Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee vets two bills on AI-generated likeness and extortion of private images
Summary
Representative Jill Cohenour told the committee HB 513 would recognize individuals' property rights in name, voice and likeness and HB 514 would make digitally fabricated extortion a criminal/civil offense; witnesses sought clearer carve-outs for law enforcement, news reporting and clarified penalties.
Representative Jill Cohenour presented two related bills addressing artificial‑intelligence uses of name, voice and likeness and the extortionate use of real or digitally fabricated images. On HB 513 she said the bill would "give that same recognition of your personal property right as an individual to every single one of us" and allow individuals to sue for damages if an algorithmic product uses their likeness without consent, extending remedies to descendants in certain cases. The bill includes carve-outs intended to protect news gathering, public affairs reporting, parody and satire.
Her second bill (HB 514) would add privacy and communications offenses for knowingly publishing or threatening to publish real or digitally fabricated images to terrify, intimidate, harass, injure, or obtain money. The sponsor said penalties would escalate for repeat offenders; the first offense is set as a misdemeanor with later offenses rising to felony levels in serious circumstances.
Committee members asked about law-enforcement and journalist carve-outs. Representative Kelly and others worried recordings, body cam footage and ordinary private security recordings could be swept up without precise language; Cohenour and proponents said the bills try to limit application to images "created or altered" by digital technology and that raw recordings and legitimate reporting should remain protected. Brett Chandelson (Office of State Public Defender) expressed concerns about potential vagueness and constitutional issues around evidence and prosecutions; prosecutors and AARP asked for clarity to ensure legitimate reporting and law-enforcement use are not chilled.
The committee heard mixed technical questions about definitions ("digital depiction" versus unaltered recordings), the scope of the First Amendment carve-outs, and whether extortion-only limits exclude other harmful uses that do not seek money (for example, private sexualized fabrication kept for private gratification). Sponsors said they would consider clarifying language with staff.
Outcome: hearings closed on both bills; no committee votes were recorded in the transcript.
