would change in the bill? >> i think the most important thing is to put the power in the hands of the artist. i want to be in control of my likeness, my brand, my legacy. i have sacrificed so many years to be good at dancing, singing, so much my natural input, so much time, yet i do it in the name of my legacy, i do it so that one day b i can look back t my body of work and to say that was me and that's what i want to be protected in the bill. >> thank you, senator. i think what i like most about this bill is thehe fact that its broader than limiting it to commercial use. the fact is the commercial use limitation they worked 100 years ago. the commercial use limitation

does not solve the problems that we face today. especially because of generative ai and we need the breath that is reflected in this legislation. i think in terms of if there were oneed thing i would changen it, i would adopt limitation on transfers or even licenses of these rights during lifetime. i think it may not be as necessary after death, or there's various standards to look at. >> 70 years isti a bit long. >> it's the duration after death. i'm talking about the duration of a transfer even during life so if you had a 21-year-old artist granting the transfer of rights and their image, likeness orm voice, there shouldn't be a possibility of licensing that for 50 years or 60 years during

their life and not have any ability to renegotiate that transfer so i think there should be a shorter perhaps seven year limitation. >> senator, one thing that we do like about the bill is the first amendment exemptions. we think that they are most of the way they are to giving members the clarity and certainty they need. i think they can be improved a little bit and we have some specific fairly technical changes that we recommend. one thing we would recommend changing is there's currently no preemption provision. we think it should be the opposite for the reasons i was just discussing with of this novel wall with kind of some uncertainties around of the first amendment limits. we think it would be important not to preempt all of the publicity law but to preempt state regulation of digital replicas in expressive works like movies, tv shows and songs that are protected by the first

amendment. >> thank you.di the question i think -- >> if you don't mind, mr. chairman, to continue the responses. >> i'm building on some of the things said. to protect personhood is something we very much encourage with the draft. the fact is the discussion draft in terms of the key areas that we want to focus on is where the liability sets and we would encourage it to be focused on the creator releasing the content. we would prefer that it's based around the right of the publicity laws rather. actual damages rather than statutory damages and a preemption message. thank you for your questions. so, what i like most about the bill i love the specific exclusions from liability.

there might be some additional provisions made and the fact that you're protecting personhood your protecting personhoodalthoo sometimes supply noncommercial uses of a person's identity. a case of the entire act in a news report so that's not a commercial use and in the comedy case in california the supreme court case the law was applied toe a rendition of the three stooges which is also not cicommercial speech, so there ae some circumstances where current laws do apply to noncommercial uses of a person's identity and also false endorsement walls bt they have to bear used in connection with goods and services so they might be noncommercial. what should we change? i think there is a tie. first i think we should have separate causes of action as i mentioned before with distinct offenses, so for example a disclaimer might make sense if you are targeting deceptive impersonationer of someone becae

it dispels any confusion, but a disclaimer doesn't make sense and it's been put out without consent. you might have different requirements with regards to commercial use. you might have a commercial use requirement whereas if you are talking about deep fakes and impersonation it should apply to commercial and noncommercial speech and then my other part of the tie is with regards to limits on the scope of licensing.at my concern is without sufficient bargaining power of the early stages they might sign a contract that has the digital rights provision and find a way for a lengthy period of time in anyct context and so i would lie to see a way for congress to encourage work require folks who are negotiating these agreements to perhaps have a specific use

authorization for a certain movie with regards to use of your identity in any context. or instead of a lengthy period of time, i would say maybe one to five years and i'm not an expert inen the area but i think it is critical to make that shorter rather than longer because a lot of these people even if they have attorneys, they are not going to have that kind of power that the studios and music companies willr have. a. >> it's very intriguing and complicated. we will think on it. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you for your good work on the bill. we have spent months working on a discussion drafted in moving this forward, so i am so pleased

that today we are to the hearing stage on this. now i represent tennessee, so it doesn't matter if you are on music row or maybe working with one of the symphony distributors, we distribute more symphony music out of nashville tennessee than anybody else in the world. we've got gospel, contemporary christian, church music, bluegrass, we've got the museum of african-american music. it is all right there and we are really so protective of our creators. and in tennessee we kind of have the good, the bad and the ugly relationship with aia. all of our people in manufacturing and logistics and

healthcare, they are innovating and going, to town but are deey concerned about what is happening to the creative community and to exercise their constitutional right to protect their property. that is going to be so important. i want to come backte to you. i appreciate the comment you made when we were visiting, preparing for the hearing. you said we got the data wrong, datai privacy wrong. we still haven't done data privacy, and we can't afford to get ai wrong and it's going to

require that we take action. tennessee stopped up last month and they passed the elvis act. this is a great piece of legislation. and mr. chairman, what they did is take much of what we put in the discussion draft and they put it in place to protect our innovators to give them that stayed right of action. not all states are following suit on this of course and i think what we have done this kind of establish that baseline for federal action so i would like to hear from you if you will about the need for a federal standard and preemption on that fraction. >> thank you for the efforts it is truly groundbreaking.

we are in a unique moment of time where we can still act and get it right before it gets out of hand. the genie is not yet out of the bottle but it will be soon and as you mentioned, we got it wrong on privacy. we waited too late. don't get it wrong on identity. it's simply far too important. the speed at which this will happen will be afforded by open openness worsening of foundational ai models and once that happens, everything accelerates exponentially. therefore it is imperative that congress acts this year. thank you. >> we've heard some commentators talking about you've got

existing law when it comes to privacy or personal property and intellectual property protections so you can rest on that existing law and that is sufficient to go in and get a takedown order on some of these. talk to me about why that is not sufficient. >> today if you think about privacy, how many spam e-mails do you get in your box, quite a lot. your personal information is leaking everywhere whether it is being sold or taken it's not safeguarded properly. when that happens with your face and voice, it is a whole new game and for you, this will happen at a volume that is impossible for every single person to try to manage which

means it has to be solved with technology so it is technology that is our mission and that helps manage it which is why it's important for us to work with technology platforms to solve this and we have to have a working bill and law that can be operational but it's the existing framework that is simply whack a mole and it doesn't work. >> mr. chairman, if i can get one more question in. do you think the platforms should be held responsible for unauthorized ai fakes but they continue to allow to be distributed? >> i think we need to develop conditions they should meet and if they don't yes, but there has to be an opportunity for them to

cooperate and work together. when we achieved that it will work and there will be good actors and many of them are so i think it is through that cooperation that we can wrestle this town. >> senator blackburn, thank you for your cooperation on moving forward. i have a whole series of questions i want to ask so i'm going to try to move relatively quickly if i might. you testified we have to include first amendment exceptions for onworks that have public interet or newsworthy value. some people say any work involving a celebrity is newsworthy or in theen public interest and that raises the challenge of how we define first amendment exceptions to ensure they don't just swallow up the rule and prohibit all kinds of uses.

i would be interested in your views on how we narrow that and how would you craft the first exceptions to make sure they don't swallow up the whole bill particularly with regards to what isth newsworthy. >> we have talked with your staff which we have a great relationship with and other stakeholders and listed the concerns raised. while may be they are overbroad and they can somehow swallow the right of self, we've listened and we've suggested techniques to make sure that those type of exceptions dora not apply if the use of the digital replica is deceptive. we don't support fraud. fraud is not protected in the first amendment and should not be allowed. one other thing i would say is these types of statutory exemptions have been routinely included in stayed right of publicity laws over the last 25

years or so since the late '90s0s and one thing we have seen or we have not seen a man is this type of abuses of those exceptions. they've worked very well in separating out the uses where you should get permission to put somebody's face on a billboard or lunchbox. a professor, briefly. >> like kristine and i recently wrote a paper about how we can balance trademark and free speech rights when someone uses a trademark in and expressive way like a news report, entertainment and i think the proposal might work in this context. as you mentioned some of these can actually be bad, impersonation et cetera. one approach would be listing up the defenses would be to say this is an informational expressive useth that is a false statement or representation to say this is a certain celebrity

when it's not worth certain teenage girl when it's not, that would be, still even though there's argumentpr that it's expressive, or if it is likely to mislead a reasonable person about the source of the message or the speaker's identity so that way you would be able to at least consider whether the information or expressing views and the safety of its causing harm because it is deceptive then you can still regulate it. >> today you raised concerns of the bill that it lacks a mechanism for demonstrating members have knowledge. should we incorporate a notice and takedown structure and if so should it be the takedown provisions and is there another mechanism you would urge us to consider for knowledge and -- >> thank you for the question. in terms of the current situation, for the handling of the majority of the music stream consumption and processes

workingti very well i think of e example that youtu you stand we have a great example that is a common one there's been no challenge in taking down the content expeditiously. so, we don't see members needing any additional incentives here. we do understand the committee is keen to look at the we very much seek the safe harbor for an effective takedown. we don't see it being a good process for here and we have a position in terms ofof saying ts is a different set of rights. but third in terms of what we think would be an effective takedown building on some of the points the professor made in terms of it is essential that we get specific information on how

to identify the content so that it can be removed efficiently, we need information on the notifier in termsof of why is te content depending on the basis and also that information so if there is an objection to the notification that can take place. >> two more questions about preemption briefly and if i might, several witnesses have described existing state publicity laws as a difficult to navigate patchwork, and i'm sure it broadly preempts state laws were limits preemption to the state laws governing uses of unauthorized digital replica. >> i teach and every year i teach it i think we need a federal right of publicity law. state laws are so different and if you go to this great blog that talks about all the different walls and within the state the statutory provisions have different rules so yes we

need preemption but the challenge is that you are doing a great job trying to get this rightpr then you preempt state laws and it simplifies everything frompr litigants, judgesle instead of which wall s going to apply in a particular, people are going to file suit in whatever state is best for their interest. the discussion drafts as a 70 year postmortem provision modeled after the act, postmortem rights or important that we understand 70 years is a long time especially for individuals who don't commercialize their image, voice or likeness. i would be interested, several of you perhaps, should postmortem terms be longer for individuals who commercialize image, voice and likeness, should they be limited to,

should they be reviewed and extended every decade or so, like how would you handle postmortem rights? the draft has 70 years into some of you have enthusiastically supported that as part of your creative legacy and others have raised concerns. you kick us off and we will do this one quickly content based regulation needs to be justified by a compelling government interest that is tailored to serve that interest. what we have said is that as for living professional performers, use of a digital replica without their consent impacts their ability to earn a living. you have a government interest in regulating that and it would be appropriate for congress to regulate. postmortem, that job preservationon justification gos the wayrn and i've yet to hear a

compelling government interest in protecting digital replica has once somebody is deceased, so i think there's going to be serious first amendment problems with extending a right that applies in expressive works postmortem. >> anyone else think that the property rights and individual lives worthy of some protection? >> this isn't going to shock you but i'm going to say that it depends on the goal of the law. if we are talking about a law that is regulating someone's identity and if we are talking about a law that is discovering deep fakes it seems that explain like long-term possibly. if we are talking just about protection and broad federalfa publicity may be not so much and i haven't written in this area but i would recommend looking at the works of people. >> to me it is shocking that

anyone would think that this right doesn't deserve to be to preserve and protect after death. for all the reasons stated about how personal this is, it's economic rights, it's a personal right and something that has real value so why that should somehow dissipate among death and make himself available to corporate interests like the ones represented by some folks here, that doesn't make sense. i would argue there shouldn't be a limitation at all. it should be perpetual and the reason is that everyonee of us s unique. if there is no other twigs and there never will be. there isby no other you or any f us. this isn't the same thing as copyright or we are going to use this to create more creativity on top of it later. this is about a person's legacy and rides to give this to their family and let their family take advantage of the economic benefits they worked their whole life to achieve, so from my perspective this is and in intellectual property rights it

deserves protection. you should absolutely be protected after death and i'm waiting to hear a good reason t shouldn't be, to be honest with you. >> in perpetuity, not at all let's see if you can help us bring this home. >> i agree 100%. >> 100%. >> thank you all for that. would you like to make a comment on that? forgiveal me. >> i've worked so hard for my career and when i die i would like everything i've created to go toan my family and my estate that will have clear instructions over the way that i want to preserve my history and all of the art that i've created. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you mr. chairman. i got off the plane in about 20 minutes ago coming from connecticut, so i do apologize for missing the bulk of the hearing. as you may have heard we had snow outside yesterday so today was a personal day off and i was

in connecticut. i'm grateful to all of you for being here and we are very hopeful that you arey in good health and that you're going to continue creating and i am a big fan of your work so thank you for being here and mr. chairman for having this hearing, which focuses on a bill that you're going to introduce and i would like to be added at the appropriate time as a cosponsor. i am a strong supporter and i believe that there ought to be a federal right for people whose image and voice are used without their consent, whether it is an actor or songwriter or singer. what is shared here is a right in one's a, likeness and

creation as a person, an individual right, and i think there ought to be a right to take legal action under that right without a remedy. i've seen it repeated again and again in real life so as an advocate and litigator i would also like to focus on a complementary remedy which could be watermarking or identification attribution, giving creditbe and not just the right to uncover and use it withoutt attribution or credit o to speak without a watermarking

but also that kind of identification, public crediting of a work and i'm asking not only in the abstract, but i had a different subcommittee privacy, technology and law and the ranking member of the subcommittee and i set forth a framework the most comprehensive framework right now and we should do more adopting the kind of measure. but it would provide a requirement as well as an entity to oversee licensing, mandatory licensing, risk-based ai models.

maybe you can tell us, let me ask all the witnesses how watermarking can complement rules requiring permission to use someone's likeness for voice or creation. a deep ache or impersonation are simply using it without permission. >> thank you all for your important work on this issue. i think without attribution achieved through watermarking we won't be able to operationalize what we are talking about here today so you are focused on the right issue and i think the important part in this iswe to determine the providence of content that's being displayed

about the degrees of similarities to its original, and then it is up to the rights holders whether it's artists, music companies, music videos to negotiate commercial relationships with platforms, separate and aside. this is what we would have done with user generated content just in the copyright scheme where it was the same content referenced and so we built a whole framework around that. this is merely that on steroids and not with many more shades of gray and much more speed, but it's just upgrading that. the framework exists and it has been developed by companies like youtube which is best in class and that and therefore i'm hopeful we can take it further

and apply that so let's agree with some similarity using watermarks to label content. >> i can only really talk from personal experience, but in the last six months, i had 85 of my songs, leaked online which was basically the whole of my experimentation for my next album. it was scary because i thought that because it had all of my ideas put out to the whole world before it was ready. but on the flipside of that, i felt very secure because i was able to call my label and say this has happened and immediately they could go and take it down and it disappeared

and now you can find it so i think that the watermarking protects artists because we have a point of call to go to to say this has happened and immediately it can be taken down but one thing i will say is the thing that's really scary is once something is out in the world we can't take it back. big story is like the front page and they didn't dofront something wrong. it was a mistake end of the rewrite is so small and i think that is the thing i'm scared about if something does get out in the real world it's not me it's the reputation of damage that it would do in the financial and cultural hand that

want to be amended after the fact. >> if the chairman would give me more time i would be interested in answer. >> i agree on the value with watermarking and other tools but i also want to caution especially it was mentioned earlier the idea of disclaimers into solving problems, solving problems there we also have to make sure tools we use to protect against the abuses of these technologies are realistic and so expecting few words online to read the deeply on the captions to find disclaimers or things like that, that doesn't really solve this problem, so i hope as the committee considers what to do, it's not enticed into thinking that type of solution solves the problem. itit needs to be more front facg so that the message that's

delivered is received by all those. thank you for the question, senator. it's proved certain contexts, some of which has been a great help in reducing the presence of pirated materiall on that platform. i would say again our experience found a silver bullet if sometimes can help identify the original source of the pirated material and because it has a watermark on it it doesn't stop it from being further so there's no silver bullet in this context. i think robert talked about the services that are absolutely essentiall and this is where the content comes from from the service relying on the method

and the data everything that's been said before but also someone using a digital replica to impersonate someone or they put out a deep fake they are not going to use this type of technology so it's not going to help in certain circumstances. >> and i think i used the word complementary. if not i meant. all these comments are helpful. >> senator klobuchar. >> that was an ai attempt. [laughter] kind of close, not quite. professor ramsey, since you ended up there, pick up where you were about some of these and

the other witnesses mentioned about. whether it is the political robo calls or videos or ads and i wasn't going to start this way but it makes sense because of what you just said. too manyy some of it we just hae to get all of it out of there. they are not going to listen to a major candidate for three minutes and then think that and i think in other countries that's what they've done. senator kunz and collins and a number of others have come together on marking up this bill along with a laboring bills. can you talk about how the targeted approach to these hair on fire things is very important given thee timing of all this?

over thanksgiving someone called my dad while i was sitting next to him and it sounded like my brother and that he needed money to get out of jail. he wasn't duped by this but some peoples have been. it's a great idea but we still needed the broad act to deal with these type of issues for folks that are not politicians et cetera. >> my state director's son is in the marines and her husband got a call a person that had his boys and they didn't know where he was stationed so we are going to see this against military families as well with all these kind of scams. i see this having great abuses especially in healthcare but then there's the health part and that should be our job to try to

putli the guardrails in place which is why i'm so honored to be working with senator kunz and blackburn on this bill. so, one of the things that interests me during the testimony, you with the no fakes act include exemptions, exceptions for the use of digital replica is to ensure they do not show speech protected by the first amendment. can you talk about more as we talk about things and i've tried for satire and how we can do this to ensure commonsense safeguardsi do not show protecd the speech and this is upheld in the court. >> i just want to say that your approach of the pornographic deep fakes and other legislation is the right way to go when you

have a broad bill that essentially says you need permission to use digital replica sand then the courts can sort it all outre that's when yu get into trouble and have a bill that is going to end up encompassing the speech and makes it vulnerable to be struck down. so these kind ofof exceptions i think are specific to the type of legislation in the world of movies our studios that we represent make a lot of movies that are based on or inspired by real people and events. the last five years of all the best picture nominees approximatelymp half are inspird by realpe people. studios want to make sure if legislation doesn't interfere with theirir ability to do that. the nonconsensual pornographic deep fakes you don't need those exceptions for satire and parody and in almost every circumstance you can think of i think this

narrow approach is the right way to go. >> you've got the best long name in the world. [laughter] could you talk about balancing that right, creators with of the right of likeness and how do you believe weli should balance tha? >> we all agree it has to be protected into that expressive speech is important. the exceptions that are written to this. discussion now or not that far off but it's important they not be expanded upon nor do they be broader than necessary because the fact is we can't anticipate what it's going to do tomorrow. we cannot anticipate every iteration and while there are certain specific uses or concerns that are being addressed by legislation like you've referenced, there is a

broad need for protection. the example in my opening statement, and twigs gave examples as they apply to her so we do need to have the proper balance and i'm concerned we are only looking at one side of the consideration here and the right that each of us as to our own freedom of speech to communicate our ideas and that's being trampled on by this unfettered ability of people without a federal right. we have to work on defining these exceptions and making sure they are no broader than necessary to keep. allno of this work well have ben

for naught and the reality is this technology is fundamentally different and what it could do. do any of you because senator blackburn worked with us on this bill and is going to be a cosponsor and they just did. you are fiercely independent and protective of their incredible music and our state but. we need to have this international standard is why it's important.

>> i want to comment on some of the things from before which is someone that grew up without the first amendment i value it probably more than those that have because i do not take it forr granted now. half off the movies were based n existing folks. saying that any ai regulation that is respectful of the existing first amendment is not reducing it. it's keeping it as it is. so i do think we need to stay in the limits of the first amendment and do not go out. with national regulation we work with global platforms. global platforms doing things state-by-state is a very cumbersome process.

if we have to fight that state-by-state it's unattainable. it just doesn't work. mr. davies, that will be my last one. to me this training is global and the success from the uk or tennessee. we would very strongly. in january we heard testimony that the generative ai has been used to create digital replicas of news anchors.

i have a vested interest. my dad was in interest the what steps can be take so the journalists are not -- >> about the desire to make a very big financially successful films about artists without

consent. i think the public knows if you are able to use a voice and likeness without consent about their life story, you're giving the impression. that is the confusion if you're able to use my voice and face and say this is what happened from my point of view and it's not, it's what happened from a team of riders. they are going to make it more tragic or more fantastical and i think that is whatof makes me nervous and feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. i don't think it's fair that even after, that someone would be able to make a film about their life using them. we can watch a film about a

person. unfair andnd actually not -- >> i'm going to be brief. i did have a question for you. current legislationis individuas have a right to license out there digital likenesses if they hired an attorney or the member of the organization. we had a some feedback that says your organization in particular that this is a giveaway. can you give me other examples of what. can you give me other examples in the case that you have to

engage in an attorney or labor interests or move forward. >> sure and i guess i would say i don't just think that it's our union that would be any but there'spl another of examples we find that can be deviated from then a collective bargaining arrangement but not individual. that isn't normally present in those kind of statutes but i'm sure that i could provide. if you take a look at the attendance in the audience and the engagement from the members

but to have members go twice a lot of times demonstrates. i do believe congress needs to act but you need to understand about this is tough to get. i'm just trying i think people need to understand one of the reasons, this is an existential threat to, creators and i am trying to figure out how we educate people on the difference between an original creation

from a human being that was created from a machine. this is more of a societal thing that we have to sort out. at what point is society prepared to say this sounds good i know it comes from a machine. if you mentioned something about theat investment of your fans tt they've made in you, how do you invest in a relationship with a machine? what an interesting time we can have billions of people saying the inauthentic creation of a machine that somehow as good as the hard work of a human being. it is a philosophical question odat what point can those machis never possibly match the creative genius of an individual?

i think i have two things, i feel incredibly lucky to have spent all of my teenage years without a smart phone, so i struggled in a generation where i would walk to my friend's house if we said we were going to meet at 1:00 i just had to be there. there was no texting and saying i was going to be late. i loved my brain back then and how simple it was. i lovedho that i was able to thk for myself. even where we areyi at with of e internet now, it's confusing even if you don't want to find a news story, we can and even if you want the truth about whether a food is good for your bad we cannot, it is a stream of

nonsense. iwh look at a lot of my friends that have teenagers. we are looking at anxiety, depression, because i was overwhelmed with information and lack of truth and stability. the thing that scares me is my fans look at me, look to me for the northstar message. my work is something they can find themselves in. the solid absolute of my work workplace continuesju developing if someone could take it and make something completely different i feel so bad because i'm harming people then and there would be nothing i canso o about it. thed way we can prevent this fm happening is putting the power in the hands of the artist and also putting their hands in the

power of the people that will protect the artist whether it's the parties like record labels or agents, that is up to the actors to understand and to find a contract but i think the way that i've been experimenting with deep fake is going to help my fans understand across all parts of the world like the way that i once use it isn't harmful because i think inherently artists just want to express their emotions, be there for people and say things you can't say for yourself. so if you're putting words in our mouth. i'm glad there were no cell phones when i was a younger person for more than one reason.

[laughter] but i do think i am glad that we are taking up this bill. i do feel strongly we should do everything we can to move it in this congressid and if not thate have to lean into it and get it done in the near future but when we have these discussions we need to get it right. this technology i love it and interact with generative ai for about an hour as a part of my own study of it and a study that began back in the 1980s and artificial intelligence for me personally but we have a lot of work to do. congress has a role to play but we have to be careful not to overstep or trample80 the rights of others and we are going to need your help and continued engagement. thank you all for being here today.

to be at you and senator blackburn have been terrific to work with and i'm grateful to all of the witnesses you've brought your skills and value and background, creativity and voice to theon hearing today and we've engaged in a lot of different challenging questions about how we could refine this and narrow it. there've been a lot of members who participated. for those who did not participate or still have other questions, the record will be open for questions for the record for the witnesses. they are due one week from today at five. case, two weeks. if i could come at today's hearing was important to show that when we regulate the use of ai we have to balance privacy rights and first amendment rights in a way that doesn't stifle creativity and innovation with these rapidly developing

tools. it reinforces what we did today. why we need a clear policy to protect all individuals. i look forward to working with my colleagues and cosponsors and others that attended a two-day to refine this in the next week or two and get to the point we can introduce it next month so we move from discussion draft to reality. i think we need to seize the moment and look forward. thank you for your testimony and with that, the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]