West Virginia
West Virginia 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. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
West Virginia targets deepfakes through two criminal statutes, both updated by SB 198 (2025). Disclosing an AI-generated "fabricated intimate image" of an identifiable person is a crime under W.Va. Code §61-8-28a, and the state's child pornography law (W.Va. Code §61-8C-1 et seq.) now reaches AI-generated child sexual abuse material even when no real minor is depicted. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) adds a nationwide criminal layer for nonconsensual intimate deepfakes. No election deepfake or AI voice-cloning law has passed in West Virginia.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in West Virginia?
The answer depends on who is depicted, what the deepfake shows, and what you do with it. West Virginia criminal law now covers the two most damaging categories: AI-generated child sexual abuse material and nonconsensual intimate deepfakes of identifiable people. Outside those categories, no West Virginia statute prohibits creating a deepfake of someone.
West Virginia's framework covers the main buckets unevenly. The minors/AI-CSAM bucket is covered by the state child pornography law, as amended by SB 198 in 2025. The adult intimate deepfake bucket is covered by the fabricated intimate image provisions of W.Va. Code §61-8-28a, also added by SB 198, with the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act layered on top. The election deepfake and AI voice-cloning buckets have no coverage at the state level.
Note the intent element on the adult side. Section 61-8-28a requires that the discloser act with intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce. Creating a deepfake that is never disclosed, or disclosing one without a prohibited intent, falls outside the statute. Federal law and West Virginia's harassment, stalking, and obscenity statutes may still apply in some circumstances.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
West Virginia criminalizes nonconsensual disclosure of private intimate images under W.Va. Code §61-8-28a, a statute on the books since 2017. In 2025, SB 198 extended it to AI deepfakes by adding the "fabricated intimate image" category: an image of an identifiable person, created by artificial intelligence or other computer technology, that depicts computer-generated intimate parts (or another person's intimate parts) as those of the depicted individual.
Knowingly disclosing, causing the disclosure of, or threatening to disclose a fabricated intimate image with intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce is a misdemeanor. A first offense carries up to one year in jail, a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or both. A second or subsequent offense is a felony punishable by up to three years in a state correctional facility, a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both. The AI amendments took effect July 9, 2025, ninety days after passage.
Federal law adds a second criminal layer. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12), signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025, criminalizes the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults, expressly including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Violators face up to 2 years in federal prison (3 years if the victim is a minor). The law covers images whether real, AI-generated, or digitally altered.
For minors, SB 198 amended West Virginia's child pornography statutes (W.Va. Code §61-8C-1 through §61-8C-3c) so that AI-generated material is covered even when no actual minor was used. The definitions now include "computer-generated child pornography" (AI-created portrayals indistinguishable from a real minor) and portrayals of identifiable minors created or altered by AI. Under §61-8C-3, a visual portrayal "created in whole or in part by digital manipulation, artificial intelligence, or any other means" can support a conviction. Penalties are tiered: 2 to 5 years in prison and/or up to a $5,000 fine for 50 or fewer images, 3 to 15 years and/or up to $10,000 for 51 to 299 images, and 5 to 20 years and/or up to $25,000 for 300 or more images or depictions involving violence.
Federal law also independently covers AI-generated CSAM. Under 18 U.S.C. §2256(8)(B), as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003, computer-generated images indistinguishable from real minors in sexually explicit conduct are prohibited under federal law regardless of what any state does.
Election and Political Deepfakes
West Virginia has not enacted any statute regulating deepfakes used in political campaigns or elections. No disclosure requirement, no prohibition on election-related synthetic media, and no criminal penalty for distributing a deepfake of a candidate or public official exists under state law.
Lawmakers have tried. HB 4963 (2024) passed the House of Delegates before dying in the Senate, and SB 484 (2025) failed as well. Other states have moved quickly: many now require disclosure labels on AI-generated political advertising or prohibit deepfakes within a defined window before an election. West Virginia has not followed suit as of mid-2026.
Note that election deepfake laws nationwide carry ongoing First Amendment risk. California's election deepfake statute AB 2839 was struck down and permanently enjoined by a federal court in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds, illustrating that even enacted laws in this area face constitutional challenges before they can be enforced.
For now, West Virginia voters and political actors have no state-law shield against deceptive AI-generated election content. Existing defamation and election-fraud statutes may apply in extreme cases, but were not designed for synthetic media.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
West Virginia has no right-of-publicity statute covering AI voice cloning or digital likeness replicas. No ELVIS Act equivalent exists in West Virginia law.
Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. §47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) is the national reference point in this area. It extended Tennessee's right of publicity to include a person's voice as a protectable attribute, specifically covering AI simulations. West Virginia has not enacted anything comparable.
This means that using someone's voice or likeness in an AI-generated audio or video clip without permission is not a standalone crime under West Virginia law. On the civil side, West Virginia courts recognize common-law invasion of privacy claims, including appropriation of a person's name or likeness, which may reach some commercial misuses, but no statute squarely addresses AI voice cloning.
At the federal level, the proposed NO FAKES Act (S.4591, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness against unauthorized AI digital replicas, but it has not passed either chamber of Congress and is not current law. The FTC Impersonation Rule (16 CFR Part 461), in effect since April 1, 2024, does prohibit deceptive AI voice impersonation of government entities and businesses. The FCC has also ruled that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, making unsolicited AI voice-clone robocalls illegal nationwide.
For a broader look at how West Virginia addresses AI-generated content and technology regulation generally, see West Virginia AI Laws, which covers the state's full AI regulatory landscape beyond deepfake-specific rules.
Federal Law That Applies in West Virginia
Federal law adds remedies on top of West Virginia's state statutes. Adults who are victims of intimate deepfakes in West Virginia can turn to the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The law applies nationally, requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice (a compliance obligation that took effect May 19, 2026), and is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
The DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would add a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims, allowing lawsuits with liquidated damages of $150,000 (or $250,000 if the conduct involved actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment). It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026 and is now pending in the House. Until the House acts and the President signs it, it is not law. For background on the ongoing push for civil remedies, see the DEFIANCE Act coverage.
Federal CSAM law (18 U.S.C. §2256) covers AI-generated images indistinguishable from real minors, operating alongside West Virginia's amended child pornography statutes. The FTC's Impersonation Rule covers AI-generated impersonation of government entities and businesses. The FCC ruling makes AI voice robocalls a TCPA violation.
What Victims Can Do
Adult victims of intimate deepfakes in West Virginia have both state and federal criminal avenues. At the state level, disclosure or threatened disclosure of a fabricated intimate image can be reported to local law enforcement or the West Virginia State Police as a violation of W.Va. Code §61-8-28a. At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act created a federal crime; victims can report to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at ic3.gov, or contact the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern or Northern District of West Virginia.
Victims can also trigger the TAKE IT DOWN platform-removal process directly. Under the law, victims notify the hosting platform, which must remove the content within 48 hours. This applies to any platform subject to the law, regardless of whether the content is hosted in West Virginia.
For AI-generated CSAM involving minors, West Virginia's child pornography law provides a state-law criminal remedy. Reports can go to local law enforcement, the West Virginia State Police, or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) CyberTipline.
On the civil side, West Virginia adopted the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (W.Va. Code §55-20) in 2022. A victim can sue the person who disclosed an intimate image without consent and recover either actual damages or statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, plus the defendant's profits, punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief, and may proceed under a pseudonym. One caution: the civil statute predates the 2025 AI amendments and defines an intimate image in terms of the depicted person's own body, so its application to fully fabricated deepfakes is untested. Defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims may also be available. If the DEFIANCE Act passes the House, a dedicated federal civil remedy for digital forgeries would be added.
Penalties at a Glance
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosing a fabricated intimate image (intent to harass, humiliate, or coerce) | W.Va. Code §61-8-28a (as amended by SB 198, 2025) | Misdemeanor: up to 1 year jail and $1,000-$5,000 fine; repeat offense felony: up to 3 years and $2,500-$10,000 |
| Distributing/possessing AI-generated CSAM (no real minor needed) | W.Va. Code §61-8C-1, §61-8C-3 (SB 198, 2025) | 2-20 years state prison and fines up to $25,000, tiered by number of images |
| Publishing adult or minor intimate deepfake without consent | TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (federal) | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years if victim is minor) |
| Civil suit for nonconsensual disclosure of an intimate image | W.Va. Code §55-20 (civil) | Actual damages or statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, plus fees |
| Federal CSAM (AI images indistinguishable from real minors) | 18 U.S.C. §2256 (PROTECT Act) | Federal felony; substantial federal prison term |
| AI voice robocalls without consent | FCC ruling / TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227 | FTC/FCC enforcement; civil damages |
| Election deepfakes | No West Virginia law | No state penalty |
| AI voice cloning / likeness replication | No West Virginia statute | No statutory penalty; common-law privacy claims possible |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about West Virginia deepfake laws and is not legal advice. Deepfake and AI law is one of the fastest-moving areas of American law; statutes and regulations cited here may have changed. If you are a victim or face charges, consult a licensed West Virginia attorney.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
Sources
See citations below for the primary sources underpinning this article.
For West Virginia's broader privacy and data-protection framework, see West Virginia Data Privacy Laws. For West Virginia's general recording consent rules, see West Virginia Recording Laws.
More West Virginia Laws
- West Virginia AI Meeting Recording Laws
- West Virginia Data Privacy Laws
- West Virginia Recording Laws
- West Virginia Sexting Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in West Virginia?
It depends on the content and what you do with it. AI-generated child sexual abuse material is a felony under West Virginia's child pornography law, even when no real minor was used. Disclosing an AI 'fabricated intimate image' of an identifiable person with intent to harass, humiliate, or coerce is a crime under W.Va. Code §61-8-28a. Publishing a nonconsensual intimate deepfake is also a federal crime under the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Non-intimate deepfakes are generally not criminalized in West Virginia.
Is deepfake porn illegal in West Virginia?
Yes. If it depicts a minor, it is a felony under the state child pornography law (W.Va. Code §61-8C-3) and federal law. For adults, disclosing or threatening to disclose a fabricated intimate image with intent to harass, intimidate, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce is a misdemeanor under W.Va. Code §61-8-28a, rising to a felony for repeat offenses. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act separately makes publication a federal crime punishable by up to 2 years.
Can I sue someone for making a deepfake of me in West Virginia?
Possibly. West Virginia's civil intimate-image statute (W.Va. Code §55-20) lets victims of nonconsensual disclosure recover actual damages or statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, plus attorney fees, and sue under a pseudonym. The statute predates the 2025 AI amendments, so its application to fully fabricated deepfakes is untested. Defamation and emotional-distress claims may also apply. The federal DEFIANCE Act, which would create a dedicated deepfake civil remedy, passed the Senate in January 2026 but is not yet law.
Are AI voice clones illegal in West Virginia?
No West Virginia state law specifically prohibits AI voice cloning. Using someone's voice in an AI-generated clip without permission is not a standalone crime under West Virginia law. The FTC Impersonation Rule does prohibit AI voice impersonation of government entities and businesses, and AI voice robocalls without consent violate the federal TCPA. The proposed NO FAKES Act would add broader federal protections but has not passed.
Does West Virginia have an election deepfake law?
No. West Virginia has not enacted any statute requiring disclosure labels on AI-generated political content or prohibiting election deepfakes. Bills addressing election deepfakes failed in 2024 (HB 4963 passed the House but died in the Senate) and 2025 (SB 484). No penalty applies under state law for distributing AI-generated political misinformation.
What is West Virginia SB 198?
SB 198, signed April 24, 2025 and effective July 9, 2025, updated West Virginia law on AI sexual imagery in two ways. It amended the child pornography statutes (W.Va. Code §61-8C-1 through §61-8C-3c) so AI-generated material is covered even when no real minor was involved, with distribution penalties of 2 to 20 years tiered by image count. It also amended §61-8-28a to criminalize disclosing AI fabricated intimate images of identifiable people.
How does the TAKE IT DOWN Act protect West Virginia residents?
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that applies in all 50 states including West Virginia. It criminalizes knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate images of adults and minors, expressly including AI deepfakes. Victims can report to the FBI IC3 and can require platforms to remove content within 48 hours by sending a notice directly to the hosting service.
Is there a West Virginia law against deepfake political ads?
No. As of mid-2026, West Virginia has not enacted any election deepfake disclosure or prohibition law, although bills were introduced in 2024 and 2025. Enacted legislation has focused on AI sexual imagery rather than political synthetic media.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Updated the NO FAKES Act source citation to the current bill, S.4591 (119th Congress, "NO FAKES Act of 2026").
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.
West Virginia Code
§ 61-8-28ANonconsensual disclosure of private intimate images; definitions; and penalties.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Disclose” means to publish, publicly display, distribute, deliver, circulate or disseminate by any means, including, but not limited to, electronic transmission. (2) “Image” means a photograph, videotape, motion picture film, digital recording or any product of any mechanical or electronic recording process or device that can preserve, for later viewing, a visual image. (3) “Intimate parts” means a person’s genitalia, pubic area, anus, or female post-pubescent breasts. (4) To “publicly disclose” means to disclose an image to one or more persons other than those persons whom the person depicted understood would view the image at the time it was captured. (5) “Fabricated intimate image” means an image of an identifiable depicted individual that was created by the use of artificial intelligence or other computer technology capable of processing and interpreting specific data inputs and depicts computer-generated intimate parts or the intimate parts of another human being as the intimate parts of the depicted individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: West Virginia Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent, West Virginia Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras and Privacy Violations, West Virginia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 61-8C-3Distribution and exhibiting of material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct or computer-generated child pornography prohibited; penalty.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(a) Any person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent or distributes, exhibits, possesses, electronically accesses with intent to view or displays or transports any visual portrayal of a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct or computer-generated child pornography is guilty of a felony. (b) It is sufficient for purposes of this section that the material visually portrays a minor, regardless of whether the subject’s age is represented to be less than age 18 years old or whether the minor subject’s actual identity can be ascertained. (c) A visual portrayal created in whole or in part by digital manipulation, artificial intelligence, or any other means may satisfy the requirements of this section. (d) It is not a defense under this section that the minor depicted has attained the age of at least 18 years old at the time of investigation and/or prosecution, as long as the visual portrayal of the minor was originally taken or captured when the subject was under the age of 18 years of age.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2009
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Gatherum (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 338 F. App'x 271)“…ed in sexually explicit conduct.” W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-8C-3. 1 Gatherum contends that…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, West Virginia AI Laws and Regulation (2026), West Virginia Pornography Laws (2026): Age Verification Rules
§ 61-8C-1Definitions.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) For the purposes of this article: (1) “Minor” means any child under 18 years of age. (2) “Knowledge” means knowing or having reasonable cause to know which warrants further inspection or inquiry. (3) “Sexually explicit conduct” includes any of the following, whether actually performed or simulated: (A) Genital to genital intercourse; (B) Fellatio; (C) Cunnilingus; (D) Anal intercourse; (E) Oral to anal intercourse; (F) Bestiality; (G) Masturbation; (H) Sadomasochistic abuse, including, but not limited to, flagellation, torture, or bondage; (I) Excretory functions in a sexual context; or (J) Exhibition of the genitals, pubic, or rectal areas of any person in a sexual context. (4) “Person” means an individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, or other legal entity: Provided, That this term does not apply to the provider of an interactive computer service as defined by 47 U. S. C. §230(f)(2), an information service as defined by 47 U. S. C. §153(24), or telecommunications service as defined by 47 U. S. C. §153(53), for content provided by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2009
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Gatherum (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 338 F. App'x 271)“…on of genitals in a sexual context. See W. Va. Code § 61-8C-1(c); see also 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2256(2)(A)…”
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)
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
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- SB 198 (2025), Enrolled Committee Substitute: AI amendments to W.Va. child pornography law and fabricated intimate image offense(wvlegislature.gov).gov
- W.Va. Code §61-8-28a: nonconsensual disclosure of private intimate images, including AI fabricated intimate images(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- W.Va. Code §61-8C-3: distribution and possession of material depicting minors, including AI-generated portrayals(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- W.Va. Code §55-20: civil remedies for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress): federal intimate deepfake crime(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. §2256: federal CSAM law covering AI-generated images(law.cornell.edu)
- FTC Impersonation Rule, 16 CFR Part 461: AI voice impersonation prohibition(ftc.gov).gov
- FCC 24-17 (Feb 2024): AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal under TCPA(fcc.gov).gov
- S.1837 (DEFIANCE Act, 119th Congress): passed Senate January 13, 2026, pending in House(congress.gov).gov
- S.4591 (NO FAKES Act, 119th Congress): proposed federal voice and likeness right(congress.gov).gov