New Mexico
New Mexico 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
New Mexico has one enacted deepfake law: the 2024 election deepfake law (HB 182, NMSA 1978 §§ 1-19-26.4 and 1-19-26.8), signed March 5, 2024 and effective May 15, 2024. The state has no law criminalizing AI-generated non-consensual intimate images of adults, leaving New Mexico as one of the most significant gap states in the country. Federal law and, for minors, the state CSAM statute provide partial backstops.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in New Mexico?
It depends on the type of deepfake. New Mexico law criminalizes AI-generated deceptive media in elections but does not have a general adult intimate deepfake law. The three main categories break down differently here than in most states.
For sexual and intimate deepfakes of adults, there is no enacted state law. The existing unauthorized distribution of sensitive images statute (NMSA 1978 § 30-37A-1) covers real photographs and videos shared without consent but does not expressly reach AI-generated images. A proposed amendment to extend the statute to AI-generated intimate imagery was not enacted as of mid-2026.
For election deepfakes, New Mexico is ahead of many states. NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8 (HB 182, 2024) makes distributing materially deceptive AI media to influence an election a criminal offense. For AI voice cloning and digital likeness, the state has no statutory right of publicity and no voice-specific law.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
New Mexico does not have an enacted law criminalizing AI-generated non-consensual intimate images (NCII) of adults. The existing statute, NMSA 1978 § 30-37A-1, prohibits unauthorized distribution of sensitive images and provides a misdemeanor penalty (felony on a second conviction), but its text does not cover synthetic or AI-generated imagery.
A bill introduced by Representative Christine Chandler would have amended § 30-37A-1 to include "sensitive deepfake images," but the legislature did not pass it. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has publicly called for stronger deepfake laws, signaling continued legislative attention to this gap.
For minors, the picture is different. The state CSAM statute, NMSA 1978 § 30-6A-2, defines "visual or print medium" to include "any computer or electronically generated imagery." That broad definition covers AI-generated images depicting minors, so creating or distributing AI-generated CSAM in New Mexico is a serious felony regardless of any gap in the adult NCII law.
Victims of adult intimate deepfakes in New Mexico must currently rely on federal law. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the primary backstop, making it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice.
Election and Political Deepfakes
New Mexico enacted meaningful election deepfake protection through HB 182, signed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on March 5, 2024. It took effect May 15, 2024, ninety days after the legislative session adjourned.
The law created NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8 under the Campaign Reporting Act. It prohibits a person from distributing, or agreeing with another person to distribute, "materially deceptive media" within 90 days before an election, knowing the media falsely represents the depicted individual and intending to alter voter behavior. Materially deceptive media means an image, video, or audio that depicts an identifiable individual engaged in conduct or speech in which that individual did not engage, was shared publicly without the individual's consent, and was produced in whole or in part using AI.
The law also amended NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.4, an existing 2019 disclaimer statute, to require advertisements containing materially deceptive media to carry a clear AI disclaimer, with specific formatting rules for images, audio, and video. Disclaimer violations carry civil penalties under NMSA 1978 § 1-19-34.6.
Penalties escalate, but the statute assigns only a classification and leaves the sentence to New Mexico's general sentencing scale. Subsection D provides that a person who willfully and knowingly violates the prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor for a first conviction and a fourth degree felony for a second conviction. The section states no number of days, no number of years and no dollar amount anywhere in its text. Sentencing therefore comes from the general statutes: a misdemeanor carries a definite term of less than one year in county jail and a fine of not more than $1,000 under NMSA 1978 § 31-19-1(A), and a fourth degree felony carries a basic sentence of eighteen months of imprisonment under § 31-18-15(A) and a fine of not more than $5,000 under § 31-18-15(E). Subsection F of § 1-19-26.8 is a savings clause preserving other claims and civil actions for damages, not a penalty provision. The statute's only exemption is the disclaimer itself: materially deceptive media, including satire, parody, or news coverage, is not a violation if it carries the required AI disclaimer. A looser newscast exemption, letting a broadcaster satisfy the rule by clearly acknowledging AI-generation rather than using the full disclaimer, applies only to the separate paid-advertisement disclaimer law at NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.4, not to this criminal prohibition. The New Mexico Secretary of State and Ethics Commission investigate complaints, and the statute lets the attorney general, a district attorney, the depicted individual, an injured candidate, or a voter organization seek injunctive relief in court.
Note that election deepfake laws face ongoing First Amendment risk nationwide. A California election deepfake law (AB 2839) was enjoined in August 2025 on constitutional grounds. New Mexico's law has not been challenged in court as of mid-2026, but the First Amendment landscape for this area of law continues to evolve.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
New Mexico provides the weakest protections of the three buckets in this area. The state has no right-of-publicity statute and no law specifically addressing AI voice cloning or synthetic digital replicas.
Protections rest entirely on common law, which recognizes a limited right of publicity for commercial use of a person's name, image, or likeness. Common law claims are harder to bring than statutory ones: there is no clear penalty, no private right of action spelled out in statute, and no extension to voice.
The national reference point is Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024), the first state law to extend right-of-publicity protections to voice against AI simulations. New Mexico has no comparable statute. The federal NO FAKES Act, which would create a nationwide right of publicity against unauthorized AI digital replicas, remains a proposed bill in committee and has not passed either chamber of Congress as of mid-2026.
For AI voice cloning used in robocalls, federal law provides protection. The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, making unsolicited AI voice-clone calls illegal without prior express consent. The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) also prohibits AI voice impersonation of government entities and businesses.
New Mexico residents whose voice or likeness is used without consent in commercial contexts can pursue common law misappropriation claims, but outcomes are uncertain compared to states with robust statutory frameworks.
For general AI regulation in the state, see New Mexico AI Laws, which covers the broader legislative landscape beyond deepfakes. That page addresses AI in employment, public contracting, and other sectors distinct from the deepfake-specific statutes discussed here.
Federal Law That Applies in New Mexico
Federal law fills several of the gaps that New Mexico state law leaves open.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) is now the primary national protection for adult intimate deepfake victims. Signed on May 19, 2025, it makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, explicitly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Penalties reach two years in prison (three years when minors are involved). Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice, with FTC enforcement.
Federal CSAM law (18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B), the PROTECT Act of 2003) covers computer-generated images "indistinguishable" from a real minor, filling any theoretical gap even in states with broader CSAM statutes.
The FCC AI-robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, February 2024) and the FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) address AI voice fraud at the federal level, as described in the voice cloning section above.
Two bills often mentioned in coverage of deepfake law remain pending and are NOT enacted law. The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims, with liquidated damages of $150,000, rising to $250,000 where the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 but remains pending in the House and is not law. The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity against unauthorized AI digital replicas; it has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and awaits a Senate floor vote (as of August 2026) and has not passed either chamber as of mid-2026. See Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State for the current federal status overview.
What Victims Can Do
If you are a victim of a deepfake in New Mexico, the available remedies depend on the type of harm.
For intimate deepfakes, file a report with local law enforcement and note that federal charges under the TAKE IT DOWN Act may be available even without a state criminal statute. Contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) if the content involves a minor. Use the TAKE IT DOWN platform-notification process: platforms must remove content within 48 hours of your notice.
For election deepfakes, file a complaint with the New Mexico Secretary of State or the New Mexico Ethics Commission, which share enforcement authority under § 1-19-26.8.
For voice cloning and likeness misuse, consult a private attorney about common law misappropriation or false light claims. If the misuse involves robocalls, file a complaint with the FCC. If someone used a cloned voice to pose as a relative and ask you for money, treat it as a scam first: our guide to family emergency scams covers what to do in the first hour and where to report it.
For platform takedown, the TAKE IT DOWN Act's 48-hour removal window is now the fastest route for intimate content. Major platforms also maintain their own reporting mechanisms.
For context on New Mexico privacy and data protection, see New Mexico Data Privacy Laws and New Mexico Recording Laws.
Penalties Summary
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Distributing deceptive AI media in election (first conviction) | NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8(D) | Misdemeanor: definite term under one year in county jail and/or fine up to $1,000 (§ 31-19-1(A)) |
| Distributing deceptive AI media in election (second conviction) | NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8(D) | Fourth degree felony: basic sentence of 18 months and/or fine up to $5,000 (§ 31-18-15) |
| AI-generated CSAM (minors) | NMSA 1978 § 30-6A-3 (definitions at § 30-6A-2) | Felony: fourth degree for possession up to second degree for manufacture |
| Intimate deepfake of adult published without consent | TAKE IT DOWN Act (federal) | Up to 2 years federal prison |
| AI voice clone robocall without consent | FCC/TCPA | FCC enforcement, fines |
| Unauthorized distribution of real intimate images (adult) | NMSA 1978 § 30-37A-1 | Misdemeanor; felony on second conviction |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about New Mexico deepfake and AI-generated media laws. It is not legal advice. Laws in this area are changing rapidly at both the state and federal levels. Consult a licensed New Mexico attorney for advice about your specific situation.
More New Mexico Laws
- New Mexico AI Meeting Recording Laws
- New Mexico Data Privacy Laws
- New Mexico Recording Laws
- New Mexico Sexting Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in New Mexico?
It depends on the type. Making and distributing a deceptive AI-generated video of a candidate within 90 days of an election is a criminal offense under NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8. Creating AI-generated CSAM of a minor is a felony under § 30-6A-3. However, New Mexico has no state law specifically criminalizing intimate deepfakes of adults outside the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, which applies nationwide.
Is deepfake porn illegal in New Mexico?
There is no New Mexico state law that specifically criminalizes AI-generated intimate images of adults. The existing § 30-37A-1 statute covers unauthorized distribution of real intimate images but does not expressly reach AI-generated deepfakes. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) now makes it a federal crime to publish nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, so federal charges are available even without a state law.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in New Mexico?
New Mexico has no civil remedy statute for intimate deepfakes. You may be able to pursue common law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or, for commercial misuse, misappropriation of likeness. The pending federal DEFIANCE Act would create a statutory civil cause of action with liquidated damages, but it has not been enacted as of mid-2026. Consult a New Mexico attorney for your options.
Are AI voice clones illegal in New Mexico?
New Mexico has no statute covering AI voice cloning. Common law provides limited protection for commercial misuse. AI-generated voices in robocalls without prior consent are illegal under the federal FCC ruling (FCC 24-17, 2024). The federal NO FAKES Act, which would protect voice and likeness against AI digital replicas, remains pending legislation only.
What is New Mexico's election deepfake law?
NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8, enacted through HB 182 and signed March 5, 2024, prohibits distributing materially deceptive AI-generated media within 90 days of an election with intent to influence voters. Under subsection D, a first conviction is a misdemeanor and a second conviction is a fourth degree felony. The statute sets no jail term or fine of its own, so sentencing follows New Mexico's general scale (NMSA 1978 § 31-19-1 for misdemeanors, § 31-18-15 for fourth degree felonies). Satire and parody that include the required AI disclaimer are exempt. The New Mexico Secretary of State and Ethics Commission investigate complaints.
Does New Mexico law cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material?
Yes. NMSA 1978 § 30-6A-2 defines visual media to include computer and electronically generated imagery, so AI-generated CSAM depicting minors falls within the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, whose offenses and penalties are set out in § 30-6A-3. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2256) also covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor.
What should I do if someone posted a deepfake of me in New Mexico?
For intimate deepfakes, report to local law enforcement and use the TAKE IT DOWN Act platform notification process (platforms must remove within 48 hours). For election deepfakes, file a complaint with the New Mexico Secretary of State or Ethics Commission. For voice or likeness misuse, contact a New Mexico attorney about common law claims.
Updates
Corrected the penalties for New Mexico’s election deepfake law: NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8(D) sets only a classification (misdemeanor on a first conviction, fourth degree felony on a second), and the jail time and fines come from the state’s general sentencing statutes, §§ 31-19-1 and 31-18-15; the AI-generated CSAM row now cites the offense section § 30-6A-3 with the correct felony range.
Corrected the penalties for New Mexico's election deepfake law: NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8(D) only classifies the offense as a misdemeanor on a first conviction and a fourth degree felony on a second, and sets no jail term or fine of its own, so the page now shows the sentences that New Mexico's general sentencing statutes actually supply, and the AI-generated CSAM row now cites the offense section § 30-6A-3 rather than the definitions section.
Corrected the election-deepfake penalties to the figures the statute itself sets.
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 a mischaracterization of New Mexico's election deepfake law: the criminal prohibition in NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8 has only one exemption (media carrying the required AI disclaimer), not a separate looser 'bona fide newscast acknowledgment' carve-out, which actually belongs to the different paid-advertisement disclaimer statute, § 1-19-26.4.
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 Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 1
§ 1-19-26.8Prohibited use of materially deceptive media; disclaimers required; crime for violation; exceptions; enforcement.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. Except as otherwise provided in Subsections B through D of this section, it is a violation of the Campaign Reporting Act for a person to distribute or enter into an agreement with another person to distribute materially deceptive media. A person violates this subsection if that person distributes or enters into an agreement with another person to distribute materially deceptive media and: (1) the person knows the materially deceptive media falsely represents a depicted individual; (2) the distribution occurs within ninety days before an election; and (3) the person intends the distribution to result in altering the voting behavior of electors in an election by misleading the electors into believing that the depicted individual engaged in the speech or conduct depicted, and the distribution is reasonably likely to cause that result. B. The prohibition provided in Subsection A of this section does not apply to materially deceptive media if that media includes a disclaimer that appears in a clear and conspicuous manner in every language used in the media and indicates: "This ____ has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence".
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Also relied on in: New Mexico AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
§ 1-19-26.4Disclaimers in advertisements; artificial intelligence; materially deceptive media; violation; penalty.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. A person who makes a campaign expenditure, a coordinated expenditure or an independent expenditure for an advertisement in an amount that exceeds one thousand dollars ($1,000), or in an amount that, when added to the aggregate amount of the campaign expenditures, coordinated expenditures and independent expenditures for advertisements made by the same person during the election cycle, exceeds one thousand dollars ($1,000), shall ensure that the advertisement contains the name of the candidate, committee or other person who authorized and paid for the advertisement. B. The requirements of Subsection A of this section do not apply to the following: (1) bumper stickers, pins, buttons, pens and similar small items upon which the disclaimer cannot be conveniently printed; or (2) skywriting, water towers, wearing apparel or other means of displaying an advertisement of such a nature that the inclusion of a disclaimer would be impracticable. C. The disclaimer statements required by Subsection A of this section shall be set forth legibly on any advertisement that is disseminated or displayed by visual media.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 1-19-34.6
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rio Grande Foundation v. Toulouse Oliver (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2023, 57 F.4th 1147)“…Act, ch. 262, 2019 N.M. Laws § 1 (codified as amended at N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-19-26.4, 27.3; id. at § 2-21-1). A violation…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 1-19-34.6Civil penaltiesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. If the secretary of state exhausts efforts in seeking voluntary compliance and reasonably believes that a person committed, or is about to commit, a violation of the Campaign Reporting Act, the secretary of state shall refer the matter to the state ethics commission for enforcement; provided, however, that if the secretary of state waives the imposition of a fine pursuant to Subsection D of Section 1-19-35 NMSA 1978, the matter shall not be referred. B. With or without a referral from the secretary of state, the state ethics commission may institute a civil action in district court for any violation of the Campaign Reporting Act or to prevent a violation of that act that involves an unlawful solicitation or the making or acceptance of an unlawful contribution. An action for relief may include a permanent or temporary injunction, a restraining order or any other appropriate order, including a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation not to exceed a total of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), and forfeiture of any contribution received as a result of an unlawful solicitation or unlawful contribution.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 30
§ 30-6A-2DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act: A. "prohibited sexual act" means: (1) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (2) bestiality; (3) masturbation; (4) sadomasochistic abuse for the purpose of sexual stimulation; or (5) lewd and sexually explicit exhibition with a focus on the genitals or pubic area of any person for the purpose of sexual stimulation; B. "visual or print medium" means: (1) any film, photograph, negative, slide, computer diskette, videotape, videodisc or any computer or electronically generated imagery; or (2) any book, magazine or other form of publication or photographic reproduction containing or incorporating any film, photograph, negative, slide, computer diskette, videotape, videodisc or any computer generated or electronically generated imagery; C. "performed publicly" means performed in a place that is open to or used by the public; D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Myers (New Mexico Supreme Court 2009, 146 N.M. 128)“…e photographs do not depict a “prohibited sexual act” under NMSA 1978, Section 30-6A-2(A) (1984, as amended through 2001). The…”
- City of Farmington v. Fawcett (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1992, 114 N.M. 537)“…ler in prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children. See NMSA 1978, § 30-6A-2 (Repl.Pamp.1984). Again, however, this…”
- State v. Gonzales (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2019)“…e meaning of “lewd and sexually explicit exhibition” within NMSA 1978, Section 30-6A-2(A)(5) (2001) (internal quotation marks…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-37A-1Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images; penaltiesIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
A. Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images consists of distributing, publishing or otherwise making available, by an electronic communications device or other means, sensitive images of a person, with or without information identifying that person, without that person's consent: (1) with the intent to: (a) harass, humiliate or intimidate that person; (b) incite another to harass, humiliate or intimidate that person; (c) cause that person to reasonably fear for that person's own or family members' safety; (d) cause that person to suffer unwanted physical contact or injury; or (e) cause that person to suffer substantial emotional distress; and (2) where the conduct is such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Valerio (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2025)“…n for the purpose of transfer to or use by a prisoner”); NMSA 1978, § 30-37A-1(B)(1) (2015) (prohibiting the unauthori…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), New Mexico Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Consent Rules (2026), New Mexico Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: § 30-9-20 Penalties (2026)
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)
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 31
§ 31-19-1Sentencing authority[;] misdemeanors; imprisonment and fines; probation.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
A. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term less than one year or to the payment of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge. B. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a petty misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term not to exceed six months or to the payment of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge. C. When the court has deferred or suspended sentence, it shall order the defendant placed on supervised or unsupervised probation for all or some portion of the period of deferment or suspension.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ramos (New Mexico Supreme Court 2013, 2013 NMSC 31)“…year, or payment of a fine of not more than $1000, or both. NMSA 1978, § 31-19-1(A) (1984). {13} The statute does not s…”
- State v. Johnson (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1988, 107 N.M. 356)“…robation were within the authority of the magistrate court. NMSA 1978, § 31-19-1 (Repl.Pamp.1987). If the only re…”
- State v. NICK R. (New Mexico Supreme Court 2009, 147 N.M. 182)“…sdemeanor criminal penalty of up to six months in jail, and NMSA 1978, § 31-19-1(B) (1984), for carrying “a concealed lo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Restraining Order Laws (2026): How to Get an Order of Protection, New Mexico Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), New Mexico Hit and Run Laws: Statutes, Penalties, and Legal Duties
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
- New Mexico HB 182 (2024) - Election Deepfake Disclosure Law (NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8)(nmlegis.gov).gov
- HB 182 Full Text - NMSA 1978 §§ 1-19-26.4, 1-19-26.8(nmlegis.gov).gov
- HB 206 (2024) bill text quoting NMSA 1978 § 30-6A-2 definitions (visual medium includes computer or electronically generated imagery)(nmlegis.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act - Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress)(congress.gov).gov
- Federal CSAM Law - 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (PROTECT Act; covers AI-generated images)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 - AI Voices in Robocalls Illegal Under TCPA(fcc.gov).gov
- New Mexico Secretary of State - HB 182 Signed (2024)(sos.nm.gov).gov
- New Mexico HB 182 (2024), enrolled House Judiciary Committee substitute - enacted text of NMSA 1978 § 1-19-26.8, Sec. 3 subsection D (classification only, no term or fine)(nmlegis.gov)
- NMSA 1978 §§ 31-19-1 and 31-18-15 - New Mexico general sentencing scale for misdemeanors and noncapital felonies (fourth degree felony: eighteen months, fine up to $5,000)(nmonesource.com)
- NMSA 1978 § 30-6A-3 - Sexual exploitation of children (possession fourth degree, distribution third degree, manufacture second degree); definitions at § 30-6A-2(nmonesource.com)