Maine
Maine 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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Maine outlaws AI-generated intimate deepfakes of adults under its non-consensual intimate image statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 511-A, which was amended in 2025 to expressly cover digitally generated and modified images. A second law, signed April 16, 2026, extends the state's child exploitation statutes to AI-generated CSAM. Maine also requires a disclosure label on campaign advertising that uses synthetic media, under an election law signed March 23, 2026, and its voice and likeness protections rest entirely on common law.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Maine?
Yes, in certain contexts. Maine law reaches four situations: intimate deepfakes of adults disseminated without consent, AI-generated sexual images of minors, undisclosed synthetic media in campaign advertising, and deceptive AI impersonation in commercial contexts. Outside those categories, including satire, parody, and non-intimate manipulations, Maine has no deepfake-specific prohibition.
The state addresses deepfakes through amendments to its existing criminal and election statutes rather than a standalone deepfake law. For a comparison with other states, see Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State. Two 2025-2026 amendments to Title 17-A closed the most serious gaps. A March 2026 election law added a disclosure requirement for synthetic media in campaign advertising. Voice cloning and digital likeness protections exist only under common law.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Maine's primary tool against intimate deepfakes is 17-A M.R.S.A. § 511-A, titled "Unauthorized dissemination of certain private images." Before 2025, the statute applied only to authentic images taken without consent. PL 2025, c. 400, signed June 20, 2025 and effective September 24, 2025, added language covering "an image that has been created or modified so that it appears to show" the depicted person in nudity or sexual conduct. The same chapter also enacted a definition of "image" that expressly covers content that is "made, captured, generated or saved," reaching AI-created content.
To be criminal under § 511-A, the dissemination must be intentional or knowing, the perpetrator must intend to harass, torment, or threaten the depicted person or another, and the person sharing the image must know or should have known the individual is identifiable and has not consented. The depicted person need not have consented to any original photograph; an entirely fabricated AI image of a real, identifiable person qualifies.
Violation is a Class D crime, carrying a maximum sentence of less than one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. The 2025 amendment also allows a victim to seek a protection-from-abuse or protection-from-harassment order based on a violation of § 511-A, giving survivors a civil protective remedy even though the statute does not create explicit monetary damages.
AI-Generated CSAM for Minors
For years, Maine had a loophole: state CSAM statutes covered images of real children but were silent on purely AI-generated or computer-generated depictions where no identifiable real child was involved. That gap received public attention in 2025 after a Maine man manipulated photographs from a children's soccer game into obscene images but could not be charged under existing law.
Legislators responded with LD 524, sponsored by Rep. Amy Kuhn. The bill passed both chambers with unanimous bipartisan support and was signed by Governor Mills on April 16, 2026 as an emergency measure, taking effect immediately. PL 2025, c. 719 amends 17-A §§ 281 through 284 to bring AI-generated and computer-generated depictions of minors within Maine's child exploitation statutes. Federal CSAM law under (8)(B) (the PROTECT Act, 2003) also covers AI-generated images that are indistinguishable from those of real children, regardless of any state-law gap.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Maine enacted an election deepfake disclosure law in 2026. LD 517, An Act Regarding Synthetic Media in Campaign Advertising, was signed by Governor Mills on March 23, 2026 as PL 2025, c. 593. It adds subsection 5-C to 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1014, the statute governing disclosures on political communications, and takes effect July 29, 2026, which is 90 days after the Legislature adjourned.
Under § 1014, sub-§ 5-C, any public communication that already requires a paid-for disclosure and that contains synthetic media must also include the words "THIS COMMUNICATION CONTAINS AUDIO, VIDEO AND/OR IMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED OR ALTERED." Synthetic media means an image, audio recording, or video that deceptively depicts a candidate saying or doing something the candidate did not say or do, or that has been manipulated in a way likely to give a reasonable person a materially different impression of the candidate. Edits for clarity, captions, and highlighting are excluded, and satire and parody are expressly exempt.
The law is a disclosure mandate, not a ban. A violation carries a civil penalty of up to 500% of the amount spent on the offending communication, five times the cap for ordinary disclaimer violations, and the Maine Ethics Commission cannot waive the penalty for a corrected synthetic media violation the way it can for other disclaimer errors. Broadcasters and newspapers are liable only if they run a paid communication with actual knowledge that it contains synthetic media. The Attorney General may seek injunctive relief against a violator who refuses to stop.
Maine's disclosure-only approach reflects First Amendment caution. A federal court struck down California's broader election deepfake law, AB 2839, in its entirety in August 2025 in Kohls v. Bonta, while courts have generally been more receptive to disclosure requirements than to outright bans.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Maine has no right-of-publicity statute. Unlike Tennessee, whose ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., eff. July 1, 2024) is the national archetype for voice-clone protection, Maine does not extend a statutory right of publicity to a person's voice or AI-generated digital likeness.
Protections in Maine depend on common law. A person whose voice or likeness is commercially exploited without permission may bring a misappropriation-of-identity claim under Maine common law, and a realistic AI impersonation that causes reputational harm could support a defamation action. Neither cause of action was designed with AI in mind, however, and outcomes are uncertain.
On the commercial side, Maine enacted Title 10 § 1500-DD (PL 2025, c. 294), which prohibits businesses from deploying AI chatbots in a way that deceives a reasonable consumer into believing they are speaking with a human without clear disclosure. Violations constitute an unfair trade practice enforceable by the Attorney General. This law does not address voice cloning in the context of impersonation fraud or artistic works; it applies specifically to chatbot-driven consumer transactions.
For comprehensive AI voice and likeness law, see Maine AI Laws and Regulation, which covers the full scope of Maine's AI regulatory landscape beyond deepfake-specific rules.
Federal Law That Applies in Maine
Several federal statutes supplement Maine's state law.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law that specifically criminalizes nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison (three years if a minor is depicted). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice; the compliance deadline for platforms was May 19, 2026, and the FTC enforces platform obligations. This federal law fills any state-law gaps and applies in every state, including Maine.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, making AI voice-clone robocalls to phones without prior express consent illegal nationwide. This ruling was triggered by a deepfake robocall mimicking President Biden's voice during the New Hampshire primary.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes with liquidated damages of $150,000 (or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). It is pending legislation, not current law. The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness. It is also a proposed bill, not enacted law.
Federal CSAM law under (8)(B) covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from those of real minors under the PROTECT Act of 2003, applying in Maine regardless of state coverage.
What Victims Can Do
Victims of intimate deepfakes in Maine have several avenues. On the criminal side, a victim can file a complaint with local law enforcement or the Maine State Police, who can pursue charges under 17-A § 511-A for adult intimate images or under 17-A §§ 281-284 for child exploitation material. Federal authorities, including the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) and the FTC, can pursue cases under the TAKE IT DOWN Act and other federal statutes.
For civil protection, the 2025 amendment to § 511-A allows victims to petition for a protection-from-harassment or protection-from-abuse order, which can compel the perpetrator to stop distributing the images and stay away from the victim. Maine's general protection-from-harassment statute, Title 5 § 4651, was also amended in 2025 to support these orders.
Platform takedown is often the fastest route to removing content. Under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, platforms must remove reported intimate deepfakes within 48 hours of a verified victim notice, regardless of whether the platform is based in Maine. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates a CyberTipline that connects to major platforms.
Maine's recording and privacy law framework is relevant context for anyone affected by technology-facilitated abuse. See Maine Recording Laws for consent rules that overlap with surveillance and voyeurism-adjacent conduct, and Maine Data Privacy Laws for ISP and consumer data protections that may apply to image data.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Disseminating AI-generated intimate deepfake of adult | 17-A M.R.S.A. § 511-A (PL 2025, c. 400) | Class D crime: max. 1 year jail, fine up to $2,000 |
| Creating or distributing AI-generated CSAM (minors) | 17-A §§ 281-284 (PL 2025, c. 719) | Class B or C crime depending on section; significant prison terms |
| Federal nonconsensual intimate deepfake (adults or minors) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (PL 119-12, 2025) | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years if minor) |
| AI voice-clone robocall without consent | FCC 24-17 / TCPA | FTC/FCC enforcement; civil and criminal penalties |
| Campaign ad with undisclosed synthetic media | 21-A § 1014, sub-§ 5-C (PL 2025, c. 593, eff. July 29, 2026) | Civil penalty up to 500% of the expenditure |
| AI chatbot without disclosure | Title 10 § 1500-DD | Unfair trade practice; AG enforcement |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Maine's deepfake and AI laws changed significantly in 2025 and 2026 and may continue to evolve. If you have been affected by a deepfake or AI-generated image, consult a licensed Maine attorney for advice specific to your situation.
More Maine Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Maine?
It depends on the content and intent. Disseminating an AI-generated intimate image of an identifiable person without their consent and with intent to harass or threaten is a Class D crime under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 511-A. Creating or possessing AI-generated sexual images of minors violates 17-A §§ 281-284 as of April 2026. Non-intimate deepfakes made for satire or commentary are generally not covered by Maine criminal law.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Maine?
Maine's NCII statute (§ 511-A) is primarily criminal, but the 2025 amendment allows victims to seek a protection-from-harassment or protection-from-abuse order. There is no explicit statutory civil damages remedy under state law. A victim could pursue common law tort claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or misappropriation of identity, though these are fact-specific. The pending federal DEFIANCE Act would add a civil cause of action with $150,000 in liquidated damages if enacted.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Maine?
Yes. Under 17-A § 511-A as amended by PL 2025, c. 400, intentionally disseminating an AI-generated or digitally modified intimate image of an identifiable person with intent to harass, torment, or threaten them is a Class D crime. The victim's actual consent to being photographed is irrelevant; the law covers fully fabricated images.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Maine?
Maine has no statute specifically criminalizing AI voice cloning. There is no right-of-publicity law in Maine, unlike Tennessee's ELVIS Act. Using an AI voice clone to make robocalls without consent is illegal under the FCC's 2024 ruling and the TCPA. Using a voice clone to commit fraud may also violate existing fraud and identity-theft statutes.
Does Maine have an election deepfake law?
Yes. LD 517 (PL 2025, c. 593), signed March 23, 2026 and effective July 29, 2026, requires political communications that contain synthetic media depicting a candidate to include a disclosure stating that the communication contains manipulated or altered audio, video or images. Violations carry a civil penalty of up to 500% of the campaign expenditure. Satire and parody are exempt.
What is the penalty for creating a deepfake in Maine?
Disseminating an AI-generated intimate deepfake of an adult violates § 511-A and carries up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000 (Class D). Creating or distributing AI-generated CSAM of minors under 17-A §§ 281-284 carries Class B or C felony penalties with substantial prison terms.
Does the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act protect Mainers?
Yes. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law May 19, 2025, makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of adults or minors anywhere in the United States, including Maine. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours. It supplements Maine's own § 511-A and is enforceable by the FTC.
Can Maine police investigate AI-generated images of children?
Yes, as of April 16, 2026. PL 2025, c. 719 (LD 524) amended 17-A §§ 281-284 to cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material, closing a loophole that had previously prevented state prosecution. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256 has covered indistinguishable AI-generated CSAM since 2003.
Updates
Corrected how the 2025 amendment to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 511-A works: PL 2025, c. 400 enacted a new definition of "image" covering content that is "made, captured, generated or saved" rather than adding a single word to an existing definition.
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.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, Chapter 21: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 511-AUnauthorized dissemination of certain private imagesIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
1. A person is guilty of unauthorized dissemination of certain private images if the person, with the intent to harass, torment or threaten the depicted person or another person, intentionally or knowingly disseminates, displays or publishes an image of another person in a state of nudity or engaged in a sexual act or engaged in sexual contact or an image that has been created or modified so that it appears to show the depicted person in a state of nudity or engaged in a sexual act or engaged in sexual contact in a manner in which there is no public or newsworthy purpose when the person knows or should have known that the depicted person: A. [PL 2015, c. 394, §5 (RP).] B. Is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image; and [PL 2015, c. 339, §1 (NEW).] C. Has not consented to the dissemination, display or publication of the image. [PL 2025, c. 400, §2 (AMD).] 2. This section does not apply to the following: A. Lawful and common practices of medical treatment; [PL 2015, c. 339, §1 (NEW).] B. Images involving voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting; or [PL 2015, c. 339, §1 (NEW).] C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Also relied on in: Maine Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Defenses (2026), Maine AI Laws and Regulation (2026), Maine Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 21-A: ELECTIONS, Chapter 13: CAMPAIGN REPORTS AND FINANCES
§ 1014Publication or distribution of political public communicationsIn force
1. Authorized by candidate. Whenever a person makes an expenditure to finance a public communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the public communication, if authorized by a candidate, a candidate's authorized political committee or a candidate's or a candidate's authorized political committee's agents, must clearly and conspicuously state that the public communication has been so authorized and must clearly state the name and address of the person who made or financed the expenditure for the public communication. A public communication financed by a candidate or the candidate's committee is not required to state the address of the candidate or committee that financed the public communication. If a public communication that is financed by someone other than the candidate or the candidate's authorized committee is broadcast by radio, only the city and state of the address of the person who financed the public communication must be stated. 2. Not authorized by candidate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2012
Leading cases:
- National Organization for Marriage v. McKee (District Court, D. Maine 2010, 723 F. Supp. 2d 245)“…date or an authorized committee or agent of the candidate,” 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1014. Because an independent expenditure rep…”
- Bailey v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics (District Court, D. Maine 2012, 900 F. Supp. 2d 75)“…e Eliot Cutler. The Commission found Bailey in violation of 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1014, which requires that election advocacy…”
- Yes for Life Political Action Committee v. Webster (District Court, D. Maine 1999, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37)“…rized” a statement in candidate elections, see 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1014 (West 1993), but not for PACs in issue-…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE, Part 3: REGULATION OF TRADE, Chapter 241: COMMUNICATIONS WITH CONSUMERS VIA ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
§ 1500-DDRequired disclosure of use of artificial intelligence chatbot to engage in trade and commerceIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. A. "Artificial intelligence chatbot" means a software application, web interface or computer program that simulates human conversation and interaction through textual or aural communications. [PL 2025, c. 294, §1 (NEW); RR 2025, c. 1, Pt. A, §16 (RAL).] B. "Trade" and "commerce" have the same meaning as in Title 5, section 206, subsection 3. [PL 2025, c. 294, §1 (NEW); RR 2025, c. 1, Pt. A, §16 (RAL).] 2. Required disclosure of use of artificial intelligence chatbot to engage in trade and commerce. A person may not use an artificial intelligence chatbot or any other computer technology to engage in trade and commerce with a consumer in a manner that may mislead or deceive a reasonable consumer into believing that the consumer is engaging with a human being unless the consumer is notified in a clear and conspicuous manner that the consumer is not engaging with a human being. 3. Violation. A violation of subsection 2 is a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Also relied on in: Maine Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent, § 710 and § 511
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
- 17-A M.R.S.A. § 511-A: Unauthorized Dissemination of Certain Private Images (as amended by PL 2025, c. 400)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- LD 1944 / PL 2025, c. 400: An Act to Protect Individuals from the Threatened Unauthorized Dissemination of Certain Private Images, Including Artificially Generated Private Images(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- LD 524 / PL 2025, c. 719: An Act to Protect Children from Technology-facilitated Sexual Abuse (signed April 16, 2026, amending 17-A §§ 281-284)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256: Federal CSAM definitions including AI-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC 24-17: FCC Declaratory Ruling making AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under TCPA (February 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- Maine Title 10 § 1500-DD: AI Chatbot Disclosure Requirements (PL 2025, c. 294)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- LD 517 / PL 2025, c. 593: An Act Regarding Synthetic Media in Campaign Advertising (signed March 23, 2026, enacting 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1014, sub-§ 5-C, eff. July 29, 2026)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- PL 2025, c. 593 (LD 517 / HP 335), enacted chapter law approved March 23, 2026: 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1014, sub-§ 5-C synthetic media disclosure and 500% civil penalty(legislature.maine.gov)
- PL 2025, c. 719 (LD 524 / HP 343), enacted chapter law approved April 16, 2026 as an emergency: amends 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 281-284 to cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material(legislature.maine.gov)