Delaware
Delaware Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Delaware makes it a crime to distribute nonconsensual intimate deepfakes under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9), enacted as the Amelia Kramer Act in October 2024. The base offense is a class A misdemeanor, rising to a class G felony when any aggravating factor applies. The law also gives victims a separate civil right of action with statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant. Delaware also bans undisclosed deepfakes of candidates within 90 days of an election under 15 Del. C. § 5145, but it has no statutory right of publicity for voice or likeness.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Delaware?
Delaware law targets the distribution of deepfakes, not their mere creation. Under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9), it is unlawful to knowingly reproduce, distribute, exhibit, publish, transmit, or otherwise disseminate a visual depiction of a person who is nude or engaging in sexual conduct, when that depiction is a deepfake and the person depicted has not consented.
The statute defines "deep fake" as synthetic media where the content appears to a reasonable person to depict a real individual saying or doing something that did not actually occur, or that provides a reasonable person a fundamentally different understanding of the person's appearance, actions, or speech than they would get from an unaltered original. This is a broad, technology-neutral definition that covers AI-generated images and video alike.
The three main buckets of deepfake regulation nationally are: (1) sexual and intimate deepfakes targeting adults, (2) election and political deepfakes, and (3) AI voice cloning and digital likeness rights. Delaware has enacted laws in buckets one and two. Bucket three remains a gap, though federal law partially fills it.
For a broader look at how Delaware regulates artificial intelligence, see Delaware AI Laws and Regulation, which covers algorithmic decision-making, automated systems, and consumer protection, distinct from the deepfake-specific statute addressed here.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Delaware's Amelia Kramer Act (84 Del. Laws c. 479, signed October 9, 2024) added deepfake coverage to the existing nonconsensual intimate imagery statute at 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9). The critical innovation is § 1335(a)(9)g: for deepfakes specifically, the prosecution does not need to prove the image was created under circumstances where the depicted person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That requirement exists for ordinary NCII (real photographs), but deepfakes are synthetic. There is no original private moment to prove, so the legislature removed the obstacle.

A basic violation under § 1335(a)(9) is a class A misdemeanor. The offense rises to a class G felony when any aggravating factor under § 1335(a)(9)c is present, including: obtaining the depiction without consent (including by hacking), distributing for profit, operating a website or app to disseminate such material, distributing with intent to harass and cause significant mental anguish, pairing the depiction with personally identifiable information, or, at the time the visual depiction was created, being over the age of 18 while the person depicted was under the age of 18. A prior conviction within five years under the same statute is a separate sentencing aggravator under § 1335(a)(9)d.
In practice, the class G felony threshold is easy to meet: most deepfake distribution involves at least one of these factors, particularly the harassment intent element.
Civil remedy. Alongside the criminal statute, Title 10, Chapter 78 (Delaware Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, known as DUCRUDIIA) gives victims a private right of action. A plaintiff who is identifiable and suffered harm from the intentional nonconsensual disclosure of a deepfake may sue for: actual economic and noneconomic damages (including emotional distress); statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant; any profits the defendant made from the disclosure; punitive damages; reasonable attorney fees and costs; and injunctive relief. This dual-track system (criminal prosecution plus civil lawsuit) makes Delaware one of the stronger state frameworks for deepfake victims.
Minors. AI-generated child sexual abuse material is covered by Delaware's general CSAM statute at 11 Del. C. § 1108 (sexual exploitation of a child), which reaches "visual depictions." Federal law provides an independent floor: (8)(B) covers computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor, with no First Amendment defense for such material.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Delaware enacted an election deepfake statute in 2024. House Substitute 1 for House Bill 316 (84 Del. Laws c. 487, signed October 9, 2024) created 15 Del. C. § 5145, which makes it unlawful to knowingly distribute a deep fake depicting a candidate or political party within 90 days before an election, without the depicted individual's consent and with intent to injure the candidate's or party's reputation or otherwise deceive voters.
A clear disclosure is a complete defense: media stating "This (image/video/audio) has been altered or artificially generated" does not violate the statute. Bona fide news coverage, satire, and parody are also exempt. A violation is a class B misdemeanor, rising to a class A misdemeanor if the person intends to cause violence or bodily harm or reoffends within 5 years (15 Del. C. § 5145(f)). Nationally, election deepfake laws still carry First Amendment risk: a California statute (AB 2839) was blocked by a federal court on free-speech grounds, so constitutional challenges remain possible.
A candidate depicted in a violating deep fake may bring an expedited civil action for injunctive relief and damages in the Court of Chancery, and a prevailing party can recover reasonable attorney fees and costs (15 Del. C. § 5145(g)). Defamation and false light tort claims remain available where the content meets those standards.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Delaware does not have a statutory right of publicity covering voice or likeness, and it has not passed a law specifically targeting AI voice cloning. This is a gap shared by most states.
The national reference point is Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024), the first state law to extend right-of-publicity protection expressly to AI-cloned voices. Delaware has no equivalent.
Under Delaware common law, misappropriation of name or likeness is an actionable tort, and in some circumstances a voice clone used commercially could support a claim. But the absence of a statutory right of publicity means there is no clear damages framework, no injunctive relief provision, and no criminal penalty for voice cloning in Delaware.
At the federal level, the FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses using AI voice cloning. The proposed NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voices and digital likenesses, but it has not passed either chamber as of June 2026 and remains proposed only.
Federal Law That Applies in Delaware
Several federal statutes apply to Delaware residents regardless of state law gaps.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the most significant new federal protection. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes ("digital forgeries"). The penalty is up to two years in prison (three years if a minor is depicted). Platforms are required to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice request; the compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the platform-removal obligation. This is the first federal intimate-deepfake law and supplements Delaware's state statute.
FCC AI-Robocall Ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) clarified that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (). Unsolicited AI voice-clone calls to phones without prior express consent are illegal nationwide, including in Delaware.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)). Computer- or AI-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor in a sexual context are federal crimes under the PROTECT Act of 2003. This applies regardless of any state coverage gaps.
DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages of $150,000, rising to $250,000 when the conduct is linked to actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. The 118th Congress version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House; the 119th Congress version passed the Senate again by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and awaits House action. It remains pending and is not law.
NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) is similarly proposed legislation that would protect voices and likenesses from unauthorized AI replication. It has not passed either chamber and is not law.
For more on the DEFIANCE Act's status and what it would mean for deepfake victims, see DEFIANCE Act: Deepfake Porn Victims' Right to Sue.
What Victims Can Do
A Delaware resident targeted by a deepfake has several concrete options.
Report to law enforcement. The criminal statute at 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9) gives Delaware State Police and local prosecutors jurisdiction. If the aggravating factors for a class G felony are present (which they usually will be), this is a serious felony charge. File a report with local police or contact the Delaware Department of Justice.
Civil lawsuit under DUCRUDIIA (Title 10, Ch. 78). The separate civil statute allows a victim to sue for actual damages, up to $10,000 in statutory damages per defendant, punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief ordering takedown. An attorney can seek a temporary restraining order to stop further distribution quickly.
Platform takedown via TAKE IT DOWN. Under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, major platforms must remove flagged nonconsensual intimate content (including deepfakes) within 48 hours of a victim's notice. Contact the platform's trust-and-safety team directly and reference the Act. The FTC enforces platform compliance.
Federal referral. If the content crosses state lines or involves a minor, contact the FBI or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which operates the CyberTipline for CSAM reports.
Delaware's data privacy laws (the DPDPA) may also be relevant if the deepfake was created using biometrically derived personal data, though the DPDPA is primarily a consumer privacy statute rather than a criminal one.
Penalties Summary
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing intimate deepfake (basic) | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9) | Class A misdemeanor |
| Distributing intimate deepfake with aggravating factor (profit, PII pairing, harassment, actor over 18 when the person depicted was under 18, hacking) | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9)c | Class G felony |
| Second offense within 5 years | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9)d | Class G felony (sentencing enhancement) |
| Civil: nonconsensual intimate image or deepfake | 10 Del. C. § 7806 (DUCRUDIIA) | Actual damages; or up to $10,000 statutory per defendant; plus punitive, attorney fees |
| Election deepfake of candidate or party without disclosure, within 90 days of election | 15 Del. C. § 5145 | Class B misdemeanor; class A misdemeanor if intent to cause violence or repeat within 5 years; civil injunction and damages |
| Federal: publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (TAKE IT DOWN Act) | Pub. L. 119-12 | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 if minor) |
| AI voice cloning in robocalls | TCPA / FCC 24-17 | FCC enforcement; civil suits |
| AI-generated CSAM | 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B); 11 Del. C. § 1108 | Federal and state felony |

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Delaware and federal deepfake laws. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deepfake and AI law is evolving rapidly; statutes, pending bills, and court interpretations can change. Consult a licensed Delaware attorney for advice about your specific situation.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
More Delaware Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Delaware?
Delaware law targets distribution rather than creation. Knowingly distributing a sexual deepfake without the depicted person's consent violates 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9). Making a deepfake for personal possession with no distribution does not appear to be independently criminalized, but distribution (including sending it to one person) triggers the statute.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Delaware?
Yes. Distributing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes is a class G felony in Delaware when any aggravating factor is present, which is true in most real cases. The Amelia Kramer Act (84 Del. Laws c. 479, signed October 9, 2024) added explicit deepfake coverage to 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9) and eliminated the need to prove a privacy expectation for synthetic media.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Delaware?
Yes. Title 10, Chapter 78 (DUCRUDIIA) gives you a private civil right of action. You can sue for actual damages, statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, any profits the defendant made, punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. This civil claim exists alongside any criminal prosecution.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Delaware?
Delaware has no statute specifically targeting AI voice cloning. Misappropriation of voice under common law may apply in commercial contexts. At the federal level, AI-generated voices in unsolicited robocalls are illegal under the TCPA following the FCC's February 2024 ruling. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act would create broader protections, but it has not passed Congress as of June 2026.
Does Delaware have an election deepfake law?
Yes. 15 Del. C. § 5145, signed October 9, 2024, makes it unlawful to knowingly distribute a deep fake of a candidate or political party within 90 days before an election with intent to deceive voters. A clear disclosure that the media has been altered or artificially generated is a complete defense, and bona fide news coverage, satire, and parody are exempt. Violations are misdemeanors, and a depicted candidate can seek an expedited injunction and damages in the Court of Chancery.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in Delaware?
Yes, it applies everywhere in the United States including Delaware. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law making it a crime to publish nonconsensual intimate images or deepfakes of adults or minors. Platforms must remove reported content within 48 hours. It supplements Delaware's state-level Amelia Kramer Act.
What is the difference between the DEFIANCE Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act is enacted federal law (signed May 2025) creating criminal penalties and platform-removal duties. The DEFIANCE Act is proposed legislation that would create a federal civil cause of action for deepfake victims with liquidated damages starting at $150,000; it passed the Senate in January 2026 but has not passed the House as of June 2026 and is not law.
How do I get a deepfake removed in Delaware?
Contact the platform directly and invoke the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour removal requirement. File a police report with Delaware State Police or your local department under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9). Consult a civil attorney about an emergency injunction under DUCRUDIIA (Title 10, Ch. 78). For content involving minors, report to NCMEC's CyberTipline.
Updates
Corrected the description of the age-based aggravating factor under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(9)c.6 to match the statutory text: it applies when, at the time the depiction was created, the actor was over the age of 18 and the person depicted was under 18.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Updated NO FAKES Act federal bill citation to S.4591 (119th Congress, "NO FAKES Act of 2026") and current Senate Judiciary Committee status.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 005 (SPECIFIC OFFENSES)
§ 1335Violation of privacy; class A misdemeanor; class G felony.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
(a) A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, the person: (1) Trespasses on property intending to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Installs in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; or (3) Installs or uses outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in that place which would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there; or (4) Intercepts without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation; or (5) Divulges without the consent of the sender and the receiver the existence or contents of any message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately if the accused knows that the message was unlawfully intercepted or if the accused learned of the message in the course of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 15 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pulgini (1976) held 11 Del. C. 1335 does not reach police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, so a police interception made with one party's consent was lawful. State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (2026) construed 1335(a)(9)(b) as protecting confidentiality from third parties regardless of whether the relationship has ended.
Leading cases:
- State v. Pulgini (Superior Court of Delaware 1976, 366 A.2d 1198)✓Police recorded a call between the defendant and an informant with the informant's consent but no court order. The court held section 1335 does not apply to police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, and one-party consent made the interception lawful.
- State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (Delaware Court of Common Pleas 2026)✓Charged after leaving printed intimate photos from a past affair in the woman's shared mailbox, a man sought a pretrial ruling on section 1335(a)(9)(b). On uncontested facts, the court read beyond that relationship as disclosure outside the private relationship, ended or not.
- Duffy v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2019)“…er 2017, Duffy was indicted for Violation of Privacy under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(7). The charges arose from Duffy tak…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Delaware GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Delaware Video Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Surveillance, and Penalties (2026), Delaware Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026)
Delaware Code, Title 15 (Elections), Chapter 051 (CRIMINAL OFFENSES)
§ 5145Use of deep fake technology to influence an election; penalty; injunctive relief.In force
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Candidate” means as defined in § 8002 of this title. (2) “Deep fake” means synthetic media that depicts a candidate or political party with the intent to injure the reputation of the candidate or party or otherwise deceive a voter, and where 1 or both of the following applies: a. The synthetic media appears to a reasonable person to depict a real individual saying or doing something that did not actually occur in reality. b. The synthetic media provides a reasonable person a fundamentally different understanding or impression of the appearance, action, or speech than a reasonable person would have from an unaltered, original version of the image, audio recording, or video recording. (3) “Depicted individual” means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
United States Code Title 18
§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 53 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter, the term— “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person; For purposes of subsection 8(B) 1 So in original. Probably should be “(8)(B)”.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) held the child pornography definitions in 2256(8)(B) and (8)(D), reaching virtual and pandered images, overbroad under the First Amendment. United States v. Williams (2008) construed sexually explicit conduct in 2256(2)(A), reading simulated to require explicit portrayal of the act.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted a chat-room link to photos of real children and was convicted of pandering. Upholding that ban, the Court read section 2256(2)(A)'s definition of sexually explicit conduct as tracking the one approved in Ferber, and said material must in fact meet it.
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓An adult-entertainment trade group, a nudist-lifestyle publisher, a painter and a photographer challenged the CPPA. The Court held sections 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D), reaching images that only appear to be of minors or are pandered that way, overbroad and unconstitutional.
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)✓A distributor sold tapes of an actress filmed before she turned 18. Besides reading 'knowingly' in section 2252 to reach the performer's age, the Court rejected as insubstantial the claim that section 2256 is vague and overbroad for setting majority at 18 and using 'lascivious.'
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 47
§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 37 of our articles
As used in this section— The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers. The term “established business relationship”, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and an established business relationship shall be subject to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).1 So in original. Second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,209 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system under Section 227(a)(1), equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce the numbers it dials. Nicole Blow v. Bijora, Inc. (2017) applied the prior express consent defense to promotional texts.
Leading cases:
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153)✓A marketing firm hired by the Navy had a subcontractor text a recruiting message to 100,000 phones, reaching a man who never consented; the Supreme Court held a contractor gets no derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA suit when it violates the Act and the Navy's orders.
- Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388)✓An insured let an advertiser send 18,879 unsolicited fax ads, drawing a $2 million TCPA class judgment; the Third Circuit read the TCPA as protecting seclusion, not secrecy, so the faxes were no covered 'advertising injury' and the insurer need not pay the judgment.
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)✓Facebook texted login alerts to a man who had no account and never gave it his number; the Supreme Court held a device is an autodialer under 227(a)(1) only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers, excluding Facebook's system.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, TCPA Explained: Robocall, Text, and Telemarketing Law (2026), TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11: Protection of Personal Rights (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024)
§ 47-25-1101Short titleIn forcecited in 50 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024.” History Acts 1984, ch. 945, § 1; 2024, ch. 588, § 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2011
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 47-25-1101 et seq. as the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984. Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (1996) applied a one-year limitations period because the Act supplies none, and STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (1987) said nothing in the Act limits publicity rights vested before its effective date.
Leading cases:
- Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497)✓A widow sued her late husband's law firm under the Personal Rights Protection Act to stop its use of his surname; the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction on partnership and name-assignment grounds, and the majority opinion never applied the Act's own provisions.
- STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)✓Two nonprofits fought over using Elvis Presley's name in their corporate names; the court rested his descendible right of publicity on Tennessee common law rather than the Personal Rights Protection Act, and said nothing in the Act limits rights vested before its effective date.
- State ex rel. Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)“…General Assembly undertook to do so in 1984 when it enacted Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq. which is known as “The Person…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Film, Tennessee Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not, Tennessee Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 11 Del. C. § 1335: Violation of Privacy (Delaware Code Online)(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- 84 Del. Laws c. 479: Amelia Kramer Act (Delaware Session Laws, Oct. 9, 2024)(legis.delaware.gov).gov
- 10 Del. C. Ch. 78: Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (congress.gov)(congress.gov).gov
- FCC 24-17: AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls (FCC, Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B): Federal CSAM Definition (law.cornell.edu)(law.cornell.edu)
- HS 1 for HB 316 (84 Del. Laws c. 487): Use of Deep Fake Technology to Influence an Election, 15 Del. C. § 5145 (signed Oct. 9, 2024)(legis.delaware.gov).gov