Michigan
Michigan 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
Michigan has enacted laws targeting two of the three deepfake buckets: nonconsensual intimate deepfakes and election deepfakes. Michigan's intimate-image deepfake statute took effect August 26, 2025, and its election-media rules have been in force since February 13, 2024. Voice cloning and digital likeness protection remain limited to common law only. This page covers Michigan-specific deepfake statutes; for the full national picture, see Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Michigan?
It depends on the category of deepfake. Michigan law now covers two of the three main buckets: sexual and intimate deepfakes (adults), and election disinformation deepfakes. The third bucket, AI voice cloning and digital likeness outside those contexts, has no dedicated state statute.
Creating a deepfake for satire, entertainment, or commentary on a matter of public concern is not automatically illegal in Michigan, provided it does not involve intimate imagery or election manipulation. That said, the election law carries a significant First Amendment caveat: enforcement of election deepfake statutes nationwide has faced court challenges, and the legal landscape is still developing. The Michigan law includes a safe harbor for depictions that carry a proper disclaimer, which mitigates constitutional risk.
Deepfakes used for fraud, extortion, or harassment may also be prosecuted under Michigan's existing fraud, extortion, or cyberstalking statutes independent of the deepfake-specific laws.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Michigan enacted comprehensive intimate deepfake law in August 2025 when Governor Whitmer signed PA 11 of 2025 (the Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act). The criminal statute targets individuals who intentionally create or disseminate a deepfake depicting intimate body parts or sexual acts of an identifiable person when the creator knew or should have known the depiction would cause the person harm.
The base offense is a misdemeanor carrying up to 1 year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The offense escalates to a felony (up to 3 years, $5,000) when any aggravating factor is present: the victim suffers financial loss, the creator intended to profit, the creator maintained a website or app for creating or sharing deepfakes, the deepfake was posted online, the creator intended to harass, extort, or threaten the victim, or the creator has a prior conviction under the act. PA 12 of 2025 incorporated the felony into Michigan's sentencing guidelines as a Class F offense.
Consent is not a defense unless the depicted person signed a written, plain-language agreement that includes a general description of the intimate depiction. That is a high bar intentionally designed to prevent coerced or vague consent from defeating prosecution.
PA 11 also creates a civil cause of action. Victims can seek economic and noneconomic damages (including compensation for mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation), disgorgement of the defendant's profits, attorney fees and court costs, and temporary or permanent injunctive relief. Civil fines of up to $1,000 per day accrue for injunction violations.
For minors, AI-generated child sexual abuse material is covered separately under MCL 750.145c, which expressly includes "computer-generated image" in its definition of child sexually abusive material. There is no gap in Michigan law for AI-generated CSAM: the statute covers any depiction that "appears to include a child" engaging in listed sexual acts, regardless of whether a real child was used in production.
Election and Political Deepfakes
MCL 168.932f, added by 2023 PA 265 and effective February 13, 2024, prohibits distributing materially deceptive media within 90 days before any election when the distributor (a) knows the media falsely represents a depicted individual, (b) intends the distribution to harm a candidate's reputation or electoral prospects, and (c) intends the distribution to deceive voters about whether the depicted individual actually engaged in the depicted speech or conduct. All of these elements must be present together, not just one.
The statute defines "materially deceptive media" as an AI-produced image, audio recording, or video that falsely depicts someone engaging in speech or conduct they did not actually perform and that would cause a reasonable viewer or listener to believe the depiction is real. That definition squarely covers synthetic audio, video, and still images generated by AI.
The disclaimer safe harbor is meaningful: if the deepfake includes a clear statement that the media was manipulated by technical means, with formatting requirements tailored to the medium (text overlay for video, spoken disclosure for audio, visible text for images), distribution is lawful even within the 90-day window. This is intended to preserve space for political satire and commentary.
Penalties escalate sharply for repeat offenders. A first violation is a misdemeanor (up to 90 days, $500 fine). A second violation within five years is a felony carrying up to 5 years and a $1,000 fine. The Michigan Attorney General, the depicted individual, injured candidates, and voter advocacy organizations may all seek permanent injunctive relief.
Michigan passed a second AI election law the same day, and it operates on a completely different trigger. MCL 169.259, added to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act by 2023 PA 263 and effective February 13, 2024, requires that any "qualified political advertisement" carry a clear and conspicuous statement that it was generated in whole or substantially by artificial intelligence. A qualified political advertisement is any paid advertisement relating to a Michigan candidate, election, or ballot question that contains image, audio, or video "generated in whole or substantially with the use of artificial intelligence." Unlike MCL 168.932f, this is a flat disclosure mandate on the advertiser: there is no intent-to-deceive element and no 90-day window, so it applies to an AI-generated political ad run at any point in the cycle.
The disclosure format rules are specific to the medium. In a graphic or text advertisement, the statement must appear in letters at least as large as the majority of the other text and in the same language as the ad. In an audio advertisement, it must be spoken clearly and intelligibly at the beginning or the end for at least 3 seconds. In a video advertisement with audio, it must both appear on screen for at least 4 seconds in letters at least as large as the majority of any other text and be spoken for at least 3 seconds. A first violation is a civil infraction carrying a fine of up to $250, and each subsequent violation carries a fine of up to $1,000, assessed separately for each advertisement distributed or aired. The statute carries exemptions, including for news coverage and for satire or parody.
A broader constitutional note: in August 2025 a federal judge in the Eastern District of California held California's election deepfake statute (AB 2839) facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, found no portion of it severable, and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing it against the named plaintiffs in that case (Kohls v. Bonta, 797 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2025)). The injunction runs to those plaintiffs rather than operating as a statewide bar on all enforcement. Michigan's laws have not faced a similar ruling as of mid-2026, but election deepfake laws nationwide carry ongoing First Amendment litigation risk. The disclaimer safe harbor in MCL 168.932f is Michigan's primary structural protection against such a challenge.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Michigan has no statutory right of publicity and no ELVIS Act-style law protecting voice or likeness against AI replication. Michigan courts recognize an appropriation tort under common law, treating it as a property-right claim, but that doctrine predates AI voice cloning and has not been extended by statute to cover synthetic voice replicas.
By contrast, Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) is the national archetype: it expressly extends the right of publicity to voice and requires affirmative consent before an AI can simulate a person's voice for commercial purposes. Michigan offers none of that protection at present.
Practically, a Michigan performer or public figure whose voice is cloned by AI for commercial use without permission has limited state-law remedies. Common law appropriation might support a claim if commercial exploitation is clear, but the outcome is uncertain. Federal law fills some of the gap: the FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits AI voice impersonation of government entities and businesses, and the FCC has ruled that AI-generated voices in robocalls are illegal under the TCPA. But these rules do not protect private individuals from having their voices cloned in non-robocall contexts.
For general AI regulation in Michigan beyond deepfake-specific rules, see the Michigan AI Laws page, which covers the state's broader approach to AI governance, automated decision-making, and emerging AI legislation.
Federal Law That Applies in Michigan
Several federal laws apply to Michigan residents and platforms regardless of what state law says.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal intimate deepfake law. 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 up to 2 years in prison (3 years when minors are involved). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice request, with the compliance deadline having taken effect May 19, 2026. The FTC enforces the platform-removal obligation.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) is a separate federal bill that would create a civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages of $150,000 (or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The Senate passed S.1837 by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, but as of mid-2026 the bill remains pending in the House and is not law. It is not yet enacted law. For background on the bill, see DEFIANCE Act: Deepfake Porn Victims Can Sue for $150K+.
The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress), which would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI voice and likeness replicas, is also proposed only and has not passed either chamber as of June 2026.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)) covers AI-generated images "indistinguishable" from a real minor, closing any gap that might exist in state coverage. The FCC's February 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) makes AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under the TCPA nationwide.
What Victims Can Do
A Michigan victim of an intimate deepfake has several parallel routes for relief.
On the criminal side, victims should report to local law enforcement or the Michigan Attorney General's office. PA 11 of 2025 is the primary criminal statute; if the deepfake was created or shared online, federal authorities (FBI) can investigate TAKE IT DOWN Act violations simultaneously.
On the civil side, PA 11 gives Michigan victims a direct cause of action for economic damages, emotional distress damages, disgorgement of the defendant's profits, and injunctive relief. A victim does not need to wait for a criminal prosecution to file a civil lawsuit.
For platform takedowns, the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires covered platforms to remove flagged intimate deepfakes within 48 hours of a victim's notice. This is separate from and faster than most platforms' voluntary content-moderation processes. Victims should submit takedown requests directly through each platform's notice mechanism and simultaneously report to the FTC if platforms fail to comply within the 48-hour window.
For election deepfakes, the depicted individual, the AG, injured candidates, and voter organizations can seek injunctive relief under MCL 168.932f. Given the 90-day pre-election window, timing matters: emergency TRO applications may be necessary for rapid relief. A missing AI disclosure on a paid political ad is a separate matter handled as a civil infraction under MCL 169.259.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Creating or sharing intimate deepfake (base) | PA 11 of 2025 (MCL 752.388) | Misdemeanor: up to 1 year, $3,000 fine |
| Intimate deepfake with aggravating factors | PA 11/12 of 2025 | Felony (Class F): up to 3 years, $5,000 fine |
| Election deepfake, first offense | MCL 168.932f | Misdemeanor: up to 90 days, $500 fine |
| Election deepfake, repeat within 5 years | MCL 168.932f | Felony: up to 5 years, $1,000 fine |
| AI-generated paid political ad with no AI disclosure | MCL 169.259 | Civil infraction: up to $250 (first); up to $1,000 per later violation |
| AI-generated CSAM | MCL 750.145c | Felony: up to 20 years (production); up to 7 years (distribution); up to 4 years (possession) |
| Federal intimate deepfake (adults) | TAKE IT DOWN Act | Up to 2 years federal prison |
| Federal intimate deepfake (minors) | TAKE IT DOWN Act | Up to 3 years federal prison |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Michigan deepfake laws and is not legal advice. Deepfake laws are a fast-moving area of law; statutes, court interpretations, and pending federal legislation can change quickly. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face a legal matter in this area, consult a licensed Michigan attorney.
Sources
Citations for this page are listed below.
For more on Michigan recording law generally, see the Michigan Recording Laws page. For data protection rights in Michigan, see Michigan Data Privacy Laws.
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Michigan?
It depends on the type of deepfake. Creating or sharing an intimate deepfake of an identifiable person is a criminal offense under Michigan PA 11 of 2025, punishable by up to 1 year (misdemeanor) or 3 years (felony with aggravating factors). Creating AI-generated election disinformation within 90 days of an election is prohibited under MCL 168.932f, and a paid political ad generated by AI must carry an AI disclosure under MCL 169.259 at any time of year. Deepfakes for satire or commentary that do not involve intimate imagery or election manipulation are generally not prohibited, though other laws such as defamation or fraud may still apply.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Michigan?
Yes. Michigan PA 11 of 2025 (the Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act) makes it a crime to intentionally create or share a deepfake depicting intimate body parts or sexual acts of an identifiable person without consent, when the creator knew or should have known it would cause harm. The base offense is a misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $3,000). Aggravating factors, such as posting online or intent to harass or extort, elevate the charge to a felony (up to 3 years, $5,000).
Can I sue someone for making a deepfake of me in Michigan?
Yes, for intimate deepfakes. PA 11 of 2025 creates a civil cause of action allowing victims to recover economic damages, noneconomic damages (including mental anguish and humiliation), the defendant's profits, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. Civil fines of up to $1,000 per day apply for injunction violations. For other types of deepfakes not covered by PA 11, existing tort claims such as defamation, false light, or intentional infliction of emotional distress may be available depending on the facts.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Michigan?
Michigan has no statute that directly prohibits AI voice cloning of private individuals. There is no ELVIS Act-style right-of-publicity law in Michigan. Common law recognizes an appropriation tort, but it has not been extended by courts or legislature to cover synthetic AI voice replicas. If the voice clone is used in robocalls, it is illegal nationwide under the FCC's February 2024 TCPA ruling. If used to impersonate a government entity or business, the FTC's Impersonation Rule applies.
Does Michigan law cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material?
Yes. MCL 750.145c expressly includes 'computer-generated image' in its definition of child sexually abusive material. The statute covers any depiction that appears to include a child engaging in listed sexual acts, regardless of whether a real child was involved in production. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256) provides an additional layer of coverage for AI-generated CSAM indistinguishable from a real minor.
What is the 90-day election deepfake rule in Michigan?
MCL 168.932f prohibits distributing AI-generated media that falsely depicts a candidate or political figure within 90 days before an election, when done with the intent both to harm a candidate's reputation or electoral prospects and to deceive voters about whether the depicted individual actually said or did what is shown. A disclaimer safe harbor applies: if the media clearly discloses that it was manipulated by technical means, with format-specific requirements for video, audio, and images, distribution is lawful even within the 90-day window.
Do AI-generated political ads have to be labeled in Michigan outside the 90-day window?
Yes. MCL 169.259, added by 2023 PA 263, requires any qualified political advertisement generated in whole or substantially by artificial intelligence to carry a clear and conspicuous statement saying so. It applies year-round, with no 90-day window and no intent-to-deceive element, which makes it broader than MCL 168.932f. The disclosure must run at least 3 seconds spoken in audio, at least 4 seconds on screen in video (plus the 3-second spoken statement), and in graphics must use letters at least as large as the majority of the other text. A first violation is a civil infraction with a fine of up to $250; each later violation carries up to $1,000.
How does the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act work in Michigan?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) applies in all 50 states including Michigan. It makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI deepfakes, and requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice. Victims can report violations to the FTC. The federal law works alongside Michigan's PA 11 of 2025, giving victims both state and federal remedies simultaneously.
Is the DEFIANCE Act law in Michigan?
No. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837) is a proposed federal bill that would create a civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages of $150,000, or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. The Senate passed S.1837 by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, but as of mid-2026 the bill remains pending in the House and has not been enacted. Michigan victims of intimate deepfakes already have civil remedies under state law through PA 11 of 2025.
Updates
Added Michigan's second AI election law, MCL 169.259, which requires any paid political ad generated by AI to disclose that fact year-round, and corrected the description of the Kohls v. Bonta ruling to reflect that the injunction against California's AB 2839 runs to the named plaintiffs rather than statewide.
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
Corrected MCL 168.932f: all four elements (knowledge, 90-day timing, intent to harm a candidate, and intent to deceive voters) must apply together, not any two joined by 'or'; and corrected MCL 752.388's consent defense, which requires only a general description of the depiction, not that it be specifically described.
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.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 752.388Intentional creation or dissemination of deep fakes; violation; penalties; defenses; applicability; liability of entitiesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) An individual shall not intentionally create or disseminate a deep fake if all of the following apply: (a) The individual knew or reasonably should have known that the creation, distribution, dissemination, or reproduction of the deep fake would cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm to an individual falsely depicted. (b) The deep fake realistically depicts any of the following: (i) The intimate parts of the depicted individual. (ii) The depicted individual engaging in a sexual act. (c) The depicted individual is identifiable in either of the following ways: (i) From the deep fake itself, by the depicted individual or by a reasonable individual viewing or listening to the deep fake. (ii) From the personal information displayed in connection with the deep fake. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), an individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, a fine of not more than $3,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 168.932fDistribution of materially deceptive media; prohibition; violation; misdemeanor; penalties; injunctive relief; definitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not distribute, or enter into an agreement with another person to distribute, materially deceptive media if all of the following apply: (a) The person knows the media falsely represents a depicted individual. (b) The distribution occurs within 90 days before an election. (c) The person intends the distribution to harm the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result. (d) The person intends the distribution to change the voting behavior of electors in an election by deceiving the electors into incorrectly believing that the depicted individual in fact engaged in the speech or conduct depicted, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result. (2) The prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The media includes a disclaimer informing the viewer that the media has been manipulated by technical means and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Also relied on in: Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Michigan AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
§ 750.145cDefinitions; child sexually abusive activity or material; penalties; possession of child sexually abusive material; expert testimony; defenses; acts of commercial film or photographic print processor; report to law enforcement agency by computer technician; reasonable availability of evidence to defendant; applicability and uniformity of section; enactment or enforcement of ordinance, rule, or regulation prohibitedIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Access" means to intentionally cause to be viewed by or transmitted to a person. (b) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions: (i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18. (ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction: (A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. (B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way. (c) "Child" means a person who is less than 18 years of age, subject to the affirmative defense created in subsection (7) regarding persons emancipated by operation of law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 195 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):People v. Flick (2010) held that "possesses" in MCL 750.145c(4) covers constructive as well as actual possession, so intentionally accessing and displaying images on screen sufficed. People v. Roberts (2011) rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges, noting it reaches recording otherwise lawful sexual activity by 16- and 17-year-olds.
Leading cases:
- People v. Peterson (Michigan Supreme Court 1995, 450 Mich. 349)“…(2). [2] MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a). [3] MCL 750.145c(2); MSA 28.342a(2). [4] MCL 769.12;…”
- People v. Flick; People v. Lazarus (Michigan Supreme Court 2010, 487 Mich. 1)✓Both defendants paid by credit card to reach child pornography sites and viewed images that survived only in temporary Internet files; the Michigan Supreme Court held that "possesses" in MCL 750.145c(4) covers constructive possession, so the bindovers for trial stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)✓Wilkens videotaped himself, a 14-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl in sexual acts and was convicted under MCL 750.145c(2) of producing child sexually abusive material; the appeals court affirmed, treating consent as no defense and rejecting his double jeopardy claim.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Michigan Pornography Laws (2026): Two Age-Verification Bills, Neither Enacted
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: Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arkansas Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (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
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 722.4 — Emancipation by operation of law or according to petition filed by minor with family division of circuit court view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Michigan Public Act 11 of 2025 (HB 4047) - Protection from Intimate Deep Fakes Act(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Public Act 12 of 2025 (HB 4048) - Sentencing Guidelines Amendment(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 168.932f - Materially Deceptive Media in Elections (2023 PA 265)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.145c - Child Sexually Abusive Material (includes computer-generated images)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- Federal CSAM statute, 18 U.S.C. 2256 (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC 24-17 - AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Ruled Illegal Under TCPA (Feb 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- MCL 169.259 - AI Disclosure for Qualified Political Advertisements (2023 PA 263)(legislature.mi.gov)