One Voice, One Law: Artists Need a Federal Voice Right, Not a State-by-State Patchwork

I have spent my career around artists: booking them, interviewing them, publishing their stories and watching how this business treats the people who make it run. Right now the most valuable thing many of those artists own is not a catalog. It is their voice. And in the United States, how well that voice is protected still depends on where you happen to be standing.

That has to change. Congress should pass one federal voice-and-likeness right, and it should do it now.

The Patchwork Is the Problem

The U.S. Copyright Office said it plainly in July 2024. In Part 1 of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence, covering digital replicas, the Office concluded that “the time has come” for a federal law and that there is “an urgent need for a robust nationwide remedy.” It described today’s protections as “a patchwork,” with a remedy “dependent on where the affected individual lives or where the unauthorized use occurred.”

States have tried to fill the gap, and some deserve real credit. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act, signed in March 2024, added “voice” to the state’s publicity law with AI cloning in mind. California followed in September 2024 with AB 2602 and AB 1836, which require contracts to spell out digital replica uses and require an estate’s consent before a deceased performer’s replica is used commercially. New York added new protections in December 2025, including a consent requirement for digital replicas of deceased performers.

These are good laws. But they are different laws. An artist in Atlanta, a producer in Los Angeles and a platform hosted somewhere else can each be living under different rules for the same song. That is not a system. That is a map of loopholes.

The Weakest Rule Wins

Here is what I see from inside the music business. The rules differ from state to state, and they differ even more from country to country. Something may be governed here and not governed there, and the reverse is just as true. People in this business know where the rules are weaker. My concern is simple: when protection is strong in one place and weak in another, the work moves to where it is weakest. A voice can be recorded or cloned where nobody is asking for consent, and the finished track comes right back into the American market.

That is not an accusation against any one company. It is how incentives work. Any patchwork invites forum shopping, and in a business where a track can be made anywhere and streamed everywhere in an afternoon, forum shopping is easy. It needs to be fixed.

A federal right helps because of where it attaches. The Copyright Office recommended that liability arise from the distribution or making available of an unauthorized digital replica, not from the act of creation alone. That matters. If a cloned voice is released to American listeners, it should not matter whether it was made in Nashville or halfway around the world. One national rule is something an artist can rely on, a label can comply with and a court can apply.

Voices need to be heard. Feelings need to be felt. Right now, the law is not listening closely enough.

Make the Voice the Artist’s Property

If Congress passed one voice law tomorrow, the single thing it must get right is ownership. The artist has to own their voice as property. Not just the song. Not just the recording. Not just the data and analytics that come off the track. The vocals themselves.

The rest follows from that: no copies without consent. If someone wants to recreate an artist’s voice, they should have to ask, get it in writing and pay.

The current federal bill moves in this direction. The NO FAKES Act of 2026 (S. 4591, with an identical House bill, H.R. 8915) describes the voice and visual likeness right as a property right that cannot be assigned away during the individual’s life but can be licensed. As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it limits licenses during a living individual’s life to 10 years and requires them to be in writing, signed and specific about the intended uses. That is the right instinct. Lawmakers should keep it and not water it down.

Protection Cannot Stop When the Artist Cannot Speak

The second thing the law must get right is what happens when the artist is no longer here, physically or mentally, to protect themselves. Some of the voices being used today belong to artists who have passed away or who cannot give consent. Nobody should be able to keep replaying and remaking an artist’s voice when that artist, and their family, are not there to benefit from it.

This is where the patchwork is at its worst. According to the Copyright Office’s 2024 report, 27 states recognized postmortem publicity rights, 19 by statute and 8 by common law, with terms ranging from 20 years in Virginia to 100 years in Indiana, and indefinitely in Tennessee as long as the right is continuously exploited. Same voice, same song, completely different answers depending on the state line.

NO FAKES would create a postmortem right that lasts 10 years after death and can be renewed in five-year periods with active, authorized use, up to a maximum of 70 years. Whatever the right number is, it should be the same number everywhere. The benefit should flow to the artist’s heirs and estate. And the law should leave no doubt that an artist who is alive but unable to consent is protected too.

Federal Floor or Federal Rule?

Lawyers reading this will ask about preemption. The Copyright Office did not recommend full preemption; it recommended a federal floor, with states free to add protection. The Senate bill takes a middle road. It preempts state claims over digital replicas in expressive works but preserves state laws already in existence as of January 2, 2025, along with certain other categories.

I understand why. States like Tennessee moved first and should not lose what they built. But the goal should be one standard every artist can count on, in every state. Whether Congress gets there with a strong floor or broader preemption, an independent artist should not need a 50-state survey to know whether they own their own voice.

To Lawmakers Who Think This Can Wait

The bill came close this year. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced it unanimously in June. On September 30, a request to pass it by unanimous consent drew an objection over free-speech concerns, and the bill did not pass before the Senate’s pre-election recess.

Free-speech concerns deserve a real answer. News, commentary, criticism, satire and parody must stay protected, and the bill already contains exclusions for those uses. Work out the language. But the hard parts are a reason to finish the job, not a reason to wait.

So here is what I would say to any lawmaker in Washington who thinks this can wait: if it can wait, then you should be able to wait for your paycheck. Don’t take yours right off the top while the artist waits for theirs. Get the artist paid first. You will be more credible as a lawmaker for it.

And remember who put you in office. It was not only the big companies. It was independent people: songwriters, session singers, small labels, the artists who play the local venues and book their own tours. Help them. Don’t drain their pockets.

Congress has the bill, the bipartisan sponsors and the Copyright Office’s roadmap. What it needs now is the will to finish. One voice, one law.