Digital-replica laws for musicians: what California, New York and Illinois actually require

Several US states now have rules for AI copies of a performer's voice. Four of the best known don't do the same job. California and New York police the contract: a vague replica clause simply stops binding you. California also protects dead performers through their estates. Illinois polices distribution: putting an unauthorised replica out into the world is unlawful if you know what it is. Tennessee's ELVIS Act, which we covered in the Johnny Cash estate's case against Coca-Cola, protects the voice itself.

For a musician, the difference decides whether a bad clause dies on its own or whether you have to find and sue someone. Here is what each statute says, read from the text rather than the press releases.

What does California's AB 2602 do to contracts?

Governor Newsom signed AB 2602 and AB 1836 on 17 September 2024, with SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher beside him. AB 2602 added Labor Code section 927. A clause in any personal or professional services agreement is unenforceable "only as it relates to a new performance, fixed on or after January 1, 2025" if all three of these are true:

1. It allows a digital replica of your voice or likeness to be made or used in place of work you would otherwise have done in person.
2. It doesn't include a "reasonably specific description" of the intended uses. The statute adds a let-out: a missing description doesn't void the clause if the uses are consistent with the contract and with the fundamental character of the recording or performance.
3. You weren't represented by a lawyer who negotiated the replica licence, with the terms set out in a writing you signed or initialled, or by a union whose collective agreement expressly covers digital replicas.

Only the offending clause falls; the rest of the contract stands. The definition of a digital replica, a highly realistic computer-generated representation of your voice or likeness, excludes the copyright owner's authorised sampling, remixing, mastering or remastering of existing recordings. So your label remastering your album isn't making a replica of you.

And AB 1836, for performers who have died?

AB 1836 amended Civil Code section 3344.1, California's post-mortem publicity right. Anyone who produces, distributes or makes available a replica of a dead performer's voice or likeness "in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording" without prior consent is liable for $10,000 or the actual damages, whichever is greater. Consent comes from whoever the rights were transferred to or, failing that, from the surviving spouse, children, grandchildren or parents. There are exemptions for news, public affairs and sports; for comment, criticism, scholarship, satire and parody; for documentary or biographical portrayals that don't falsely suggest the person took part; and for fleeting or incidental use. Claims are limited to uses within 70 years of death. Both California laws took effect on 1 January 2025.

How is New York's version different?

New York's General Obligations Law 5-302 came from Senator Jessica Ramos's S7676B, signed by Governor Hochul on 13 December 2024 as chapter 581. Its three-part test is close to California's, almost word for word, including the let-out for uses consistent with the contract. Three details differ:

• Timing. The bill text says the law applies to contracts "entered into or modified on or after" 1 January 2025. California's test turns on when the new performance is fixed. On our reading, a pre-2025 California contract can still be caught, while a pre-2025 New York contract is outside the law unless it is modified.
• Definition. New York's replica is one a layperson couldn't readily tell apart from your real voice or likeness, and there is no sampling or remastering carve-out.
• Paperwork. A lawyer's involvement only counts if the licensing terms are stated "clearly and conspicuously" in a separately signed or initialled employment contract or a separate signed writing. The clause is drafted as a double negative, and courts may have to untangle exactly what it requires.

In a Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy note, Alexandra Kapilian calls the law "a step in the right direction" but narrow. It only helps performers who signed something. Unlike the ELVIS Act, it creates no liability for companies that never contracted with the performer, and its can't-tell-them-apart test favours famous voices.

What does Illinois add?

Two laws, both from August 2024. The Digital Voice and Likeness Protection Act (HB 4762) has what Covington calls "substantially similar requirements" to AB 2602. Law firm Jackson Lewis summarises the same three-part test and says it covers agreements made on or after 9 August 2024. The Illinois legislature's site was unreachable when we checked, so we couldn't confirm this against the enacted text.

HB 4875 does something the contract laws don't. It amended the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, effective 1 January 2025, and, according to the enrolled text, it:

• defines a digital replica as a newly created representation of a real person's voice, image or likeness, made with AI or other technology and fixed in a sound recording or audiovisual work they didn't perform in, that a reasonable person would believe is that person;
• bars anyone from knowingly distributing, transmitting or making available to the public a sound recording or audiovisual work "with actual knowledge" that it contains an unauthorised replica (Jackson Lewis notes that no commercial purpose is needed);
• makes liable anyone who "materially contributes to, induces, or otherwise facilitates" that violation, but only after obtaining actual knowledge of it;
• exempts services that only transmit, store or provide access to data, if they lack knowledge and act quickly once they have it, and exempts news, documentary, biographical and satirical uses unless they create a false impression of authenticity.

The knowledge bar is high. In practice, as we read it, a clear written notice to a distributor is what starts the clock.

Will a federal law wipe these out?

Probably not. The Senate's NO FAKES Act (our coverage) would preempt state digital-replica claims in expressive works but saves state statutes and common law "in existence, as of January 2, 2025". Every law in this piece predates that, including the ELVIS Act, signed on 21 March 2024. States that act later would get less room.

A contract checklist

This isn't legal advice, but it's what we'd check before signing:

• Search the contract for "digital replica", "simulation", "voice model", "likeness" and "any media now known or hereafter devised".
• Demand specifics: which project, which recordings, what media, how long, and a fee for each new use. A vague clause is what these laws strike down, so don't let it be rewritten as vague-but-long.
• Get the replica terms negotiated by your own lawyer, in writing you sign or initial. In New York, put them in a separately signed contract or a separate signed writing.
• Check your union agreement if you're covered, since that limb only counts if it expressly deals with replicas.
• Note the dates and the state: fixed after 1 January 2025 in California, signed or modified after it in New York.
• Plan for your estate. In California the consent right passes to whoever you transfer it to, or else to your family.
• Keep evidence and send written notice to any distributor carrying a clone. Under the Illinois law, knowledge is what makes them liable.

What we think

Read closely, these contract laws are a drafting standard, not a veto. A clause survives if it is reasonably specific, or if a lawyer or union was involved. The cheapest compliance route for a label or studio is a long, specific list of uses plus a nudge to "get it reviewed". The performer still has to say no to the use itself. That's real progress for working session singers, but the protection lives in the negotiation, so the winners are union members and artists with counsel.

The bigger gap is that most voice clones of independent musicians won't come from their own contracts. They will come from strangers. Of the AI-era laws here, only Illinois's and Tennessee's reach those people while the artist is alive, and Illinois's only once someone has actual knowledge. A New York artist on a 2023 deal, or anyone cloned by a stranger outside those two states, has little here. Until there is a federal floor, musicians should treat written notice to platforms and distributors as routine.

Sources

• Office of the Governor of California, Governor Newsom signs bills to protect digital likeness of performers (17 Sep 2024)
• California Labor Code section 927 and Civil Code section 3344.1
• New York State Senate, General Obligations Law 5-302, S7676B bill text and bill status
• Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, The Digital Replica Contracts Act (11 Feb 2025)
• rightofpublicity.com, Illinois Right of Publicity Act, HB 4875 enrolled text
• Jackson Lewis, New Illinois Laws Address Use of Generative AI and Digital Likeness, Publicity Rights (19 Aug 2024)
• Covington & Burling, California passes digital replica legislation as Congress considers federal approach (11 Sep 2024)
• RecordingLaw.com, AI voice cloning laws
• Office of the Governor of Tennessee, Gov. Lee Signs ELVIS Act Into Law (21 Mar 2024)
• GovInfo, S.4591, NO FAKES Act (reported in the Senate)