people's house, was meeting one on one with her constituents. six wonderful people died that day. including my friend gabe zimmerman, my go to guy on the congresswoman's staff. >> c-span powered by cable. >> musician and actor twigs with other music and movie industry leaders testified before senate judiciary subcommittee about intellectual property concerns with digital replicas and generative artificial intelligence. they had first amendment protections, use of deep fakes and the need to hold those committees fraught with ai technology accountable. the hearing is 2 hours.

[inaudible conversations] >> the subcommittee and senate judiciary committee will come to order. i would like to thank our witnesses for participating today, my colleagues for joining me. i would like to thank ranking member tillis and his staff for working for putting this hearing together and thank senator blackburn for partnering with us on this hearing. about ten months ago, senator tillis and i held a subcommittee hearing on artificial intelligence and copyright law and their intersection. i opened the hearing with the debut of a new ai generated csonka, aia i, a riff on frank sinatra's new york new york

with lyrics created by chat gpt and voice cloning technology used to mimic frank sinatra's voice. the song was fun to create with permission from the right holders of course, but also highlighted some pressing legal questions about generative ai, was my song protected speech? if i hadn't gotten permission with the song have violated mr. sinatra's rice to his voice and his style? since that hearing, ai generated replicas have only grown more pervasive, from deep fake videos of celebrities talking products to songs made with voice cloning tools, closing as legitimate hits, to scam calls mimicking a panicked grandchild's voice. ai generated replicas of tom hanks and gayle king were used to advertise medical services and a taped version of the on musk encouraged consumers to invest in a crypto currency scam. drake, m&m, areata grande,

beyoncé are a few of the musical artists seen their voices mimicked by ai clones. mcafee, our global leader in online protection found one in four american adults have experienced an ai voice scam with three quarters having lost money. scammers using ai generated replicas of grandchild's voice to trick a grandparent out of money have become so sophisticated the cft and ftc have issued warnings. these examples are related commercial speech, but ai deep fakes don't stop there. using other examples, nonconsensual explicit deep fake images and videos that is addressed in the defiance active senators durbin and grant. ..generated warnings. ai deepfakes don't stop there. we've seen other examples, nonconsensual explicit deepfake photos and videos. election interference, from the election interference, from the

before they were taken down of was cloned president biden encourage voters to stay home going to have two primary and in slovakia deepfake likely had an impact on thehe outcome of a national election. in summary, it's a atolls of the coming christmas of or it becomes easier to replicate and distribute fake images of someone. fakes of their voice, their likeness without consent. we can't let this challenge built on answered and an action should not be an option. president biden cautioned we must regulate and i voice impersonation but do so thoughtfully, striking the right balance between defending individual rights and fostering anti-innovation and creativity. both congress and the administration have been working to strike that balance, a bipartisan group of senators young, heinrich, browns and schumer convened nine ai forums last year and senator schumer has encourage committees to work on ai legislation on a

bipartisan basis just as we are doing today. that's why i was excited to release the no fakes act discussion last october with senator tillis, blackmun nicole bush are. this that would protect people from having their images, voices or likenesses used to great digital replicas that say or do things they never agree to our would never say. the bill accomplishes this broad goal in two ways. by holding individuals and companies liable if they produce an unauthorized digital replicate of an individual's voice image or likeness. and by holding platforms liable if they post registered and unauthorized digital replicate of the platform those of person depicted did not authorize it. unlike current light of publicity laws many states have enacted which often a focus on celebrities, , the money title like this and leave ordinary people without remedy no fakes act protection will provide to all individuals regardless of whether they commercialize their voices images are likenesses.

our builderskn be careful to balance these protections against free speech rights. the first amendment will apply to this bill whether we say it does or not. we make clear carveouts like, for example, parody and satire remain available to creators to continue to foster their artistic and innovative potential of the eye. over the past six months we've had literally dozens of meetings and received extensive feedback, hundreds if not thousands of proposed revisions, tweaks, at its come wholesale changes on the discussion draft from stakeholders who love the draft, who hated the draft, of you and in between. that was exactly the point and appreciate the many constructive suggestions we have received. that's the point of having a hearing today with folks who support the bill, who questioned the bill, who opposed the bill and have a real dialogue. let me close, the feedback is centered around a few five differentth core technical area. whether we should include a notice of takedown structure similar to the dmca.

whether we have struck the right balance with first amendment exclusion. whether a 70 year postmortem term should be adjusted or narrowed. whether a bill should havee preemptive impact over similar state laws. was the bill should create some process by which individuals with limited resources and minimal damages can enforce the rights under the law. so i look forward to continuing his work with mybi colleagues ad immediately following this hearing to work to promptly formalize the no fakes act for introduction next month. with senator blackburn and senator tillis, the great cooperation, we have assembled a wonderful panel today with diverse perspectives. i encourage you as a witness to tell us what you like about the draft, which you dislike about the draft, and be specific about what changes you'd like us to consider and why. i'll introduce the witnessnd pal in a moment but let me next invite senator tillis to make his opening remarks. >> thank you, chairman coons.

as you're going to the description of the no fakes act i was thinking about we got a lot, i love the subcommittee because we actually do work year. we actually have a bunch of ip nerds or other interested party showing up. we have a lot of people interested in the space, but it think the nosu fakes act is unie among the other bills that we've carried forward in terms of intellectual property because it touchesha everybody. normally it's about patent holders. or creators. this touches everybody, , every socioeconomic strata. it's interesting but it's also one of the reasons why we got to get it right. we have got to make sure that we come up with concrete solutions. we don't want to overreach. there is a need for legislation, sogh anyone who is in the don't fix it, it ain't broke category, i respectfully disagree. but i would be fascinated to hear testimony if we have witnesses who are of that position. we also do want to miss your

opportunity or we don't want to stifle opportunities for innovation. that's why it's important to get it right. we don't even know what ai is going to look like ten years from now. interestingly enough, ai's going to make ai if most of the scare over much shorter period of time so we, that's got to be instructed to our policy formulation. we have all seen as chairman coons has indicated, replicas, deepfakes, photos, videos, audios, work on a show an example here shortly, and the numbers just growing. we have to work on it. we have to do the fair thing. entertainers, politicians and the public at large have been subject to really fake media for really much of the last 100 years. but now it's getting serious and its producing and multiplying at a rate that requires congressional action.

i wanted to, i think i want to go forward a little bit in my comments because i think senator coons did a good job of describing some of the challenges come some the things we want to work on with our bill. but i would like to, i think if staff is prepared, want to show you a video to give you a recent example. i use ai every morning as a part of my newsfeed. so i interact with, ai about everyone, have for about two years. chatgpt first released the beta version of open ai, chatgpt. it was a week or so ago that i saw the estate of tupac questioning a recent production, let's study this more. we thought it wasas interesting for folks who are not following the issue as closely as as to show the video. we got staff ready to queue that up?

♪ ♪ ♪in ♪ ♪ you seem a a little nervous about all the publicity [bleep] we need to know -- ♪ ♪ talk about it like it, heard it on the podcast. it's got to be true ♪ ♪ >> so that entire musical rendition is a product of ai. interestingly, that image, one of those, that name, image, and likeness is something that is a property of tupac estate. the other one is an ai generated that was obviously done in violation to the extent was used for commercial purposes in violation of a copyright. so just give you an example,

this is a hypothetical here this happen beginning the week or so ago, shortly after drake released that song. so we've got work to do. legislation addressing the issues of digital replicas, you have a multibillion-dollar implication. we've got get under control. now, are a lot of questions that have to be asked here my office in particular is guilty of putting draft out there knowing that they are drafts. sometimes we even do itof sooner without the cooperation or involvement of other members because we put scary stuff out there to give you a ghost of christmas future. in this case we didn't do that. we tried to work on putting out the discussion draft the make sense. but we've got a lot of things went to workout. the questions that we need answered,, is it wise to mandate that individuals have no right to license out of the digital likeness and less to retain counsel? should we create an exception

for harmless noncommercial users? should the be a notice and takedown provision? i mean there's a lot, a litany, i'm not going to go through all of them. i hope you all can come up with other ones, but i'll submit the rest of my written statement for the record, but we have to act. this is, hopefully, in this comments we can ask them which means we have to move very quickly, or at a minimum lay down the baseline thatit we can pick up when you we come baa new congress and get it right. so i look forward in advance to everybody's active collaboration. will always give is a morning i given you one. the only thing that really makes me mad is when i see somebody trying to through guerrilla warfare undermined the good-faith efforts of this committee and my colleagues. if you're at the table you can have an influence. it cannot at the table you're going to be on the table. so why don't everybody just

recognize our office is open to constructive criticism, use cases of where the policy sense, but if you're 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, effective hearing today. and thank you in advance for your productive collaboration as this legislation moves forward. >> thank you, senator tillis. thank you for another positive and engaging here. it's been au great experience serving on this committee with you. today, we welcome six witnesses to testify about the no fakes act.to our first witness is robert cancel, ceo of warner music group who has a lot of experience -- robert cancel -- chief business officer among a number of the business engagements. next we have twigs, thank you for joining us today. a singer songwriter producer and actor who is used ai to help her create and also is that personal experience with unauthorized ai

deepfakes. it's great to havee a voice present from the creative community. next we have duncan crabtree-ireland, national executive director and chief negotiator for sag-aftra, the screen actors guild american federation of television and radio artists. a labor union representing 160,000 members who work in film, television, music and more. more. also the voice of creative community. and we have ben sheffner, senior vice president associate general counsel for law and policy at the motion picture association. where he specializes in copyright and first amendment law. thank you. we welcome graham davies present the digital media association an organization that represents principally audio streaming companies platforms like spotify in youtube. mr. davies has a history as a musician and songwriter advocate here finally will hear from lisa ramsey professor of law at the university of san diego school of lover she teaches and writes on the intersection of

free-speech rights and intellectual property law. after i swear in witnesses, each will have five minutes to provide a summary of your opening statement that the senators have you written statement. then we will proceed to question, featured senator gets five minutes for the first round. we will likely have two or even three rounds of questioning. time andat attendance permittin. witnesses, would you please tend, raise your right hand to be sworn in. [witnesses were sworn in] thank you all. let the record reflect the witnesses have been sworn. mr. kinzel, youe may proceed wh your opening statement. help you god? thank you all. let the record reflect the witnesses have been sworn. mr. kinsle, you can proceed with your opening statement. >> chairman kuhns, rank and member tillis, and members of

the subcommittee. i'm robert kinsle, chief executive 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 in communist czechoslovakia. i attended state university in new york, and there i met an amazing woman who eventually became my wife and now we have two amazing american daughters. i'm a proud american citizen and 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 a tech and media executive. i joined warner music last year after 12 years at youtube and eight years at netflix. warner music is home to an incredible array of artists and songwriters who are moving culture across the globe.

one of those artists twigs is here with my today. she is an extraordinarily gifted singer, songwriter, actor, and performer. i would also like to thank duncan crabtree ireland who negotiated between sag-aftra and record labels regarding ai and defends artist rights. music has so often been the canary in the coal mine for the broader trends in our society. more than any other form of communication or entertainment, music drives culture and innovation. and that's happening again with generative ai. today, music companies are helping artists, rights holders, and tech companies figure out this new world, which is both exciting and daunting. it's our job to not only help amplify artist creativity, but to protect their rights, their

livelihoods and their identities. across the industry, legends from roberta flack, to the beatles, have embraced ai, as a tool to enhance their creativity. at the same time, generative ai is appropriating artist identities, and producing deepfakes of artists singing, saying, or doing things they've never done before. you can hear my identity in my voice. through ai, it is very easy for someone to impersonate me and cause all manner of havoc. they could speak to an artist in a way that destroys our relationship. they could say untrue things to the media that would damage our business. unfeathered deepfake technology has the potential to impact everyone, even all of you. your identities could be appropriate rated, and used to

mislead your constituents. the truth is, everyone is vulnerable. families defrauded by voice clones pretending to be relatives, people placed in pornography without their consent. some people have spoken of ai as a threat to freedom of speech, but it's precisely the opposite. ai can put words in your mouth, and ai can make you say things you didn't say or don't believe. that's not freedom of speech. we appreciate the efforts of this committee to address this problem. including the no-fakes act discussion draft authored by chairman kuhns, ranking member tillis, senator blackburn and senator klobuchar. your leadership kick started efforts in this area, and we strongly support the bipartisan, no ai fraud act introduced in the house earlier this year by representatives salazar and dean, and the

recently enacted elvis act in tennessee. as the members -- as the committee moves toward the introduction of a senate bill, there are three elements the bill should contain to be effective. one, an enforceability property right for likeness and voice. each person should be allowed to license or deny that right on the free market terms and seek redress for unauthorrized uses. two, respect for an important first amendment principles, without going any further and providing loopholes that create more victims. and three, affective deterrents. to incentivize a vibrant and responsible commercial marketplace, we need to maintain consequences for ai model builders that knowingly

violate person's property rights. i applaud addressing these challenges issues with urgency. congress should pass legislation this year, before the genie is out of the bottle, while we still have a chance to get this right. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. kinsle. twigs. >> as artists, we dedicated a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice in the pursuit of excellence. not only in the expectation of achieving commercial success and critical acclaim, but also in the hope of creating a body of work and recognition that is our legacy. so why am i here today? i'm here because my music, my acting, my dancing, the way that my body moves and the way my voice resonates through a microphone is not by chance. they are reflections of who i am.

my art is a canvas by which i paint my identity. it is the very essence of my being, yet this is under threat. ai cannot replicate the depth of my life journey, yet those who control it, hold the power to mimic the likeness of my art, replicate it, and falsely 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 and protect against misproposation of our inalienable rights. three decades ago, we did not realize that the internet would embed itself so deeply into the core of our evidence lives. policies and controls to keep pace with the emergence of the technology were not put in place to protect artists, young people and those that were vulnerable and it ran away with us. ai is the biggest leap in technological advancement since the internet.

you know the saying. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. 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 an exciting tool that can be used to express deeper emotions, create fantasy worlds, and touch the hearts of many people. in the past year, i have developed my own deepfake version of myself that is not only trained in my personality, but can also use my exact tone of voice to speak many languages. these and similar emerging technologies are highly available tools. this, however, is all under my control, and i can grant or refuse consent in a way that is meaningful. what is not acceptable is when my art, and my identity can simply be taken by a third

party and exploited falsely for that own gain, without my concept of the absence of appropriate legislative control and restriction. history has shown us time and again, in moments of great advancement, those in the arts are those first to have their works exploited and commode commoditized. by protecting artists with legislation, at such a momentous time in history, we are protecting a 5-year-old child in the future from having their voice, likeness, and identity taken without prior consent. i stand before you today because you have it in your power to protect artists and their work from the dangers of exploitation and the theft inherent in this technology if it remains unchecked.

i am here on behalf of all creators whose careers depend deeply on their voice, likeness, and identity. potentially are the wider image and related rights of society. you have the power to change this and safeguard our future. as artists, and more importantly, human beings, we are a facet of our given land, and developed identity. our creativity is the 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. that the very essence of our being at its most human level

can be violated by the unscrupulous use of ai that -- it is vital we work together to ensure we do all we can to protect and create an 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's too late. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, chairman kuhns, ranking member tillis and the members of the sub committee on intellectual property. i'm the national director of sag-aftra, the country's largest labor union for media and artists. i'm here to testify in support of the no-fakes act. our numbers believe ai poses an

existential threat to their ability to one, create consent for the use of their digital representation. two, receive fair paymentment for their voice and likeness, and three, to protect them from having to compete against themselves in the marketplace. i'm negotiator for last year's historic agreement with the major entertainment studios which was only finalized after the longest strike in 40 years, a strike that lasted four months. the broader public understand that ai poses real threats to them and they fully support protections against those threats. for an artist, their image and likeness are the foundations of their performance, brand, and identity, developed over time through investment and hard work. sag-aftra has long fought for right of publicity laws and voice and image protections.

the exponential proliferation of technologies which allow for of voices and likenesses and or audio and visual works and sound recordings makes the work urgent for our members. intellectual property rangers members and all of us are protected and service providers provide the same protections to individuals' images, likeness and voices that they provide now for other intellectual property rates. they should be translatable like other intellectual property or any kind of property someone owns with durational limitations on transfers during one's lifetime to ensure we don't enter era of indentured servitude like actress and sag-aftra member bed to have an established the seven year rule to end abusive contracts. some will argue there should be broad categorical first amendment based exemptions to any

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 the right of the press to report on matters of public interest or the entertainment media to tell stories at the same time, the test help ensure the depicted

individual is not compelled to speak for the benefit of third parties who would misappropriate the value associated with the persona they have carefully crafted. with new a.i. technologies that can realistic depict an individual's voice or likeness with a few seconds of audio or single photograph and with constantly evolving capabilities with these technologies, it is more important broad categorical exemptions be avoided and the courts be empowered to balance the competing interest. it is also essential that action be taken to address these harms now. our members, the public, and our society are impacted right now by the use of deepfake technology and we must take timely action. just as one of many examples of the of use of deepfake technology, during the ratification campaign for our contract after the strike last year, unknown party on the internet created unauthorized deepfake video of me saying false things about our contract and urging members to vote against it. someone devoted my life more than a year to a contract i deeply believe in. there was no

federal right to protect me, no take down right, tens of thousands of people were misled about something that really mattered to so many of us. it is neither necessary nor appropriate to wait for broader artificial intelligence regulation to be adopted. this narrow and technology neutral approach can and should proceed expeditiously forward. the companies behind many of these technologies are asking for rules so they better understand the appropriate boundaries on their conduct to the no fix act provides important guidance while helping to ensure individuals and protected from exploitation that puts livelihood and reputation at risk. thank you for this opportunity to speak and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. crabtree- ireland. >> mr. schaffner. day members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the association about legislation to regulate the use of digital replicas. over a century, the mpa members have employed innovative new technologies to tell compelling

stories to audiences worldwide. from the introduction of recorded sound in the 1920s, color in the 1930s, dazzling special effects for movies like this year's dune part 2. bringing the vision to the screen and the most compelling way possible. artificial intelligence is the latest such innovation impacting our industry. mpa sees great promise with a.i. as a way to enhance the filmmaking process and provide even more compelling experience for audiences. we also share the concerns of actors and recording artists about how a.i. can facilitate the unauthorized replication of their likenesses or voices, to plant performances by them which could potentially undermine their ability to earn a living practicing their craft. the no fakes act is a thoughtful contribution to the debate about how to establish guardrails against abuses of such technology.

however, legislating in this area necessarily involves doing something the first amendment sharply limits, regulating the content of speech. it will take very careful drafting to accomplish the bill's goals without inadvertently killing or prohibiting legitimate, constitutionally protected uses of technology to enhance storytelling. i want to emphasize this is technology that has entirely legitimate uses. uses that are fully protected by the first amendment and do not require the consent of those being depicted. take the classic 1994 film forrest gump, which depicted the fictional character played by tom hanks, navigating american life from the 1950s through the '80s including interacting with real people from that era. famously, the filmmakers using digital replica technology available at the time had him interact and converse with presidents or

should i say former senators, kennedy, johnson, and nixon. to be clear, those depictions did not require the consent of their heirs and it would grant heirs or corporate successors the ability to censor portrayals they don't like which would violate the first amendment. in my written testimony, i detailed specific suggestions we have for improving the no fakes draft so 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 drafters for getting much of the way there. those exemptions give filmmakers the clarity and certainty they need to determine whether to move forward with spending tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars on a movie or tv series if the statutory exceptions 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 pre- empt state laws that regulate the use of digital replicas in expressive works, simply adding a federal layer on top of that existing patchwork of state laws would only exacerbate the problems associated with inconsistent laws in this area. third, the scope of the right should focus on the replacement of performances by living performers. going beyond that risks sweeping in wide swaths of persimmon protected speech that would make the statute vulnerable to being struck down on overbreadth grounds. fourth, the definition of digital replica must be focused on 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. lastly, before legislating, npa

urges the subcommittee to first pause and ask whether the harms it seeks to address are already covered by existing law such as defamation, fraud, state right of publicity law. often the answer will be yes indicating that a new law is not necessary. if there is a gap in the law, for example, regarding pornographic or election related deepfakes, 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 mr. sheffner. mr. davis. >> good afternoon and thank you to the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today on this important issue. my name is graham davies and president and ceo of the digital media association representing the leading music streaming services. we support the committee efforts to bring forward legislation at the federal level which should pre-

empt existing state laws to keep pace with new technology. we join you in the objective of ensuring appropriate protections for individuals likenesses, important issue for us all and support efforts to develop clear and balanced way forward. members benefit from clarity and lot providing fans with great experiences. indeed, our members have a strong track record of licensing complex rights to deliver music to fans, they work closely with record labels and music publishers with whom they have long relationships and robust contracts. this is our common objective. any new or increased rights should be appropriate and targeted him and they should not come at the expense of important freedoms of speech or creative expression. nor should they be overly broad to the point of creating confusion or needless litigation. over the true objective of protecting personhood.

the no fakes act proposes to sweep and broad range of legitimate replicas and downstream activities within its scope. the current draft punishes good and bad actors alike. and new rights should not undermine the global content supply chains in which the streaming industry depends. we are in the early stages of the application of a.i. by the artistic community but we see existing practices for taking that illegal or deceptive content continued to suffice with this new context. streaming services are the last point in the supply chain, only the originator of the content and delivers the services has resources necessary to determine whether the content is legitimate or not. streaming services do not have any way to know the complex chain of rights and the content they receive from labels and distributors.

to address the harms caused by a.i. technology used to imitate a musical artist, celebrity, or other public figure, we believe the committee objectives best achieve this new legislation was developed from existing right of publicity laws. this would have a number of advantages, firstly, body of existing case law on how first amendment protections can be balanced with the individual rights of publicity. second, liability sits squarely with the bad actors, those who create the deceptive content and first place it into the public sphere. thirdly, the focus is on commercial use with actual damages which we believe are proven to be a sufficient deterrent. establishing federal law that pre-empts the existing patchwork of service the public laws 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 maintain control of how their voices used. the discussion draft released by the senators has been helpful to foster dialogue and encourage stakeholders to think about complex issues. >> thank you. professor ramsey. >> chairmann coons, ranking member tillis and other members of the subcommittee, thank you fork the opportunity to testify today about the first amendment implications of the proposed no fakes act. i'm a process of life university of san diego school of law. i teach intellectual property classes at usd and myth scholarship focuses on the potential conflicts between trademark laws and the right to freedom of expression. the first amendment of the u.s. constitution commands congress shall make no law that abridges 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 limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech such as fraudulent speech and obscenity. content-based regulations of speech are generally presumed invalid unless the government can prove the law is constitutional. the no fakes act imposes restrictions on the content of speech. it targets the harmsva caused by the unauthorized creation and dissemination of digital replicas of deepfakes of individuals and recordings that are nearly indistinguishable from that persons actual voice, image, or visual likeness. when act applies to use of digital replicas to impersonate people in fraudulent speech or misleading commercial speech, it is consistent with the first amendment. there's also no conflict with the first amendment when the act restricts the use of digital

replicas in sexually explicit deepfakes without consent if those images or videos constitute obscene speech for child pornography. the problem is that the current version of the no fakes act also regulates non-misleading speech that is protected by the first amendment. congress must therefore prove that the act satisfies constitutional scrutiny. the law must bee narrowly tailored to directly and materially further its goals and not harm speech that's protected by the first amendment more than necessary. strict scrutiny gnosis may be required when the government is regulating the unauthorized use of digital replicas in political messages, news reporting, entertainment and other types of noncommercial speech, fully protected by the first amendment. as it is currently drafted i believe in no fakes act is not consistent with the first amendment because the law isin over broad and vague. however, think ate revised versn of the law could satisfy intermediate and strength that

can strengthen constitutional screwed. there are three ways. first, it's critical the law not suppressed or kill protected speech more than necessary. the senators propose no fakes act as a better job than the no ai fraud act in setting forth specific exceptions -- exemption from liability for certain non-confusing non-confusing uses of another's image, voice are like this. a lot can be improved in certain ways that i discuss in my written testimony. it is important congress not enact a strict liability ruleke for online service providers that host expression covered by the no fakes act. specific an actual knowledge of the direct infringers use of an unauthorized digital replicas should be required for liability. liability. online service providers should implement a notice and takedown system to make it easier to remove unauthorized deepfakes that violate the law. accused infringers was also be

able to challenge takedown request by filing a counter notification with the platform. my second recommendation for congress to create separate causes of action that target different harms caused by unauthorized uses of digital replicas. this includes,co number one, te use of deepfakes to impersonate individuals in a deceptive manner. number two uses of sexually explicit deepfakes. number three, uses that substitute for an individual performance that he typically would have created in real life such as a performance in a song or movie. these causes of action should have different requirements and distinct speech protective exceptions. my third recommendation is that congress in short each provision of the law adequately protects speech interest. congress can better protect expressive values by allowing the new federal statute to preempt the inconsistent state laws that protect the right of

publicity and digital replicate rights or laws that restrict the unauthorized use of digital replicas. if licensing of digital replicate rights is allowed by the act, individuals should be able to consent for each different use of the digital replicate. allowing others to control a persons identity rights through a broad licensing agreement will work at cross purposes with many of the stated goals of this proposed legislation. they could potentially lead to greater ai generated deception of the public. they can also stifle the right of people to make a living to their performances and result in use of their image or the voice in sexually explicit material that was authorized by the broad terms of ari licensing agreemen. i encourage congress to continue to protect the interests of both public figures and ordinary people in the no fakes act. i encourage you toal continue consulting with stakeholders, academics and attorneys with expertise in in the field of.

i look forward to answering your questions as you continue to improve the act. thank you. >> thank you. thank you to all six of our witnesses for your preparation, your engagement. i will start with questions about exporting up a knife replicas are impacting individuals and entertainment business and use the subsequent round to get into your perspectives on specific potential revisions. to thewi no fakes act. mr. crabtree-ireland, thank you for sharing your personal experience with jay and i generate deepfake, the ratification fight for thent mot recent contract. even your experience, should a digital replicate right apply to all individuals records of whether they are commercializing their image voice or likeness? you primary represent people makeur a living who commercialie their like this. why should we have this built available to vote? >> it's a great question, kevin. yes, we supported by right available to everyone.

obviously twigs, myself and others, mr. kyncl have explained the impact this can have on people who make a living and whose career is based on their image likeness or voice. but the impacts is obvious and so real for so many americans outside of the scope of just a commercialize use an example i gave in my mind is not a commercial use example. this is an example that could apply to anyone and impact is so serious. so yes, we do support this right on a broader basis and should be applicable to everyone. >> could help us understand how you are using ai as the creative tool on the one hand,, and then briefly tells a littleth bit bit about your experience with ai deepfakes and what you think the future of your industry looks like if we don't heed your urgent call for us to act? >> over the past year i have been creating an ai version of

myself that can use my tone of voice exactly to speak in multiple languages. i have done this to be able to reach more of my fans and to be able to speak to them in the nuance of the language. i have currently explored french, korean and japanese which is really exciting for me. it means even with the upcoming album i can really explain in depth what it is about creatively. it also allows me to spend more time making art. often being a music artist, or any artist interesting edgecomb requires a lot of press and a lot of promo, a lot of one-liners. that means if it's something simple but doesn't require my heart i can do one liner and give it to people to promote a piece of work and it's harmless but ultimately i can spend more time making something that's really meaningful to my fans. at the next question you asked -- >> your own experience with

deepfakes . >> there are songs online, collaborations with myself and other artists that i did not make. it makes me feel vulnerable because, first of all, as an artist i i think the thing i e about what to do is i'm very precise. i take my time with things. it's really what, i'm very proud ofi my work and very proud of e fact i think by fan me because they know i put so much deep meaning of my north star into what i do. so the fact that somebody could take my voice, change a lyrics, change messaging, maybe work with an artist i didn't want to work with or maybe work with an artist i wanted to work with now the surprise is ruined. he released me vulnerable. i think if legislation isn't put

in place to protect artists, -- not only will reflect artist had to really care about what we do who spend a lot of time developing themselves, developing the way through or, it also would mean the fans wouldn't be able to trust people who spent so many years investing in. it would affect a spiritual, financially. it makes some -- honestly, if i'm honest with you, on the surprise we are even having this conversation because it feels so painfully obvious to me that it's hard to even find the language. i'm completely honest with you. >> there are a lot of painfully things for congress to act. [laughing] your surprise iser not unusual. >> ultimately what it boils down

to is my spirit, my artist in my brand is my brand and i spent years developing it and it's mine. it doesn't belong to anybody else to be use in a commercial sense or cultural center even just for a laugh. you know? ime. i am a human being and we have to protect that. >> thank you. mr. kyncl, if i might briefly. we seen a steady increase in the quality of deepfakes with platforms are virtually indistinguishable from talented artist like twigs. what are the challenges ai deepfakes are greedy sort of for both the music business and for fans as wellis as for performer? >> i think twigs addressed one of those,i. and no one can you o better than what she just did. i think the second one is that when you had these deepfakes out there, artists are competing with themselves for revenue on

streaming platforms because there is a fixed amount of revenue within each of the streaming platforms and if somebody is uploading fake songs of twigs and the songs are eating internet revenue pool, therepl is less left for her authentic songs. that's the economic impact of it long-term. and the volume of content that will then flow into the digital service providers will increase exponentially, which will be harder for the artist to be heard and to reach lots of fans. so creativity overtime will be stifled. >> as you both put it, there's both a relationship and back, spiritual impact, financial impact, a broader ecosystem of creativity. senator tillis, i turn to you. >> thank you, chairman coons and again thank you all for being here. ms. ramsey, i'm going to start with you and then others who may have an opinion on it.

you mentioned notice and takedown in your comments. this is a strict liability bill in its current phone i conform. some of usd think we have to wt into that. you also talked a bit about having i guess, having individual has been informed of takeout having some recourse. can you talk more about that briefly? >> sure. situation where somebody challenges your own personal use of your identity online and they are the one that is the bad actor but they filed a complaint with the online service provider and online service provider wants to avoid liability automatically takes for the den. that's one possibility. another would be that the person who is disseminating the image actually has a defense, if an exception applies its particular use that might be news report or parity. so it's critical for the online service provider to be able to put that expression backup if it actually does not violate the

law under the copyright laws my understanding is that once information is put back up it stays up unless the copyright owner files a lawsuit. what's great about the takeout and notice procedure is it us ordinary people to get this, these unauthorized uses off the internet. that's one real benefit of having a notice and takedown procedure. encouraging companies to topple. our challenges with notice and takedown procedures that folks like eric goldman and others have talked about. it's great you're talking to interested parties we figure out these issues. >> anybody here have an opinion counter to that? okay here mr. kyncl, can you walk me through what rights typically grant what artist, what rights are typically granted to record labels under exclusive sound recording agreement and like this included in that?

>> so it's a pretty wide range of rights, anywhere from four copyright rights to distribution only rights, or the copyright remains with the artist. an increasing so they include likenesses as well because as you can imagine as we work on open platforms with lots of music generated content, we are the ones who have staff of people that is working to issue notices, claimed the country, take onn the content and increasingly we need the name, image, likeness and voice rights in order to actually act on that on the orders we have with the platforms. >> i think you believe new digital replicate rights need to be fully transferable? >> yes. >> why isn't a license enough?

>> i think it should be of the choice of the artist, artist should have a choice to either transfer or license. >> mr. sheffner, state level right of public, of publicity laws restricting commercial speech have existed for many decades. they have been developed, they developed their own case law. they are well understood. the new digital replicate right proposed by no fakes act would affect non-commercial speech beyond what most state laws currently cover. can you explain how novel this proposed right would be in the contest of existing right of publicity laws, and how should we consider preempting similar state-level digital replicate laws, especially when it's suchh new territory? >> so thank you for the question, senator tillis. you're absolutely right that most state publicity laws which of existed more than a century

limited to commercial use in advertisement or on merchandise. what congress is considering doing here is novel although it is sometimes described as right of publicity. we . we think it is funny no different in that it would apply in expressive works like movies, tv shows, songs which are fully protected by the first amendment. there has developed a a robust body of case law in the right of traditional commercial right of publicity context which is just it applies, put somebody's face on on a board billboard for use in advertisement or lunch box but does apply for example, you're making a biopic or a docudrama about somebody. you can use right of publicity of law to censor those portrayals. again, this isbu a novel form f right which is going to be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny, like professor ramseyns described. because it applies in expressive

works, it's really important front to provide some clarity to film producers so that when they're about to embark on a project they know what is allowed and what is not. if it's too vague, too uncertain, they are going to shy away from using this technology to engage inth the sort of portrayals. again,n, that chills speech in e first amendment case lawn, saysa statute is vulnerable to being struck down if the chills constitutionally protected speech. >> which is why repsol have to get it right. there is general consensus and we have to make progress but the challenges of all this work being struck down are significant. we have to do the leg work. thank you. i will have a second-round. >> thank you, senator tillis. hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member tillis for bringing this bill before us. and as you say, mr. chairman, the bill has gone through a lot

of input from a lot of different groups. and if i listened to your testimony accurately, it doesn't sound as if any of you think that we should not do something that will protect, i like the framing of protecting personally. in it you think we don't need to do anything in this area? okay. looking at this statute then why do we go down the list very quickly. what do youod like most about te current bill? we will just start with mr. kyncl about the current bill and what is most important thing you would want to change, if anything? if you could just keep yourou answer really short. >> i will start with what i believe it needs to contain, which is it needs to contain consent for the use of peoples name, likeness and voice to

train models and create uploads. that's what needs to happen. second, it needs to contain monetization which is fair market license that that person can exercise through consent. but in order for that to happen and in order for all that to be operationalized on a platforms we need two things. one, which is prominence of the content that generative ai models are trained on and that they're outputting to be retained, which means they should keep sufficiently detailed records of what they trained on. so that later on that promise can be embedded into watermarks which are recognized in the platforms on which -- >> the point is, it sounds like consent is the critical part of this, consent of the creator. >> and prominence, and prominence of the content. we are good at tracing prominence on luxury clothing,

on cheese, , wine. we should be able to do it on electoral property as well. >> going down the line. we are talking about this particular bill. is it something in this bill that you think is the most critical aspect of the bill that you support?th is anything 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, at singing, so much financialne input, so much time. and i do in the name of my legacy. i do it so that one day i can look back at my body of work and say that was me, that's what it want to be protected in the bil bill. >> thank you, senator. i think what i liked most about this bill is the fact that it is

broader than limiting it to commercial use. the fact is the commercial use limitation mayport 100 years ago. commercial useth limitation does not solve the problems that we face today, especially because of generative ai. we need the breath that is reflected in this legislation -- brett. i think this month ago a change in it i would adopt a durational limitation on transfers or even licenses of these rights during lifetime. may not be as necessary after death but during a lifetime i think it's essential in order to make sure someone doesn't improvidently granted transfer of rights early speed if this is a field to watch@c-span.org. we will leave it to take you live to a news conference with marjorie taylor greene and thomas massey. ..