South Dakota
South Dakota 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
South Dakota makes several categories of deepfakes illegal. The state covers nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of adults under SDCL 22-21-4, AI-generated child sexual abuse material under SB 79 (signed 2024), and unlabeled election deepfakes under SB 164 (signed 2025). Since SB 41 took effect July 1, 2026, creating or distributing digitally fabricated (AI-generated) intimate material under SDCL 22-21-4(3) is a Class 5 felony; only real, unaltered images fall under the statute's Class 1 misdemeanor tier. No state voice-cloning or right-of-publicity law exists yet.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in South Dakota?
Yes, in several contexts, though the scope of each law differs. South Dakota has built its deepfake protections across three separate statutes addressing different harms: intimate imagery, child exploitation, and election interference.
For adults, disseminating or selling a real, unaltered intimate image of someone without their consent is a Class 1 misdemeanor under SDCL 22-21-4(1)-(2); that tier reaches dissemination of a real image, not AI fabrication. Since SB 41 took effect July 1, 2026, SDCL 22-21-4(3) separately makes it a Class 5 felony, up to five years in prison, to knowingly create, disclose, disseminate, distribute, or sell computer-generated or digitally fabricated intimate material -- the provision that actually reaches AI-generated deepfakes.
For minors, AI-generated child sexual abuse material became a felony when Governor Noem signed SB 79 in February 2024, with penalties tiered by conduct: possession is a Class 4 felony, distribution a Class 3 felony, and manufacturing a Class 2 felony. That law expressly covers both deepfakes of real children and wholly synthetic images that do not depict any actual person but appear to show a minor in a sexual act.
For elections, disseminating an unlabeled AI-generated deepfake of a candidate within 90 days of an election with intent to injure is illegal under SB 164 (effective July 1, 2025).
What is NOT covered: South Dakota has no general-purpose deepfake law, no right-of-publicity statute covering AI voice or likeness replicas outside those three buckets, and no civil cause of action for adults harmed by nonconsensual intimate deepfakes beyond what federal law now provides.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
South Dakota's main adult-intimate-deepfake law, SDCL 22-21-4, has two distinct tiers. Subdivisions (1) and (2) prohibit photographing, visually recording, or disseminating a real, unaltered image of someone without clothing or engaged in a sexual act, without consent and with intent to self-gratify, harass, embarrass, or otherwise harm -- a Class 1 misdemeanor. Subdivision (3), added by SB 41 and in effect since July 1, 2026, expressly reaches AI-generated content: it prohibits knowingly and intentionally creating, disclosing, disseminating, distributing, or selling "digitally fabricated material" depicting an identifiable person in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct, and it is a Class 5 felony.
The base penalty under the current statute is a Class 1 misdemeanor: up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. If the victim is 17 or younger and the perpetrator is at least 21, the offense escalates to a Class 6 felony.
SB 41, signed by Governor Rhoden on March 16, 2026, added a new subdivision to South Dakota's criminal invasions-of-privacy chapter explicitly targeting "digitally fabricated material." Effective July 1, 2026, creating, disclosing, distributing, or selling digitally fabricated depictions of an identifiable person in a state of nudity or engaged in a sexually explicit act without consent is now a Class 5 felony carrying up to five years in prison. The provision does not criminalize mere possession. This is a meaningful upgrade: where SDCL 22-21-4's base offense carries a maximum of one year, the same conduct with digital fabrication is now punishable by five times that amount.
For victims of AI-generated CSAM involving minors, SB 79 (signed February 12, 2024) amended SDCL chapter 22-24A to define "computer-generated child pornography," including depictions created by the use of artificial intelligence or other computer technology. Possession is a Class 4 felony, distribution is a Class 3 felony, and manufacturing is a Class 2 felony. The law covers both deepfakes of real children and entirely synthetic images that depict no actual person but appear to show a minor.
Federal law also applies in South Dakota. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) creates a separate federal crime for knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice. Federal CSAM statutes under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8) likewise cover AI-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor.
Election and Political Deepfakes
South Dakota enacted SB 164 on March 25, 2025, making it one of the earlier states to specifically address election deepfakes. The law is effective July 1, 2025.
SB 164 prohibits disseminating a deepfake depicting a candidate within 90 days before an election with the intent to cause injury to that candidate. Dissemination is allowed if the content includes a clear and prominent disclosure stating it has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. For video, the disclosure must appear as legible text superimposed over the content, no smaller than the largest font otherwise visible. For audio, the disclosure must be spoken clearly at the beginning and end of the recording.
Violations are a Class 1 misdemeanor: up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The law also creates civil remedies: the attorney general, an injured candidate, or the individual depicted may seek injunctive relief, and a violator is liable to the candidate and the depicted individual for damages, reasonable costs, and attorney fees.
Satire and parody are exempt, as is news content that clearly acknowledges the deepfake status of what is being shown. These carve-outs reflect the First Amendment concerns that have followed election-deepfake laws in other states. Note that a California election-deepfake statute was struck down and permanently enjoined in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds, illustrating that such laws face ongoing judicial scrutiny.
SB 164 is narrower than it might appear: it covers only candidates and only within the 90-day window. Deepfakes targeting elected officials outside that window, or targeting private citizens in a political context, are not addressed by SB 164 and would need to fit under SDCL 22-21-4 or SB 41 to be covered.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
South Dakota has no statute protecting voice or likeness from unauthorized AI replication. The state has not enacted a right-of-publicity law covering AI digital replicas, and no voice-cloning-specific legislation has been signed into law as of mid-2026.
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 expressly extend right-of-publicity protections to AI voice simulations. South Dakota residents do not have a comparable state-law remedy.
Federal rules provide partial coverage. The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls constitute "artificial" voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227), making unsolicited AI voice-clone calls to phones illegal without prior express consent. The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits AI-assisted impersonation of government entities and businesses. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a national right of publicity for voice and likeness against unauthorized AI digital replicas, but it has not passed either chamber as of June 2026 and is pending legislation only.
For general AI regulation affecting South Dakota businesses and individuals, see South Dakota AI Laws, which covers the broader regulatory landscape beyond deepfake-specific rules. For privacy-related protections, see South Dakota Data Privacy Laws.
Federal Law That Applies in South Dakota
Several federal laws apply to deepfake conduct in South Dakota regardless of what state law covers.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12) is the most significant recent development. Signed May 19, 2025, it is the first federal law specifically targeting nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. It criminalizes knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults or minors, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." The maximum penalty is two years in prison, rising to three years when a minor is depicted. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice under a compliance framework enforced by the FTC; the compliance deadline was May 19, 2026.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for victims of sexual deepfakes, with liquidated damages of $150,000 ($250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). The 118th Congress version passed the Senate in July 2024 but died in the House. The current version, S.1837, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House. It has not been signed into law and remains pending legislation. For background, see our coverage of the DEFIANCE Act and deepfake porn victims' right to sue.
The NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) similarly remains a proposal. It would create a federal right of publicity for AI voice and likeness replicas, but it is not law and has not been enacted.
Federal CSAM statutes (18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B), (11)) cover computer- and AI-generated images indistinguishable from a real minor, filling any gap left by state law.
The FCC's February 2024 ruling (FCC 24-17) makes AI-generated voice robocalls illegal under the TCPA. The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461) covers AI-assisted business and government impersonation.
What Victims Can Do
Victims of intimate deepfakes in South Dakota have several avenues available to them. The most immediate step is reporting to local law enforcement and requesting prosecution under SDCL 22-21-4 or, after July 1, 2026, under SB 41's felony provision. Reports can also be made to the South Dakota Attorney General's office.
For election-related deepfakes within the 90-day window, SB 164 gives the depicted individual an independent civil right of action. Victims can seek injunctive relief to stop dissemination plus damages and attorney fees without waiting for a criminal prosecution.
Under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, victims can submit a removal notice directly to the platform hosting the content. Platforms must remove the material within 48 hours of receiving a compliant notice. The FTC enforces platform compliance.
Platform-level reporting remains important in all cases. Major social media and content platforms maintain their own policies against nonconsensual intimate imagery and AI-generated deepfakes. Filing a content-removal report with the platform often achieves faster removal than waiting for a criminal investigation to proceed.
Victims who believe a deepfake constitutes federal criminal conduct, particularly where a minor is depicted, should contact the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at ic3.gov in addition to local authorities.
For more on South Dakota recording and privacy laws that may intersect with deepfake conduct, see South Dakota Recording Laws.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Nonconsensual real (unaltered) intimate image (adult victim) | SDCL 22-21-4(1)-(2) | Class 1 misdemeanor: up to 1 year, $2,000 fine |
| Same, victim 17 or younger and perpetrator 21+ | SDCL 22-21-4(1)-(2) | Class 6 felony: up to 2 years |
| Creating or distributing digitally fabricated (AI-generated) intimate material | SDCL 22-21-4(3), added by SB 41 | Class 5 felony: up to 5 years |
| AI-generated CSAM (deepfakes of real or synthetic child images) | SDCL ch. 22-24A (as amended by SB 79, 2024) | Possession: Class 4 felony (up to 10 years); distribution: Class 3 (up to 15 years); manufacturing: Class 2 (up to 25 years) |
| Unlabeled election deepfake within 90 days of election with intent to injure | SB 164 (2025) | Class 1 misdemeanor + civil liability |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act (P.L. 119-12) | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years if minor) |
| AI voice clone robocall without consent (federal) | FCC 24-17, TCPA | FCC enforcement, civil penalties |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about South Dakota deepfake laws and is not legal advice. Deepfake and AI law is one of the fastest-changing areas of legislation; statutes, effective dates, and judicial interpretations can shift quickly. If you have been harmed by a deepfake or face allegations involving AI-generated content, consult a licensed South Dakota attorney.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
More South Dakota Laws
- South Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
- South Dakota Data Privacy Laws
- South Dakota Recording Laws
- South Dakota Sexting Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in South Dakota?
Yes, in several contexts. SDCL 22-21-4 prohibits disseminating a real intimate image without consent (Class 1 misdemeanor) and, since SB 41 took effect July 1, 2026, separately makes creating or distributing digitally fabricated (AI-generated) intimate material a Class 5 felony. SB 79 (2024) makes AI-generated CSAM a felony, with possession a Class 4 felony and manufacturing up to a Class 2 felony. SB 164 (2025) bars unlabeled deepfakes of election candidates within 90 days of an election.
Is deepfake porn a crime in South Dakota?
Yes. Since SB 41 took effect July 1, 2026, SDCL 22-21-4(3) makes creating, disclosing, disseminating, distributing, or selling digitally fabricated (AI-generated) intimate material a Class 5 felony carrying up to five years in prison. Disseminating a real, unaltered nonconsensual intimate image remains a separate Class 1 misdemeanor under the same statute. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) independently criminalizes publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in South Dakota?
State civil remedies are limited. SB 164 (2025) provides a civil cause of action for election deepfakes within the 90-day window. SDCL 22-21-4 is criminal only with no express private civil right of action. The federal DEFIANCE Act, which would create a federal civil remedy for intimate deepfakes, passed the Senate in January 2026 but remains pending in the House and has not been enacted as of mid-2026.
Are AI voice clones illegal in South Dakota?
Partially. South Dakota has no state voice-cloning or right-of-publicity law. However, federal rules apply: the FCC ruled in 2024 that AI-generated voices in robocalls are illegal under the TCPA without prior consent, and the FTC Impersonation Rule (2024) covers AI-assisted impersonation of businesses and government entities. The proposed federal NO FAKES Act would create a national remedy but has not passed.
What is South Dakota's election deepfake law?
SB 164, signed March 25, 2025 and effective July 1, 2025, prohibits disseminating an unlabeled deepfake of a candidate within 90 days of an election with intent to injure. Violators face a Class 1 misdemeanor and civil liability. Deepfakes with a clear AI-disclosure label are permitted, as are satire and news content acknowledging the manipulated nature of the material.
Does South Dakota law cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material?
Yes. SB 79 (signed February 2024) amended SDCL chapter 22-24A to expressly include AI-generated CSAM. The law covers deepfakes of actual children and wholly synthetic images that appear to depict a minor in a sexual act even if no real child was used. Possession is a Class 4 felony, distribution a Class 3 felony, and manufacturing a Class 2 felony.
What does SDCL 22-21-4 cover and does it cover AI deepfakes?
SDCL 22-21-4 has two tiers. Subdivisions (1)-(2) prohibit knowingly photographing, recording, or disseminating a real, unaltered image of someone in nudity or a sexual act without consent and with harassing intent, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Subdivision (3), added by SB 41 and in effect since July 1, 2026, expressly covers AI deepfakes: it prohibits knowingly and intentionally creating, disclosing, disseminating, distributing, or selling 'digitally fabricated material' depicting an identifiable person in nudity or a sexual act, a Class 5 felony.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in South Dakota?
Yes, it applies nationwide including South Dakota. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically criminalizing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of adults and minors. It carries up to two years in federal prison. It also requires platforms to remove flagged intimate deepfakes within 48 hours of a victim's notice, enforced by the FTC.
Updates
Corrected the signing date of SB 164 (2025).
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 the article's penalty framing for AI-manipulated intimate images: SDCL 22-21-4(3)'s Class 5 felony for digitally fabricated intimate material took effect July 1, 2026 and is now current law, not a future change, and the statute's Class 1 misdemeanor tier applies only to real, unaltered images, not manipulated ones.
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.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-21: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY
§ 22-21-4Prohibited recording or manipulated image--Penalty.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
No individual, without the consent or knowledge of the individual depicted or recorded, and with the intent to self-gratify or alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to that individual, may: (1) Intentionally use any device to photograph or visually record the individual without clothing or under or through the clothing, or with a third individual depicted in a sexual act, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, the individual; (2) Intentionally disclose, disseminate, distribute, sell, or use, by any means, any recording or photograph described in subdivision (1); or (3) Knowingly and intentionally create, disclose, disseminate, distribute, or sell, by any means, digitally fabricated material depicting the identifiable individual: (a) In a state of nudity, as defined in § 22-24A-2, such that an ordinary person viewing the material would conclude that the depiction is of the identifiable individual in such a state of nudity; or (b) Engaging in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, deviant sexual activity, or sexually explicit conduct such that an…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2006
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Blair (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 721 N.W.2d 55)“…w peeking under SDCL 22- 21-3, or with a misdemeanor under SDCL 22-21-4 for taking pictures of someone in 17.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Dakota Laws on Recording in Public, South Dakota Video Recording Laws
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)
United States Code Title 47
§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 39 of our articles
As used in this section— The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers. The term “established business relationship”, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and an established business relationship shall be subject to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).1 So in original. Second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,209 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system under Section 227(a)(1), equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce the numbers it dials. Nicole Blow v. Bijora, Inc. (2017) applied the prior express consent defense to promotional texts.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153)✓A marketing firm hired by the Navy had a subcontractor text a recruiting message to 100,000 phones, reaching a man who never consented; the Supreme Court held a contractor gets no derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA suit when it violates the Act and the Navy's orders.
- Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388)✓An insured let an advertiser send 18,879 unsolicited fax ads, drawing a $2 million TCPA class judgment; the Third Circuit read the TCPA as protecting seclusion, not secrecy, so the faxes were no covered 'advertising injury' and the insurer need not pay the judgment.
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)✓Facebook texted login alerts to a man who had no account and never gave it his number; the Supreme Court held a device is an autodialer under 227(a)(1) only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers, excluding Facebook's system.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, TCPA Explained: Robocall, Text, and Telemarketing Law (2026), TCPA Damages and Lawsuits: Penalties, Settlements (2026)
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11: Protection of Personal Rights (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024)
§ 47-25-1101Short titleIn forcecited in 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
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-24A: CHILD PORNOGRAPHY § 22-24A-1 (Sale of child pornography--Felony.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- SDCL 22-21-4: Record, Privacy, Manipulated Image, Violation (South Dakota Legislature)(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SB 164 (2025): Prohibit the use of a deepfake to influence an election (South Dakota Legislature)(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SB 79 (2024): AI-generated child sexual abuse material amendments to SDCL ch. 22-24A (South Dakota Legislature)(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12, S.146 (119th Congress)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256: Federal CSAM definitions including AI-generated images (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC 24-17: AI-generated voices in robocalls ruled artificial under TCPA (FCC, Feb. 2024)(fcc.gov).gov
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 CFR Part 461 (FTC)(ftc.gov).gov