New Hampshire
New Hampshire 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
New Hampshire stands out as one of the most aggressive states in the country on deepfake regulation. As of January 1, 2025, RSA 638:26-a criminalizes the creation, distribution, or presentation of harmful deepfakes as a Class B felony, and a companion provision, RSA 507:8-j, gives victims a private civil right of action for damages. Separate laws cover synthetic intimate images (RSA 644:9-a) and AI-generated election deepfakes (RSA 664:14-c). New Hampshire's lawmaking in this space was directly shaped by the January 2024 fake-Biden robocall incident that targeted the state's presidential primary.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in New Hampshire?
Yes, depending on the purpose, creating a deepfake of an identifiable person is a felony in New Hampshire. RSA 638:26-a targets deepfakes made to embarrass, harass, entrap, defame, extort, or cause financial or reputational harm. The law covers all three buckets that matter most: sexual and intimate imagery, voice cloning, and political manipulation.
What the law does not cover: purely fictional or satirical depictions that make no realistic claim to truth, news reporting that includes clear authenticity disclaimers, and deepfakes created for entertainment without harmful intent. The statute expressly exempts satire, parody, and traditional impersonation that does not rely on AI tools. Even in those exempt categories, a deepfake that crosses into defamation or harassment can still trigger liability under other statutes.
New Hampshire law does not require the deepfake to be sexually explicit to be criminal. RSA 638:26-a is a general-purpose harmful-deepfake law, broader than the NCII-only approach taken by many states.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
New Hampshire addresses non-consensual intimate deepfakes through two overlapping statutes. RSA 644:9-a covers the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images and was amended to include synthetic images: a realistic but false depiction of a person's intimate parts, sexual acts, or sexual activity, disseminated without consent and with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the depicted person. A violation is a Class B felony.
RSA 638:26-a provides a second, broader criminal hook. Because it covers harmful deepfakes in any medium, including intimate content designed to harass or extort, a prosecutor can charge under either statute or both depending on the facts. Victims also have a civil right of action under RSA 507:8-j, which allows them to sue for damages without waiting for criminal prosecution.
For minors, New Hampshire's child sexual abuse image chapter reaches synthetic content through its definitions. RSA 649-A:2 is the chapter's definitions section: it defines a covered visual representation to include digital, computer, and computer-generated images, including a depiction created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable child is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The offenses and penalties sit in the sections that follow, and those are what a charge is brought under: RSA 649-A:3 (possession, a class A felony), RSA 649-A:3-a (distribution, up to 20 years), RSA 649-A:3-b (manufacture, up to 30 years), and RSA 649-A:3-c (creation of child intimate visual representations, a class B felony, whose definition of intimate visual representation expressly includes a synthetic image). Because those definitions turn on what the image depicts rather than on whether a real child was photographed, AI-generated material can fall within them.
Election and Political Deepfakes
New Hampshire enacted RSA 664:14-c in 2024, the year the state experienced one of the most prominent deepfake incidents in American political history. In January 2024, two days before the New Hampshire presidential primary, robocalls carrying an AI-generated clone of President Biden's voice urged Democratic voters to stay home. The calls were traced to political consultant Steve Kramer. The FCC issued a $6 million fine, and the New Hampshire Attorney General charged Kramer with 13 felony counts of voter suppression and 13 misdemeanor counts of impersonating a candidate. A jury acquitted Kramer on all criminal charges on June 13, 2025; Kramer has said he does not intend to pay the FCC fine.
RSA 664:14-c prohibits any person, corporation, committee, or other entity from distributing, within 90 days of an election at which a candidate for elective office will appear on the ballot, a message created using AI or generative AI that the distributor knows or should have known is a deepfake of a candidate, election official, or party on the state or local ballot. Two limits are easy to misread. The statute is not confined to political advertising: it reaches any distributed AI-generated message, paid or not. But it is confined by subject: a deepfake of a person who is not a candidate, election official, or party on the ballot does not trigger this disclosure duty, although RSA 638:26-a may still reach it. The required disclosure must state: "This [Image/Video/Audio] has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur." The law specifies minimum text size, display duration, and audio clarity requirements for the disclosure. Exemptions apply to bona fide news reporting, satire and parody, and impersonation that does not rely on AI. Enforcement is private: a candidate or election official depicted in a violating deepfake may seek an injunction and sue the sponsor for damages, and a prevailing party may be awarded attorney fees.
First Amendment risk is real in this space. A federal court struck down California's analogous election-deepfake law (AB 2839) in its entirety in August 2025 on free-speech grounds, permanently enjoining its enforcement. New Hampshire's disclosure-based approach (requiring a label rather than an outright ban) is generally considered more constitutionally durable than prohibition-only laws, but litigation in this area is ongoing nationally.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
New Hampshire has no right-of-publicity statute. Most states protect voice and likeness through a dedicated civil law; New Hampshire relies on common law instead. That gap is meaningfully filled by RSA 638:26-a, whose deepfake definition expressly includes a digitally altered voice in video, audio, or any other media. Cloned voices are also used in scams that imitate a grandchild or other relative asking for money, and our guide to family emergency and grandparent scams covers how to spot one and where to report it.
The national benchmark for voice-clone legislation is the Tennessee ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101, eff. July 1, 2024), which was the first state law to extend right-of-publicity protections specifically to AI voice simulations. New Hampshire takes a different path: rather than creating a standalone civil right for voice and likeness, it criminalizes harmful voice cloning under the deepfake fraud statute (RSA 638:26-a) and provides the civil remedy through a companion provision, RSA 507:8-j. The practical effect for victims is similar: a civil damages claim is available, but the legal basis differs.
Commercial voice cloning without a harmful purpose (for example, a consenting celebrity licensing their voice to an AI company) is not addressed by NH statute and would fall under contract and common law principles. The federal NO FAKES Act, which would create a federal right of publicity for AI digital replicas, remains a proposal only as of June 2026 and has not passed either chamber of Congress.
Federal Law That Applies in New Hampshire
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is now the primary federal law on intimate deepfakes. It makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, including AI-generated deepfakes. Penalties reach two years in prison (three for content involving minors). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice; the FTC enforces compliance.
The FCC's February 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) declared that AI-generated voices in robocalls qualify as "artificial" voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That ruling, triggered directly by the New Hampshire Biden robocall, makes AI voice-clone calls to phones without prior express consent illegal nationwide, regardless of state law.
Federal law reaches AI-generated child sexual abuse material through 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B), which covers a visual depiction that is indistinguishable from that of a real minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. One qualification matters. Under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c), a defendant has an affirmative defense that the material was not produced using any actual minor or minors. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court held the 2256(8)(B) definition at issue there, which reached any depiction that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and 2256(8)(D) overbroad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found the affirmative defense then available, which turned on the use of adult actors, "incomplete and insufficient" to save the statute. The current 2252A(c) defense is expressly unavailable only for material described in 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(C), the category covering an image of an identifiable real minor altered to appear sexually explicit. New Hampshire's own chapter 649-A offenses apply alongside the federal scheme.
Two federal bills are still working through Congress as of June 2026. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837) passed the Senate by unanimous consent in January 2026 but remains pending in the House; the NO FAKES Act (S.4591) has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026). The DEFIANCE Act would add a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfakes; the NO FAKES Act would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness. Neither has been enacted and neither should be relied on as current law.
For general AI regulation, New Hampshire's broader approach to artificial intelligence governance is covered separately at New Hampshire AI Laws, which addresses the full scope of AI-related legislation beyond the deepfake-specific statutes discussed here.
What Victims Can Do
Victims of deepfakes in New Hampshire have several avenues for relief. For criminal matters, a report should be filed with local police or the New Hampshire Attorney General's office. RSA 638:26-a (harmful deepfakes) and RSA 644:9-a (synthetic intimate images) are both felony offenses that law enforcement can prosecute.
For civil remedies, RSA 507:8-j gives victims a private right of action to sue for damages. This is a direct claim for harm caused by a deepfake created to embarrass, harass, defame, extort, or otherwise damage the victim, covering both economic losses and reputational harm. Plaintiffs do not need to wait for a criminal conviction to pursue a civil case.
For online platforms, the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour removal obligation (effective May 19, 2026) creates a direct path for victims to demand takedowns of nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. Submit a notice to the platform identifying the content; the platform must act within 48 hours or face FTC enforcement action.
Additionally, the Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State hub provides a national comparison of remedies, which can be useful if the creator of the deepfake is located in a different state.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Creating/distributing harmful deepfake (harassment, defamation, extortion) | RSA 638:26-a | Class B felony |
| Harmful deepfake that causes victim's arrest | RSA 638:26-a, III (separate offense) | Additional Class B felony + legal defense costs |
| Nonconsensual intimate synthetic image | RSA 644:9-a | Class B felony |
| AI deepfake of a candidate, election official, or ballot party without disclosure (within 90 days of an election) | RSA 664:14-c | Injunction + damages action by the depicted candidate or election official |
| AI-generated CSAM (minors) | RSA 649-A:3 (possession), 649-A:3-a (distribution), 649-A:3-b (manufacture), 649-A:3-c (creation) | Class A felony (possession); up to 20 years (distribution); up to 30 years (manufacture); class B felony (creation) |
| AI voice robocall without consent | FCC 24-17 / TCPA | Federal fine + civil liability |
| Nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 for minors) |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about New Hampshire deepfake laws and is not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly: New Hampshire enacted two major deepfake statutes in 2024, and federal law added a third layer in 2025. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face a deepfake-related charge, consult a licensed New Hampshire attorney.
Sources
The following primary legal sources were used to prepare this article.
For broader New Hampshire AI regulation, see New Hampshire AI Laws. For recording consent law in the state, see New Hampshire Recording Laws. For data privacy, see New Hampshire Data Privacy Laws.
More New Hampshire Laws
- New Hampshire AI Meeting Recording Laws
- New Hampshire Data Privacy Laws
- New Hampshire Recording Laws
- New Hampshire Sexting Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in New Hampshire?
Yes, if the deepfake is created to embarrass, harass, entrap, defame, extort, or cause financial or reputational harm to an identifiable person. RSA 638:26-a (effective January 1, 2025) makes this a Class B felony. The law covers video, audio, and any other media format, including voice deepfakes. Satire, parody, and news reporting with clear disclaimers are exempt.
Is deepfake porn a crime in New Hampshire?
Yes. Nonconsensual dissemination of synthetic intimate images is a Class B felony under RSA 644:9-a. The law covers realistic but false depictions of a person's intimate parts or sexual activity, disseminated without consent and with intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce. RSA 638:26-a also applies when the deepfake is used to harass or extort the victim. Both state laws now stack with the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (May 2025).
Can I sue someone for making a deepfake of me in New Hampshire?
Yes. RSA 507:8-j, enacted alongside the criminal deepfake statute in 2024, gives deepfake victims a private civil right of action, one of the first state civil remedies covering deepfakes of any kind. You can sue for damages caused by a harmful deepfake of your likeness without waiting for criminal charges to be filed. Consult a New Hampshire attorney about gathering evidence and calculating damages.
Are AI voice clones illegal in New Hampshire?
Voice cloning used to harass, defame, or harm an identifiable person is a Class B felony under RSA 638:26-a, which covers 'any likeness in video, audio, or any other media.' AI voice robocalls without prior consent are also federally illegal under the FCC's 2024 [TCPA](/us-laws/tcpa) ruling, which was triggered by the fake-Biden primary robocall in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has no separate right-of-publicity statute for commercial voice use.
What is the election deepfake law in New Hampshire?
RSA 664:14-c prohibits distributing any message created with AI or generative AI that you know or should know is a deepfake of a candidate, election official, or party on the state or local ballot within 90 days of an election, unless the content includes a disclosure stating the image, video, or audio was 'manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.' It is not limited to paid political advertising, but it also does not cover deepfakes of people who are not candidates, election officials, or parties on the ballot. The law was enacted in 2024 after the fake-Biden primary robocall incident. Satire, parody, and bona fide news reporting are exempt, and the depicted candidate or election official can seek an injunction and damages.
What happened with the fake-Biden robocall in New Hampshire?
In January 2024, AI-cloned robocalls impersonating President Biden told Democratic primary voters to stay home. Political consultant Steve Kramer was linked to the scheme. The FCC issued a $6 million fine and the New Hampshire Attorney General charged Kramer with 13 felony counts of voter suppression and 13 misdemeanor counts of impersonating a candidate. A jury acquitted Kramer on all criminal charges on June 13, 2025; Kramer has said he does not intend to pay the FCC fine. The incident directly prompted the FCC's nationwide ruling on AI robocalls and helped drive passage of RSA 664:14-c, the state's election deepfake disclosure law.
Does federal deepfake law apply in New Hampshire?
Yes. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (May 2025) is a federal crime covering nonconsensual intimate deepfakes with a 48-hour platform-removal obligation. The FCC's 2024 ruling makes AI voice robocalls illegal under the TCPA. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2256) covers AI-generated child sexual abuse material. The DEFIANCE Act passed the Senate in January 2026 but is still pending in the House, and the NO FAKES Act has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026); neither is law.
Does New Hampshire have a right of publicity for AI likenesses?
New Hampshire has no statutory right of publicity. Common law protections exist, but they are narrower than dedicated right-of-publicity statutes like Tennessee's ELVIS Act. For harmful uses of a person's likeness, RSA 638:26-a provides criminal penalties and RSA 507:8-j provides a civil damages remedy. For commercial AI replica use (such as a consenting celebrity licensing their voice), contract and common law govern in the absence of a dedicated statute.
Updates
Corrected the description of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition to what the Supreme Court actually held about the 2002 child pornography definitions and the affirmative defense then in the statute.
Corrected the federal AI-CSAM discussion to note the affirmative defense in 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c), replaced the citation to New Hampshire's definitions section with the operative RSA 649-A offense sections and their real penalties, and clarified that RSA 664:14-c reaches any AI-generated message but only deepfakes of a candidate, election official, or party on the ballot.
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.
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 638 FRAUD
§ 638:26-aFraudulent Use of Deepfakes.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
I. In this section: (a) "Artificial intelligence" or "AI" means the ability of a machine to display human-like capabilities for cognitive tasks such as reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity. AI systems may adapt their behavior to a certain degree by analyzing the effects of previous actions and operating under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight. (b) "Deepfake" means a video, audio, or any other media of a person in which his or her face, body, or voice has been digitally altered so that he or she appears to be someone else, he or she appears to be saying something that he or she has never said, or he or she appears to be doing something that he or she has never done. II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the person knowingly creates, distributes, or presents any likeness in video, audio, or any other media of an identifiable individual that constitutes a deepfake for the purpose of embarrassing, harassing, entrapping, defaming, extorting, or otherwise causing any financial or reputational harm to the identifiable person. III.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Also relied on in: New Hampshire AI Laws and Regulation (2026), Are AI Voice Scam Calls Illegal? Federal and State Law (2026), Deepfake Fraud and Impersonation Laws: Federal and State (2026)
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LII ACTIONS, PROCESS, AND SERVICE OF PROCESS, CHAPTER 507 ACTIONS
§ 507:8-jCivil Actions for Fraudulent Use of Deepfakes.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
I. In this section: (a) "Artificial intelligence" or "AI" means the ability of a machine to display human-like capabilities for cognitive tasks such as reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity. AI systems may adapt their behavior to a certain degree by analyzing the effects of previous actions and operating under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight. (b) "Deepfake" means a video, audio, or any other media of a person in which his or her face, body, or voice has been digitally altered so that he or she appears to be someone else, he or she appears to be saying something that he or she has never said, or he or she appears to be doing something that he or she has never done. II. A person may bring an action against any person who knowingly uses any likeness in video, audio, or any other media of that person to create a deepfake for the purpose of embarrassing, harassing, entrapping, defaming, extorting, or otherwise causing any financial or reputational harm to that person for damages resulting from such use. III. This section shall not apply to any of the following: (a) An interactive computer service as defined in 47 U.S.C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 644 BREACHES OF THE PEACE AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 644:9-aNonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
I. In this section: (a) "Disseminate" means to import, publish, produce, print, manufacture, post or share electronically, sell, lease, exhibit, display, or otherwise distribute. (b) "Image" means a photograph, film, videotape, or digital image or recording. (c) "Intimate parts" means the fully unclothed, partially unclothed, or transparently clothed genitals, pubic area, or anus, or, if the person is female, a partially or fully exposed nipple, including exposure through transparent clothing. (d) "Sexual act" means sexual penetration, masturbation, or sexual activity. (e) "Sexual activity" means any: (1) Knowing touching or fondling by any person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, anus, or breast of that person, or another person, or animal; or (2) Any transfer or transmission of semen upon any part of the clothed or unclothed body of a person; or (3) An act of urination within a sexual context; or (4) Any bondage, fetter, or sadism masochism; or (5) Sadomasochism abuse in any sexual context.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of New Hampshire v. Justin M. Lamontagne (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2023)“…f nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. See RSA 644:9-a (Supp. 2022). We affirm. I. Backgro…”
- State of New Hampshire v. Bradley Caprarello (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2025)“…ual dissemination of private sexual images (dissemination), RSA 644:9-a (Supp. 2024).1 On appeal, the defendant…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Pornography Laws (2026): Obscenity, AV Bill, CSAM, New Hampshire Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, New Hampshire Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXIII ELECTIONS, CHAPTER 664 POLITICAL EXPENDITURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS
§ 664:14-cSynthetic Media and Deceptive and Fraudulent Deepfakes.In force
I. In this section: (a) "Synthetic media" means an image, an audio recording, or a video recording of an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct that has been created or intentionally manipulated with the use of generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology in a manner to create a realistic but false image, audio, or video. (b) "Artificial intelligence" or "AI" is the ability of a machine to display human-like capabilities for cognitive tasks such as reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity. AI systems may adapt their behavior to a certain degree by analyzing the effects of previous actions and operating under varying and unpredictable circumstances without significant human oversight. (c) "Generative AI" is AI that can generate text, images, or other media in response to prompts. (d) "Deepfake" means a video, audio, or any other media of a person in which his or her face, body, or voice has been digitally altered so that he or she appears to be someone else, he or she appears to be saying something that he or she has never said, or he or she appears to be doing something that he or she has never done. II.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 649-A CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IMAGES
§ 649-A:2Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
In this chapter: I. "Child" means any person under the age of 18 years or something which is portrayed to be a person under the age of 18 and therefore indistinguishable from a child. II. "Disseminate" means to import, publish, produce, print, manufacture, distribute, sell, lease, exhibit, or display. III. "Sexually explicit conduct" means human masturbation, the touching of the actor's or other person's sexual organs in the context of a sexual relationship, sexual intercourse actual or simulated, normal or perverted, whether alone or between members of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals, or any lewd exhibitions of the buttocks, genitals, flagellation, bondage, or torture. Sexual intercourse is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse that gives the appearance of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted. IV.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Cobb (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 638)“…ine, pamphlet, motion picture film, photograph or picture.” RSA 649-A:2, IV “Sexual activity” means human mas…”
- State v. Ravell (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2007, 155 N.H. 280)“…ine, pamphlet, motion picture film, photograph or picture." RSA 649-A:2, IV (1996). We have already held that…”
- State v. Zidel (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2008, 156 N.H. 684)“…s defined to mean "any person under the age of 16 years." RSA 649-A:2, I (2007) (emphasis added). I conclude…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 649-A:3-cCreation of Child Intimate Visual Representations.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
I. No person shall knowingly create, produce, manufacture, or direct an intimate visual representation of a child for prurient purposes when that child is identifiable from the intimate visual representation itself or information displayed in connection with the intimate visual representation. II. For purposes of this section, "intimate visual representation" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, digital image, synthetic image, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, in which a child's intimate parts are depicted. III. For purposes of this section, "intimate parts" means the fully unclothed, partially unclothed, or transparently clothed genitals, pubic area, or anus, or, if the person is female, a partially or fully exposed nipple, including exposure through transparent clothing. IV. For purposes of this section, "synthetic image" means an image that has been altered or created depicting an individual's image in a realistic but false representation of the individual. V.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
§ 649-A:3Possession of Child Sexual Abuse Images.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
I. No person shall knowingly: (a) Buy, procure, possess, or control any visual representation of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (b) Bring or cause to be brought into this state any visual representation of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct. II. An offense under this section shall be a class A felony if such person has had no previous convictions in this state or another jurisdiction for the conduct prohibited by paragraph I. Upon conviction of an offense under this section based on an indictment alleging that the person has been previously convicted of an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent offense in another jurisdiction, the defendant may be sentenced to a maximum sentence not to exceed 20 years and a minimum sentence not to exceed 1/2 of the maximum sentence. III.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Cobb (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 638)“…hree charges of exhibiting or displaying child pornography, RSA 649-A:3, 1(c) (1996 & Supp. 1998), and 267 char…”
- State v. Ravell (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2007, 155 N.H. 280)“…e counts of possession of child pornography in violation of RSA 649-A:3 (Supp.2006). We affirm. The following…”
- State v. Zidel (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2008, 156 N.H. 684)“…on on nine counts of possession of child pornography, see RSA 649-A:3 (2007), arguing that the Superior Court…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Age of Consent Laws: Statutes and Reporting
§ 649-A:3-aDistribution of Child Sexual Abuse Images.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
I. No person shall: (a) Knowingly sell, exchange, or otherwise transfer, or possess with intent to sell, exchange, or otherwise transfer any visual representation of a child engaging in or being engaged in sexually explicit conduct; (b) Knowingly publish, exhibit, or otherwise make available any visual representation of a child engaging in or being engaged in sexually explicit conduct. II. (a) If such person has had no previous convictions in this state or another state for the conduct prohibited by paragraph I, the defendant may be sentenced to a maximum sentence not to exceed 20 years and a minimum sentence not to exceed 1/2 of the maximum. Upon conviction of an offense under this section based on an indictment alleging that the person has been previously convicted of an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent offense in an out-of-state jurisdiction, the defendant may be sentenced to a maximum sentence not to exceed 30 years and a minimum sentence not to exceed 1/2 of the minimum.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Higgins (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2024, 321 A.3d 279)“…of child sexual abuse images. See RSA 649-A:3, I(a) (2016); RSA 649-A:3-a, I(a) (2016). The defendant argues tha…”
- State of New Hampshire v. Jason A. Morneau (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2025)“…d sexual abuse images (CSAI), see RSA 649-A:3, I(a) (2016); RSA 649-A:3-a, I(a) (2016). Prior to trial, he filed…”
- State of New Hampshire v. Wilfred Bergeron (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2017)“…use images (commonly referred to as child pornography). See RSA 649-A:3-a (2016). He argues, under both the State…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 649-A:3-bManufacture of Child Sexual Abuse Images.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
I. No person shall knowingly create, produce, manufacture, or direct a visual representation of a child engaging in or being engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or participate in that portion of such visual representation that consists of a child engaging in or being engaged in sexually explicit conduct. II. If such person has had no previous convictions in this state or another state for the conduct prohibited in this section, the defendant may be sentenced to a maximum sentence not to exceed 30 years and a minimum sentence not to exceed 1/2 of the maximum. Upon conviction of an offense under this section based on an indictment alleging that the person has been previously convicted of an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent offense in an out-of-state jurisdiction, a person may be sentenced to life imprisonment or for such term as the court may order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Rodriguez (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2025, 2025 N.H. 43)“…ine counts of manufacture of child sexual abuse images, see RSA 649-A:3-b (2016); three counts of possession of…”
- State v. Timothy Barr (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2019)“…de novo. State v. Zidel, 156 N.H. 684, 686 (2008). RSA 649-A:3-b, I, criminalizes the manufacture of chi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 56 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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)
§ 2252ACertain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornographyIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
Any person who— knowingly mails, or transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any child pornography; knowingly receives or distributes— any child pornography using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or any material that contains child pornography using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; knowingly— reproduces any child pornography for distribution through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,530 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Williams (2008) held that Section 2252A(a)(3)(B), the pandering and solicitation provision, is neither overbroad under the First Amendment nor unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Pugh (2008) applied the section at sentencing, holding a probation-only sentence for possession unreasonable.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted in a chat room offering 'good' pictures of his toddler daughter for swaps and linked to images of real children; the Supreme Court held 2252A(a)(3)(B), which bans offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography, is neither overbroad nor vague.
- United States v. Pugh (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2008, 515 F.3d 1179)✓Pugh pleaded guilty under 2252A(a)(5)(B) to possessing 68 images and two videos of child pornography he obtained by posing as a girl in chat rooms; the Eleventh Circuit held the five-year probation sentence, with no prison and no supervised release, substantively unreasonable.
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓Adult entertainment producers, a nudist publisher and artists challenged the CPPA definitions reaching images that 'appear to be' or 'convey the impression' of minors; the Supreme Court held both definitions, which widened what 2252A reaches, facially overbroad.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Hawaii Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Minnesota 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 54 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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.
- Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1996, 928 S.W.2d 922)✓A woman sued over a book that named her and printed her childhood photo, and over a related TV film; the Court of Appeals held the Personal Rights Protection Act sets no limitations period of its own, applied the one year period, and affirmed summary judgment.
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
- RSA 638:26-a: Fraudulent Use of Deepfakes (HB 1432, Chapter 243, eff. Jan. 1, 2025)(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 644:9-a: Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images (synthetic image amendments, HB 1319, eff. Jan. 1, 2025)(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 664:14-c: Synthetic Media and Deceptive and Fraudulent Deepfakes (HB 1596, 2024, Chapter 345:1)(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 649-A:2: Child Pornography Statute (covers digital and computer-generated images)(gc.nh.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- FCC Order FCC 24-17: AI-generated voices in robocalls are illegal under TCPA (Feb. 2024)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256: Federal CSAM statute covering AI-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- RSA 507:8-j: Civil Actions for Fraudulent Use of Deepfakes (HB 1432, Chapter 243:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2025)(gc.nh.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c): affirmative defense that the material was not produced using any actual minor, unavailable for 2256(8)(C) morphed images(law.cornell.edu)
- RSA 649-A:3: Possession of Child Sexual Abuse Images (class A felony)(gc.nh.gov)
- RSA 649-A:3-a: Distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Images (max 20 years, no prior convictions)(gc.nh.gov)
- RSA 649-A:3-b: Manufacture of Child Sexual Abuse Images (max 30 years, no prior convictions)(gc.nh.gov)
- RSA 649-A:3-c: Creation of Child Intimate Visual Representations (class B felony; definition expressly includes a synthetic image)(gc.nh.gov)