One senator stopped the NO FAKES Act. Here's what artists lose while it waits

On 30 Sep 2026, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the Senate to pass the NO FAKES Act by unanimous consent. Under that procedure any one senator can stop a bill by objecting, and Sen. Ted Cruz did. Raw Story, citing Politico, reports that he said the bill wasn't ready on free-speech grounds. He asked whether AI images of the kind President Trump shares, or satire from outlets like The Onion, could fall foul of it, and said he was happy to work with Blackburn but objected "at least as of now".

The objection ended hopes of passing the bill before the Senate left for its pre-midterm recess. RBR-TVBR reports that its future now depends on a short post-election session.

Where does the bill stand?

S.4591 was introduced on 20 May 2026 by Sen. Chris Coons, with Blackburn among 15 cosponsors from both parties. The Judiciary Committee voted on 18 June to report it with a substitute text, and on 24 June it was placed on the Senate calendar as No. 446. RBR-TVBR says the committee vote was a unanimous voice vote. Raw Story reports that Cruz voted for the bill in committee. RBR-TVBR adds that he was one of three Republicans who raised First Amendment concerns at that markup. On the floor, Coons called it "the most baked, ready-to-go AI-related bill there is".

What would it give artists?

According to the reported text and the Congressional Research Service summary on Congress.gov, the bill creates a federal property right in a person's voice and visual likeness. The main points for musicians:

• It covers everyone. It isn't limited to famous people. A session singer gets the same right as a headliner.
• It can be licensed, not sold. You can't assign the right away during your lifetime, even through bankruptcy or a court order. You can license it, but a licence signed while you're alive lasts at most 10 years and must be in writing.
• It outlives you, conditionally. After death the right runs for 10 years. Heirs can renew it in 5-year blocks if the voice or likeness is in active, authorised public use, up to a hard stop at 70 years.
• Takedown and counter-notice. Covered platforms register an agent with the Copyright Office and remove replicas on notice. Uploaders can file a counter-notice, and false notices carry penalties.
• Damages with teeth. Statutory damages start at $5,000 per work for an individual and $25,000 per work for a company. A platform that hasn't made a good-faith effort to follow the takedown rules faces $5,000 per display, copy or transmission, capped at $750,000 per work.
• Speech exemptions. News, sports broadcasts, documentaries, and uses "consistent with the public interest in bona fide commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody" are exempt.

It also preempts state laws on digital replicas, except state statutes and common law that already existed on 2 Jan 2025.

The critics worth hearing

Cruz isn't the only critic, and not every critic wants a weaker bill. Jennifer Rothman, a right-of-publicity scholar, reviewed the revised text and called it mostly improved. She credits the written-consent requirement, the ban on assigning the right during life, and court approval for minors' licences. She also flags a late addition, Sec. 2(e)(3). It removes liability where a resemblance is "purely coincidental" and the person either has no "public recognition" or a voice without "commercial value". Her objection is that this sets a higher bar for ordinary people than for celebrities, and that platforms could use it as a reason to slow down takedowns. Among her other concerns: licences that last up to 10 years, a "practically" feasible qualifier in the takedown duties, and preemption language she calls ambiguous.

What we think

Cruz's example is mostly answered by the text already. Satire and parody are exempt by name. A fair version of his worry is that the exemption depends on "bona fide" and "the public interest", and courts will have to decide what those mean. That is a drafting question you can fix in a sentence, not a reason to send a finished bill back to the queue.

The delay doesn't cost everyone the same. Tennessee's ELVIS Act, signed in March 2024, added voice to the state's existing protection for name and likeness, aimed squarely at AI voice clones of musicians. Because the federal bill keeps state laws that existed before 2 Jan 2025, an artist in Tennessee has protection today and would keep it. An artist in a state with no voice law has much less to work with today, and the federal bill would help them most. Famous artists also have managers and lawyers. A backing vocalist whose voice turns up in a model has neither. Every month of delay falls on that second group.

So when the Senate comes back, the debate shouldn't only be about adding speech carve-outs. It should also be about Sec. 2(e)(3). In our reading, a rule that protects voices with "commercial value" more than voices without it gets things backwards. The bill exists because cloning has made every voice worth copying. If the price of Cruz's vote is more exceptions, that should be paid for by tightening 2(e)(3), not by quietly giving up on it.

Until then, three practical steps for singers:

1. Find out what your state protects. It may already be more than you think.
2. Write a no-cloning clause into session and feature agreements, so you have contract rights whatever happens in Washington.
3. Keep dated masters and stems of your vocal work, so you can prove the voice is yours if you ever need to.

Sources

• S.4591, NO FAKES Act of 2026, Congress.gov (status, actions, cosponsors, CRS summary)
• S. 4591, Reported in Senate, U.S. Government Publishing Office (bill text)
• Gov. Lee Signs ELVIS Act Into Law, Office of the Governor of Tennessee
• Ted Cruz torpedoes fellow Republican's signature bill on the Senate floor, Raw Story, citing Politico
• Cruz Control: Senator Delays 'NO FAKES Act' Vote On Concerns, RBR-TVBR
• NO FAKES Revised, Mostly Improved, and Put on Senate Calendar, Jennifer Rothman