Art and Media Law

“A deepfake audio was created using your voice. It sounds exactly like you announcing an endorsement for a casino. You never consented. The video has 10 million views. You have no clear legal recourse—until now.”

The ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Protection of Publicized Individuals Act) was passed in 2024 and signed into law in 2025. It represents the first major federal legislation protecting voice and likeness rights from synthetic media (deepfakes and AI-generated replicas).

Before the ELVIS Act, voice protection was fragmented: some states had “right of publicity” laws, some had personality rights statutes, and others had nothing. A deepfake could be created in one jurisdiction with few legal consequences, then distributed globally. Creators and celebrities had limited recourse.

Voice rights are now a critical legal protection. The ELVIS Act establishes federal standards, creates causes of action for unauthorized synthetic voice use, and provides damages and injunctive relief. But the law leaves many questions unresolved: Does it apply to parody? What about accidental infringement? How do you prove infringement?

This guide explains the ELVIS Act, how it protects your voice, state-level voice rights, enforcement mechanisms, damages, and how to protect yourself from unauthorized synthetic voice use.

“You used DALL-E to generate album artwork, and a musician used your prompt to create a competing design. You both claim copyright ownership. Who actually owns it? Can you sell it? Can you license it?”

The copyright question for AI-generated content is becoming critical: Who owns the copyright to AI-generated art, music, and writing?

The legal answer in 2026 is murky. The US Copyright Office says AI-generated content is NOT copyrightable unless human creative input is “significant” enough to qualify as authorship. Courts are only beginning to rule on what “significant” means. Meanwhile, creators are profiting from AI-generated content, making licensing deals, and facing infringement claims.

AI-generated content copyright touches three critical issues: (1) Do you own the copyright to output you generate with AI tools? (2) Are you liable if AI output infringes others’ copyrights? (3) Can you use AI output in commercial projects if its copyright status is unclear?

This guide explains copyright ownership for AI-generated content, fair use in AI outputs, infringement liability, registration challenges, and how to protect yourself and your commercial projects in the uncertain legal landscape of 2026.

“Your artwork was scraped from the internet and used to train an AI model without your permission. Now anyone can generate images in your exact style. You have no control, no credit, and no compensation.”

The rise of generative AI (ChatGPT, Midjourney, DALL-E, Stable Diffusion) has created a massive copyright crisis. These systems are trained on billions of images, songs, and texts scraped from the internet – often without permission from creators. Artists, photographers, musicians, and writers are seeing their work used to train AI that competes directly with them.

Training data copyright is the most unresolved legal frontier in entertainment law. Courts are still deciding whether using copyrighted work to train AI constitutes fair use, infringement, or something entirely new. Meanwhile, artists face the question: what legal recourse do they have, and how can they protect their work?

This guide explains the legal landscape of AI training data, artist infringement risks, the fair use doctrine as it applies to AI, DMCA protections, and practical steps artists can take to defend their copyrights in the age of generative AI.

“You threw an amazing live event with 500 people dancing to the hottest songs. Three weeks later, a letter arrived: a copyright notice demanding $10,000 in performance royalties. You forgot to get a music license.”

Hosting a live event with music—whether it’s a wedding, corporate party, nightclub, concert, or festival—requires legal permission to play copyrighted songs. Many venue owners and event organizers don’t realize this until they receive a cease-and-desist letter or a lawsuit claim from a performing rights organization (PRO).

Live event music licensing is one of the most misunderstood areas of entertainment law. The rules differ from radio, streaming, and podcasting. You cannot simply assume that because a band is performing live, the venue is “clear.” The venue, the event organizer, and potentially the performer each have separate licensing obligations.

This guide explains exactly what licenses you need, which organizations enforce them, how much they cost, and how to structure your event legally so you never receive a surprise royalty notice.

“You bought an NFT of a digital artwork for $50,000. But when you checked the fine print, you realized you don’t actually own the copyright—you just own a receipt on the blockchain.”

The NFT boom created massive confusion about ownership and copyright. Many NFT buyers think they own exclusive rights to the underlying digital asset. Many creators mistakenly give away copyrights when they mint NFTs. Both are expensive mistakes.

NFT copyright and digital asset copyright are fundamentally separate from blockchain ownership. You can own the NFT token (the certificate) without owning the intellectual property (the creative work). The smart contract is not a legal contract—it’s just code.

This guide explains what you actually own when you buy or create an NFT, what copyright rights exist in the blockchain space, how to license digital assets, and how to avoid disputes that can cost thousands in legal fees.