Missouri
Missouri 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
Missouri now has an enacted deepfake law. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570, effective August 28, 2026, makes it a felony to disclose, or to threaten to disclose, a realistic intimate digital depiction of any identifiable person, adults included. AI-generated child sexual abuse material is prohibited separately under §§ 573.025, 573.035, and 573.037, which incorporate the definition in § 573.010 reaching computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 2025) adds a platform removal remedy on top of the state law.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Missouri?
It depends on what you do with it. Since August 28, 2026, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570 has made it a crime to disclose, or to threaten to disclose, an intimate digital depiction of an identifiable person. The section does not criminalize creating a depiction on its own; the offense turns on disclosure or the threat of it.
The statute defines a "digital depiction" as a realistic visual depiction of an individual created or altered using digital manipulation, and a "depicted individual" as someone who, through digitization or digital manipulation, appears in whole or in part in an intimate digital depiction and is identifiable by face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic. Nothing in that definition requires the person to be a minor, which is the gap the section closed.
The state also has to prove intent. The defendant must have acted with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm to the depicted individual's finances or reputation, or with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm the disclosure would cause. It is expressly not a defense that the image carried a disclaimer saying the depiction was unauthorized or that the person did not take part in creating it.
How Missouri law treats each category:
- Sexual and intimate deepfakes of adults: Covered by § 573.570 where the depiction is disclosed or a disclosure is threatened. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act applies as well.
- AI-generated child sexual abuse material: Prohibited by §§ 573.025, 573.035, and 573.037, which incorporate the § 573.010 definition reaching computer-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor.
- Election and political deepfakes: Not covered by any Missouri statute.
- Voice cloning and digital likeness: No statutory right of publicity; common law only.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Section 573.570 is now the controlling state provision. Disclosing an intimate digital depiction is a class D felony, punishable by up to seven years. Threatening to disclose one is a class E felony, up to four years. The offense rises to a class C felony for a second or subsequent violation, or where the depiction affects a government proceeding or facilitates violence. The section also shields interactive computer service providers that restrict access to such depictions or provide the technical means to do so.
An "intimate digital depiction" is one showing uncovered genitals, the pubic area, the anus, or a postpubescent female nipple; bodily sexual fluids; or a person engaged in sexually explicit conduct, which the section defines to include sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.
The same 2026 act added § 573.575, sadistic online exploitation, a class E felony reaching online coercion campaigns, including psychological manipulation used to extract sexually explicit content and the use of intimate images as leverage to demand money.
Federal law adds a second layer. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed on May 19, 2025, as Public Law 119-12, makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of any person, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison, or three years if the victim is a minor.
On the civil side, the proposed DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal 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 it by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, but it is still pending in the House as of June 2026 and is not yet law.
For minors, Missouri layers a definition onto separate prohibitions. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010(4)(b) defines the covered material to include "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." That subdivision is a definition and creates no offense by itself. The operative crimes are § 573.025, promoting child sexual abuse material in the first degree, a class B felony that becomes a class A felony where the material is knowingly promoted to a minor; § 573.035, promoting in the second degree, a class D felony that becomes a class B felony where the material is promoted to a minor; and § 573.037, possession, a class D felony that rises to a class B felony for a moving image, more than twenty still images, or a prior conviction under that section. Federal law ((8)(B)) runs in parallel.
Missouri's older § 573.110 remains in force for authentic images. It makes nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images a class D felony, a class C felony where the person depicted is a minor or a vulnerable person, and gives the depicted person a private cause of action for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, plus attorney fees. Its requirement that the defendant "obtained" the image ties it to real photographs, which is exactly why § 573.570 was written to reach fabricated depictions. A companion section, § 573.112, separately criminalizes threatening to disseminate an authentic private sexual image.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Missouri has no enacted election deepfake law. Disclaimer requirements for AI-generated political advertising have been proposed in past sessions, but none is in force.
The absence of state law means Missouri candidates, officeholders, and political figures have no state-level remedy specific to deepfakes in political advertising. First Amendment concerns have complicated election deepfake laws nationally: a federal court struck down California's AB 2839 in its entirety and permanently enjoined it on First Amendment grounds in August 2025 (Kohls v. Bonta), illustrating why these laws are legally contested even where enacted.
Federal election law under requires disclaimers on political communications and can reach deceptive AI-generated ads through existing FEC authority, though enforcement is limited.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Missouri has no statutory right of publicity. Protection for voice cloning and unauthorized AI likeness use rests entirely on common law, specifically the common law tort of misappropriation of name or likeness, which Missouri courts recognize but which has narrower reach than a statutory framework.
Compare this to Tennessee, whose ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) expressly extends the right of publicity to AI simulations of a person's voice and is the national reference point for voice-clone legislation. Missouri has no equivalent. A musician, actor, or public figure whose voice is cloned by AI for commercial use without consent would need to sue in tort under common law, a more uncertain path than a statutory cause of action.
The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity covering AI digital replicas, including voice. As of June 2026, it has not passed either chamber and remains a proposal.
The FTC's Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) does prohibit AI voice cloning used to deceptively impersonate government entities or businesses. The FCC's February 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) makes AI-generated voices in robocalls "artificial" under the TCPA, so voice-clone robocalls without prior express consent are illegal federally. These rules protect against fraud and scam calls but do not give individuals a general right of action for commercial voice cloning.
This page covers deepfake and AI voice law specifically. For broader AI regulation in Missouri, including the attorney general's algorithmic choice rule and pending AI liability bills, see Missouri AI Laws and Regulation.
Federal Law That Applies in Missouri
Federal law still carries weight here, both because § 573.570 is new and untested and because it reaches only disclosure and threats to disclose.
TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12): Enacted May 19, 2025, it is a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate depictions, real or AI-generated. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice; the FTC enforces the removal obligation. It works alongside § 573.570 for adult intimate deepfakes and is the faster route to getting content taken down.
Federal CSAM law ((8)(B)): AI-generated images "indistinguishable" from a real minor in sexually explicit conduct are federally prohibited under the PROTECT Act. This runs in parallel with Missouri's coverage under §§ 573.025, 573.035, and 573.037.
FCC AI-robocall ruling (FCC 24-17): AI voice clones in robocalls to phones are "artificial" voices under the TCPA. Unsolicited AI-voice calls violate federal law regardless of state statute.
FTC Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461): Prohibits AI voice fraud used to impersonate government bodies or businesses.
DEFIANCE Act (S.1837) and NO FAKES Act (S.4591): Neither is law as of June 2026. The DEFIANCE Act, which would add a civil right of action for intimate deepfake victims, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, and now awaits a House vote. The NO FAKES Act, which would create a federal right of publicity for AI voice and likeness, has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026).
For more on how the DEFIANCE Act would affect victims, see our DEFIANCE Act coverage.
What Victims Can Do
Missouri victims now have a state criminal remedy alongside the federal tools. Here is what is available.
Report a § 573.570 violation: Disclosing an intimate digital depiction, or threatening to disclose one, is a felony in Missouri as of August 28, 2026. Report it to local law enforcement or to the prosecuting attorney in the county where the disclosure occurred, and preserve URLs, timestamps, and screenshots before the content is removed.
File a federal complaint: The TAKE IT DOWN Act is enforced by the FTC. Victims can report violations at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Because the law requires platforms to remove content within 48 hours of notice, filing a takedown notice with the platform is the fastest first step.
Use the platform's TAKE IT DOWN removal system: As of May 19, 2026 (one year after enactment), platforms covered by the law must have a functioning mechanism to accept and process victim takedown requests within 48 hours. If a platform fails to comply, that is itself an FTC enforcement matter.
Report to law enforcement: If the deepfake involves a minor, it is a serious felony under §§ 573.025, 573.035, and 573.037 and under federal CSAM statutes. Contact local law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) via CyberTipline.org.
Civil tort claims: Section 573.570 does not create its own civil cause of action. If an authentic private image was disseminated, § 573.110 provides one. Otherwise Missouri recognizes the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), which deepfake intimate images distributed to harass can support; the threshold is high, since the conduct must be extreme and outrageous.
Invasion of privacy (§ 565.252): If an authentic underlying image was used (for example, an existing photo was manipulated), § 565.252 may apply if the original capture was unauthorized. The distribution prong makes it a Class E felony.
Attorney consultation: Because § 573.570 is new and largely untested in the courts, a plaintiff's attorney with experience in cyber-harassment or privacy torts is the best guide to which claims are viable in a given case.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosing an intimate digital depiction of an identifiable person | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570 | Class D felony (up to 7 yrs) |
| Threatening to disclose an intimate digital depiction | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570 | Class E felony (up to 4 yrs) |
| Second or later § 573.570 violation, or one affecting a government proceeding or facilitating violence | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570 | Class C felony |
| Promoting AI-generated child sexual abuse material, first degree | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.025 (definitions at § 573.010) | Class B felony; Class A if promoted to a minor |
| Promoting AI-generated child sexual abuse material, second degree | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.035 | Class D felony; Class B if promoted to a minor |
| Possessing AI-generated child sexual abuse material | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.037; 18 U.S.C. § 2256 | Class D felony; Class B for a moving image, more than 20 still images, or a prior conviction; federal felony |
| Distributing authentic intimate images to harass | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110 | Class D felony (up to 7 yrs); Class C if a minor or vulnerable person is depicted; min. $10,000 civil damages |
| Threatening to disseminate authentic private sexual images | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.112 | Class E felony, rising to Class D/C on repeat offenses and Class B if a minor or vulnerable person is involved |
| Sadistic online exploitation | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.575 | Class E felony |
| Unauthorized capture/distribution of authentic nude images | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 | Class E felony (up to 4 yrs) w/ distribution |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate depiction (real or AI) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal) | Up to 2 yrs prison (3 yrs if minor) |
| AI voice-clone robocalls without consent | TCPA / FCC 24-17 (federal) | FCC enforcement; civil penalties |
| AI impersonation of government or business | FTC Impersonation Rule (federal) | FTC enforcement action |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Missouri and federal laws related to deepfakes and AI-generated images. It is not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly. If you are a victim or face legal questions, consult a licensed Missouri attorney.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
Sources
The citations below identify the primary legal sources relied on for this page. Missouri statutes are available at revisor.mo.gov; federal bills and enacted laws at congress.gov.
For the intersection of Missouri's recording consent rules and surveillance technology, see Missouri Recording Laws. For Missouri's broader data and privacy legal landscape, see Missouri Data Privacy Laws.
More Missouri Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Missouri?
Disclosing one is. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570, effective August 28, 2026, makes it a class D felony to disclose an intimate digital depiction of an identifiable person and a class E felony to threaten to disclose one. The section targets disclosure and threats rather than the act of creating an image. AI-generated child sexual abuse material is a separate and more serious matter, prohibited by §§ 573.025, 573.035, and 573.037.
When did Missouri's deepfake law take effect?
Section 573.570 took effect on August 28, 2026, enacted by 2026 House Bill 2273 and the bills merged with it. The same act added § 573.575, sadistic online exploitation, and amended Missouri's existing nonconsensual image statutes, §§ 573.110 and 573.112.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Missouri?
Yes, when it is disclosed or a disclosure is threatened. Section 573.570 covers a realistic intimate depiction of any identifiable person created or altered by digital manipulation, so it reaches adult victims and not only minors. Disclosure is a class D felony, a threat is a class E felony, and a second or subsequent violation is a class C felony. The older statute, § 573.110, still applies to authentic images.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Missouri?
Section 573.570 is a criminal statute and does not create its own civil cause of action. If an authentic private image was disseminated, § 573.110 gives the depicted person a private action for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages, plus attorney fees. Otherwise you would rely on common law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or invasion of privacy, and on the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act through an FTC complaint.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Missouri?
Missouri has no statutory right of publicity and no ELVIS Act-style voice cloning law. Using someone's AI-cloned voice without consent for commercial purposes may support a common law misappropriation claim, but it is not a crime under state law. Federal law prohibits AI voice clones in unsolicited robocalls (FCC 24-17) and in scams that impersonate government entities or businesses (FTC Impersonation Rule).
What is Missouri's election deepfake law?
Missouri has none. Disclaimer requirements for AI-generated political advertising have been proposed in past sessions but none is in force, so Missouri has no state law requiring disclosure of AI-generated political content or criminalizing election-related deepfakes.
Does federal law protect Missouri residents from deepfakes?
Yes, particularly for intimate images. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 2025) makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI deepfakes, and requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours. AI-generated CSAM is also covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2256. These federal laws apply in Missouri in addition to the state's own statutes.
How does Missouri compare to other states on deepfake law?
Missouri closed its biggest gap in 2026. With § 573.570 in force, it joins the majority of states that criminalize nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of adults. It still has no statutory right of publicity and no election deepfake law, so its overall coverage remains narrower than states such as Tennessee.
Updates
Updated to cover Missouri's new deepfake law, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570, which took effect August 28, 2026 and makes disclosing or threatening to disclose an intimate digital depiction of any identifiable person a felony, and to cite the sections that actually prohibit AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
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
Removed a false penalty-range anchor: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010 is a definitions-only section with no felony classification, so the Penalties-at-a-Glance table no longer attributes a 'Class B-D felony (1-15 yrs)' range to it.
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.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII: Crimes and Punishment; Peace Officers and Public Defenders, Chapter 573
§ 573.570Disclosure of an intimate digital depiction, offense of — definitions — violation, penaltiesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
573.570. Disclosure of an intimate digital depiction, offense of — definitions — violation, penalties. — 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean: (1) "Depicted individual", an individual who, as a result of digitization or by means of digital manipulation, appears in whole or in part in an intimate digital depiction and who is identifiable by virtue of the individual's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, or from information displayed in connection with the digital depiction; (2) "Digital depiction", a realistic visual depiction of an individual that has been created or altered using digital manipulation; (3) "Information content providers", any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in par
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Also relied on in: Missouri AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565
§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021
Leading cases:
- United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484)“…contends, because the Missouri invasioh-of-privacy statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
- T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915)“…e where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252.1(1). Reasonable officers could have be…”
- United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)“…contends, because the Missouri invasion-of-privacy statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Missouri Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 573
§ 573.010Definitions.In force
As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean: (1) "Adult cabaret", a nightclub, bar, juice bar, restaurant, bottle club, or other commercial establishment, regardless of whether alcoholic beverages are served, which regularly features persons who appear semi-nude; (2) "Characterized by", describing the essential character or dominant theme of an item; (3) "Child", any person under the age of fourteen; (4) "Child pornography": (a) Any obscene material or performance depicting sexual conduct, sexual contact as defined in section 566.010, or a sexual performance and which has as one of its participants or portrays as an observer of such conduct, contact, or performance a minor; or (b) Any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct where: a. The production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; b. Such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 16 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases:
- State v. Hagan (Missouri Court of Appeals 2002, 79 S.W.3d 447)“…minor involved (“R.S.”) was not a child as *449 defined by § 573.010, RSMo 2000; thus, Defendant was not guilty of…”
- State v. Strughold (Missouri Court of Appeals 1998, 973 S.W.2d 876)“…RSMo 1986. This definition predates the 1987 amendment to Section 573.010 RSMo, which rewrote the definition of “porno…”
- State v. McKinney (Supreme Court of Missouri 1988, 756 S.W.2d 527)“…to consenting adults the freedom of speech is absolute, and § 573.010, RSMo 1978, is unconstitutional in its applic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 573.110Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, offense of — definitions — elements — exemptions — immunity from liability, when — penalty — private cause of action, when.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
1. As used in this section and section 573.112, the following terms mean: (1) "Computer", a device that accepts, processes, stores, retrieves, or outputs data and includes, but is not limited to, auxiliary storage and telecommunications devices connected to computers; (2) "Computer program", a series of coded instructions or statements in a form acceptable to a computer that causes the computer to process data and supply the results of the data processing; (3) "Data", a representation in any form of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions including, but not limited to, program documentation, that is prepared or has been prepared in a formalized manner and is stored or processed in or transmitted by a computer or in a system or network. Data is considered property and may be in any form including, but not limited to, printouts, magnetic or optical storage media, punch cards, data stored internally in the memory of the computer, or data stored externally that is accessible by the computer; (4) "Image", a photograph, film, videotape, digital recording, or other depiction or portrayal of an object, including a human body; (5) "Intimate parts", the fully…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- United States v. Anthony Madison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)“…and nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110, though the state grand jury later retu…”
- Gray (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…it knows how to say so in the statute itself. See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110.7 (“In addition to the criminal penalti…”
- Soule v. Langley Recycling, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2020)“…sexual images of her without her consent, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110. Now before the Cou…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Video Recording Laws: Public Spaces, Private Property, and Consent Rules, Missouri Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections, Missouri Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
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
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 52
§ 30120Publication and distribution of statements and solicitationsIn force
Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 30104(f)(3) of this title), such communication— if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or 1 So in original. The word “or” probably should appear at the end of par. (2).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 8 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases:
- Pursuing America's Greatness v. Federal Election Commission (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2016, 831 F.3d 500)“…not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” 52 U.S.C. § 30120(a)(3). We view disclosure rules far les…”
- James Blassingame v. Donald Trump (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2023, 87 F.4th 1)“…tical committee” in the words of campaign-finance law). See 52 U.S.C. § 30120(a)(1), (d)(1)(B). In the ad, the candid…”
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2018, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83)“…the ad and whether the ad was authorized by a candidate. 52 U.S.C. § 30120 (a) ; see 11 C.F.R. § 100.11 (c)(…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.010 - Child pornography definitions (computer-generated images)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110 - Nonconsensual disclosure of private sexual images(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 - Invasion of privacy (unauthorized intimate images)(revisor.mo.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 computer-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 - AI-generated voices in robocalls are artificial under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 461 (effective April 1, 2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.570 - Disclosure of an intimate digital depiction (effective Aug. 28, 2026)(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.575 - Sadistic online exploitation (effective Aug. 28, 2026)(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.025 - Promoting child sexual abuse material in the first degree(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.035 - Promoting child sexual abuse material in the second degree(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.037 - Possession of child sexual abuse material(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.112 - Threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images(revisor.mo.gov)