Comité Creative Arts & Entertainment de la Cámara de Representantes, 25 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

110 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:25:01

   Good morning, everybody. Everybody just hold tight. We're going to, uh, when we get enough people in here, we're gonna get this thing rolling. So just everybody take a deep breath and hold tight.

2. 0:29:13

   All right, folks. We got a quorum. It's time to party. All right, we're gonna call this, uh, meeting to order. Thank you, Representative Soo Hong, presenting House Bill 566, LC64-0076-S. I know you have worked tirelessly to try to make people comfortable with this legislation. I know we didn't get there with everybody, but, um, would love for you to present, and we've got some people that wanna talk about it. And then I think as a committee we will take action on the bill, um, just to kinda let everybody know the lay of the land, uh, to plead their case.

3. 0:29:45

   But we are interested in moving this conversation forward to at least tell the feds to get off their duff and, and start doing stuff. So I know we heard last night, State of the Union, this, everything's going great in the world, so hopefully they will pass some of this legislation in the process. So let's find you right here, mic one, I believe.

4. 0:30:06

   Thank you, Chairman and members of committee, and thank you again for, um, coming back and hearing HB 566. I have LC64-0076-S. I know I've presented this last year and this year, and so, um, unless the members or Chairman would like me to go through it again, um, uh, you know, I'm... This is, this bill essentially protects intellectual property rights of voice and visual likeness of individuals.

5. 0:30:36

   And we wanna make sure that we're protecting artists, uh, musicians, and we've already seen it, um, play out as far as, um, you know, artists having their voice and likeness, uh, been taken. And so we wanna make sure that we protect that, especially with AI, um, being more prevalent. So I'll take any questions. Um, again, if, if you want me to go through the bill, I'd be happy to do so.

6. 0:31:05

   Let's, uh, let's do some questions. I think you, I think the tweaks that you have made, um, have basically just been to, it's my understanding, that it's just been to make sure we're falling in line with the federal, uh, the position of the federal legislation as we speak.

7. 0:31:20

   That's correct. This, um, bill is... We took the federal bill, um, and made it and made certain tweaks, obviously, to fit state law. Um, but this is exactly like the federal legislation, and we did that on purpose to make sure... They've been working on it. We wanna make sure that we're, um, if that passes, that we are also in compliance with federal law.

8. 0:31:46

   And, and is it not true that, uh, sometimes we do things at the state level to prod the federal government to do their job?

9. 0:31:54

   Correct. That, this bill, uh, uh, on the federal level has been pending for a while and, um, and, and again, they've been working on it, but they haven't been moving it. I, uh, there's no movement, and so we wanna make sure that i- at least in Georgia, we're protecting, um, intellectual property rights.

10. 0:32:13

    Thank you so much. Do we have questions from the committee?

11. 0:32:22

    Spencer Frye. Frye Daddy, what can we do for you?

12. 0:32:25

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Rep Hong, I appreciate you bringing this bill. This is, uh, something I've been studying here recently, and with some of the technology that's available, I think I played a song for you, Mr. Chair, that I had written but requested the guitar parts and the drums of specific individuals and the voice of specific individuals and put it in there, and it sounds exactly like a song that you would hear on the radio. And one of the things that I think that I'd like for this committee to look at in the future would be the mu- the record companies sued those companies that were s- doing the software, and then they made a deal and, uh, out of court.

13. 0:33:16

    And so what I would like to see in the future is that maybe we start looking for if the record companies are getting money from these reproductive companies, reproduction companies, that the artists that are being reproduced also get some sort of money from it, you know? 'Cause I feel like that, I don't know if that's getting transmitted to the artists themselves. So for example, if I say I want the guitar part to sound like Jimi Hendrix, and I get a Jimi Hendrix guitar solo, is that estate actually getting anything from that?

14. 0:33:49

    Or is the money, the settlements just going straight to the record company? So this is a great first step in basically NIL for artists. Um, but in the future I'd love to see us move forward and try to protect artists financially as well. So but thank you for this. This is-

15. 0:34:08

    I'd be happy to work on that with you. Yeah.

16. 0:34:09

    Good.

17. 0:34:09

    Thank you.

18. 0:34:10

    Great. Thank you, ma'am.

19. 0:34:11

    All right. Going to, uh, number one.

20. 0:34:16

    Thanks. Sorry for the tardiness. Uh, the question is more general about whether this is for music that has already been made or music that's made in the future. So for example, with the Drake example, that music was already made. Would this protect that music, or is it only music that is produced in the future?

21. 0:34:43

    It's any music that is on where, um, where the online services or anybody that's not, does not have the right to use is for any music. So-

22. 0:34:56

    So whether I be-

23. 0:34:57

    Whether it be produced before this bill passes, whether it be afterwards, um, if it is on a platform where people can listen to it and there are pro- No rights for them to do that, then this applies.

24. 0:35:10

    Okay, so it is retroactive? Okay.

25. 0:35:14

    Yeah, yeah, I don't know that... I don't know if retroactive would be the word. It, it, it would just apply to anything that has been created prior to today. Uh, I don't know that you're gonna go back and, um, go back and hold whoever accountable for the Drake incident, but it's just saying moving forward they would be... Now the rules of the game have changed to make sure that it's clear that they, that they have to, uh, uh, either pull it down or pay the piper.

26. 0:35:41

    And, and that, obviously, the Drake, it was pulled down, so, um, anything that is still up there, it, you know, after this passes, and, um, that, that, it would apply to that.

27. 0:35:53

    Mm-hmm.

28. 0:35:54

    All right, number eight.

29. 0:35:57

    Thank you, Rep Hong. I think this is a great bill, but I do have a concern, and I've actually had a few teenagers reach out to me, and that is more on the software video game side, in which, um, user-created content could be spoofing or doing a parody of a famous person, and they're afraid that they may get in trouble for something they're just trying to have fun with. And, you know, thinking long term, some of these video game software, some of these user-created skins are starting to be sold as digital assets.

30. 0:36:33

    And so I don't know how much of this bill will cover that, but it's concerns that I think we need to remain focused on as we progress forward, um, with these skins. And then of course, for teenagers to not get in trouble just because they're trying to do a spoof or a parody for a round of, uh, Fortnite or whatever, uh, whatever they play these days.

31. 0:36:55

    Thank you, Chairman. If I have, um, I have Brian Hudson here who's been helping me with the bill, if I can turn to him for that.

32. 0:37:02

    Yeah, I mean, just real quick, I think it's funny now, so we're, we're, we're saying that Apple and, and Epic are friends again, uh, on that, in that comment. That's cool. Uh, um, but go ahead.

33. 0:37:15

    Um, thank you, Representative Hong. Representative Tran, parodies are actually excluded, so they're not covered under this. So that's, that's actually specifically spelled out in this legislation.

34. 0:37:26

    On top of it. All right, let's, uh, let's do this. Do we have, uh, testimony in the room? Um, let's see, do we... Nope, everybody online? Anybody scared to get in front of the microphone this morning?

35. 0:37:38

    I wasn't.

36. 0:37:39

    Okay. All right, we're gonna go online then. I'm not real sure how to go online.

37. 0:37:42

    Sure.

38. 0:37:43

    But something tells me we have somebody in the-

39. 0:37:47

    I know

40. 0:37:48

    ... stratosphere that will do that for us. Uh, Katie Kelly's gonna be our first speaker with Tech... Is it TechNet?

41. 0:37:55

    Yes, sir. Can you hear me okay?

42. 0:37:57

    Man, that is awesome. I feel like you're speaking to me like, uh, like God. Okay.

43. 0:38:04

    Well, that's weird.

44. 0:38:05

    Well, it's just the way it's echoing through the room. It's kinda cool. I didn't see your face.

45. 0:38:09

    Chairman, can you-

46. 0:38:10

    I heard your voice.

47. 0:38:10

    Chairman, can you turn the... Thank you.

48. 0:38:14

    Well, I'd rather be there with you guys in person, but I am Katie Kelly, and I am the executive director, uh, for Florida and the Southeast for TechNet. We appreciate the sponsor's work on House Bill 566, and we are continuing to review the most recent substitute with our members. TechNet strongly supports the intent behind legislation protecting individuals from unauthorized exploitation of their likeness or voice. Ensuring meaningful rights for artists and individuals is important to sustaining creative expression and continued innovation in media and technology.

49. 0:38:46

    At the same time, any framework should be carefully constructed and clearly assign liability to bad actors, not intermediaries or technology developers operating responsibly. New protections should integrate consistently with existing federal intermediary liability frameworks and avoid con- uh, creating conflicting and duplicative requirements. A central concern in emerging technology governance is the risk of a state-by-state patchwork. Digital content and AI systems operate across state lines, so differing definitions, liability standards, and compliance structures require companies to engineer a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction solution, increasing, uh, complexity and legal uncertainty.

50. 0:39:27

    Several states, including Maryland and Texas, have explored similar frameworks, but ultimately did not those, advance those comprehensive measures. TechNet supports a clear, consistent national framework that protects individuals while conflict, uh, avoiding conflicting state requirements. We look forward to continuing to work with the sponsor as we complete our review of the amendment, and thank you so much for the opportunity to testify, and we look forward to your consideration.

51. 0:39:53

    Awesome. Thank you so much for being here. Um, anybody have any questions for our speaker? Man, you got off light. Thank you so much for your presentation. Appreciate what you do.

52. 0:40:06

    And we're gonna go to number two. Aaron?

53. 0:40:10

    Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me?

54. 0:40:12

    Hey, I've got your face with the voice this time. I feel better.

55. 0:40:16

    Well, maybe I sound like a digital replica. Um, Chair Carpenter and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Uh, my name is Aaron Segal, and I'm here on behalf of the Entertainment Software Association, uh, representing the video game industry in respectful opposition to House Bill 566. We appreciate the intent, but as drafted, this bill has the potential to discourage innovation, limit creativity, and undermine the First Amendment protections that have allowed video games to become one of America's most vibrant, expressive mediums.

56. 0:40:49

    Players have come to inhabit fictional worlds and interact with digital characters, not to experience literal recreations of real people. Yet the bill's broad definition of digital replica risks sweeping in ordinary game characters and tools that allow players to customize their avatars. In practice, it would be impossible for game developers to know whether a player-created character resembles a real individual who might bring a claim. Thus, the bill would create liability for video game companies because of a character's incidental likeness to a person.

57. 0:41:22

    We are also concerned that the bill extends new po- postmortem rights far beyond existing law, creating uncertainty for creators who rely on the ability to depict historical figures, athletes, and other culturally significant individuals in expressive works. We respectfully oppose this bill in current form and urge the committee to work with stakeholders to ensure any law protects individuals, but without chilling creativity, innovation, or constitutionally protected expression, and I thank you for your consideration.

58. 0:41:59

    Thank you so much. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Erin? No. We got number 10.

59. 0:42:06

    Hey, thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, could you go back to that very first line? You, you mentioned three things before the First Amendment comment. There was...

60. 0:42:18

    Um, discourage innovation, limit creativity, and undermine the First Amendment protections.

61. 0:42:25

    Yes. Okay. A- and look, this is a friendly question. I play video games every day.

62. 0:42:31

    Yeah.

63. 0:42:31

    But... No. That's a point of pride. I can probably beat anybody in this room. Um, so can you explain how the bill suppresses the creativity? And it is a friendly question. I'm not trying to be con- controversial. I just really wanna get my head around exactly what your perception of the bill is based on those three statements.

64. 0:42:56

    So we think the definition of digital replica could encompass any video game character. And if someone feels that a video game character resembles them, then they could-- we feel that they could bring action under this bill. So I could create a character, and it could be someone, uh, but I don't know that it's that person. Uh, and then that person is like, "Oh, wow, that pers-- Aaron just made a video game character that looks a little bit like me. I'm gonna go, I'm gonna go sue him under this law." That's, that's our fear.

65. 0:43:30

    Thank you very much.

66. 0:43:33

    Uh, uh, number eight. Uh, number eight.

67. 0:43:37

    Thank you for joining us today. Um, as the gentleman said earlier, there are parody provisions in this bill. Um, could you elaborate on how a user-created video game character would not fall under parody?

68. 0:43:55

    Um, I, I heard that as well. Um, I will ask our, uh, counsel back at ESA whether or not parody covers video game characters, but, um, someone could bring action under this, I think, because they don't feel that it's, that it's parody. They could bring action under this bill even if they feel that someone is making a digital replica of them.

69. 0:44:19

    Thank you.

70. 0:44:24

    So I, I, I've got a question at one. I'm gonna... I just wanna read this to you real quick, 'cause I don't know if you have the new LC in front of you. But I do wanna read this to you. So it says, "You shall not be in violation of this, uh... You shall not incur liability if the digital replica is a representation of an individual in a documentary or in a historical or biograph- biographical context, including some degree of fictionalization, unless such production use creates the false impression that the work is of the authentic sound, recording, image, transmission in which the individual participated in." So does that not capture, does that not...

71. 0:45:05

    I mean, as far as your... Let's say you're trying to make, uh, Benjamin Franklin dunk a basketball in NBA Jams. Like, does that-

72. 0:45:13

    Yeah, I don't think that captures video games-

73. 0:45:15

    Does it capture that?

74. 0:45:15

    ... 'cause we're not documentaries.

75. 0:45:17

    No, no, no, but that's, that's... It's... Or it's not... I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that it's... I don't th- I think that it's the digital replica, not, not the documentary. I think it's just saying that if they were, if it, you know, if they were in a documentary, if that makes sense.

76. 0:45:35

    Yeah.

77. 0:45:38

    I still see it as, say, Hank Aaron, Hank Aaron would be in, is, is in retro modes of MLB The Show, for example. Um, under this bill, I'm not sure if, i- if we could continue to... or if PlayStation could continue to use, uh, Hank Aaron in a retro mode of MLB The Show without going through additional hoops.

78. 0:46:03

    Understand.

79. 0:46:05

    Number 11.

80. 0:46:07

    Thank you. Um, so going back to before my question last committee, just about the platform's liability, and so does this mean that the platforms need to regularly monitor for this? Could we add a statement towards the end that just says nothing in this article will make platforms have to regularly monitor for this?

81. 0:46:35

    Good question.

82. 0:46:36

    I think so, yeah.

83. 0:46:37

    Okay. Um, it does-

84. 0:46:39

    Oh, I'm sorry. You-

85. 0:46:40

    I understand.

86. 0:46:40

    It's okay.

87. 0:46:41

    We're technically still talking to the...

88. 0:46:42

    Yeah, so-

89. 0:46:43

    ... speaker

90. 0:46:44

    ... if you start with, uh, line 255, um, online service shall not be liable, so essentially they have to have a certain policy, and then they're liable upon notification. Um, so they have to have certain policies that provide, um, uh, that, you know, any account holder of, uh, any repeat violators or, um, any type of replicas will be taken down, and then if, upon notification, if they do not remove it, then they will be liable

91. 0:47:23

    So it's, it's fair to say that somebody would have to bring a claim against MLB The Show and then-- or in his conversation, the, if you're creating an avatar to play in the game, if it resembles somebody, and that person's mad about it and reports it, then you have to contact it. So it's not necessarily that you have to spend all your day scouring all your avatars to make sure nobody looks like-

92. 0:47:49

    Correct

93. 0:47:49

    ... uh, Bruce Lee, uh, that you literally, somebody would have to complain about it first. Gotcha.

94. 0:47:58

    Okay. I looked at it as the digital fingerprint language might interpret as needing proactive filtering or monitoring.

95. 0:48:11

    Understood. All right, thank you so much, sir. We appreciate you, and we hear your, uh-- Obviously we-- I love video games, and probably not as much as, uh, Representative Frye, but, uh, probably a close second on this committee. Well, I think Tran probably plays some serious video game too. So I'm probably a close third. Let me just-- Let's, let's be real here, so. But I appreciate your industry, and obviously I look forward to having conversations as this legislation moves forward.

96. 0:48:37

    Thank you.

97. 0:48:40

    All right. And Ms. Kim, you're number three. Come on down.

98. 0:48:45

    Great. Thank you so much. Uh, Chairman Carpenter and members of the committee, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all today in support of the NO FAKES Act. My name is Kim Alton, and I'm the Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Recording Academy. While the Recording Academy is best known as the organization behind the annual Grammy Awards, we are also a membership organization that advocates in support of the interest of performers, songwriters, producers, engineers, and all music professionals.

99. 0:49:24

    The Recording Academy's Atlanta chapter was established over fifty years ago, and through its members have continued to play a central role in Georgia's thriving music community. Generative AI has opened new worlds of creative opportunities. However, along with these creative benefits, generative AI tools can also allow users to exploit another's, another person's voice or visual likeness by creating highly realistic digital replicas or deepfakes without consent.

100. 0:49:59

     The unauthorized use of deepfake technology can have a devastating impact on artists and creators who spend their entire careers training and developing their distinctive voice and image. Likewise, individuals who are not in the public eye can suffer extreme harm from the unauthorized use of their voice and likeness in furtherance of harassment, fraud, or other forms of exploitation. The NO FAKES Act would address the use of non-consensual digital replicas by empowering individuals to have deepfakes removed from online platforms.

101. 0:50:39

     The bill would hold individuals or companies liable if they produce an unauthorized digital replica and would hold platforms liable for hosting unauthorized content if the platform has knowledge that the replica was not authorized. The bill includes exemptions for uses protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, such as parody and news reporting, as was discussed earlier, and it would allow free expression to continue to flourish.

102. 0:51:10

     Our voices and our likeness are fundamental to who we are as individuals. They frame how we communicate, h- they represent our values and our accomplishments, and they reflect the countless hours we have spent building relationships and credibility tied to our identity. The NO FAKES Act would provide the tools necessary to protect artists and all individuals from the spread of harmful deepfakes online, so we urge you to support this important legislation.

103. 0:51:42

     Thanks again for allowing me to participate t- in today's meeting.

104. 0:51:49

     Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? I don't believe so. Thank you so much. Appreciate you-

105. 0:51:55

     Thank you

106. 0:51:55

     ... for all you do.

107. 0:52:01

     If I can, um, Representative Cannon, actually on line four seventy-five, starting with four seventy-five, we actually ex-- um, put language in there that stated that the provider does not have to monitor the online services. Um, so we, we have explicit, a language.

108. 0:52:21

     Okey-dokey. What is the will of the committee?

109. 0:52:30

     Motion to pass.

110. 0:52:32

     We have a motion, we have a second. Any discussions? Amendments? All right. All in favor say aye. All opposed. All right, the ayes have it clearly. Um, thank you so much for your time, and I look forward to seeing this go through the process. Thank you, Sue.