Feedback Needed Regarding the ELVIS Act

Post Header

Published:

2024-03-14 16:40:50 UTC

Tags:

OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

Tennessee's proposal of the ELVIS Act might sound like something fun for fans, but in fact has the potential to create problems for fans engaging in a variety of fannish activities. This legislation is moving forward next week under pressure from Tennessee Governor Lee, but there is still some time to voice concerns and message the governor about how this act will hurt the public interest.

A number of organizations including the American Society for Collective Rights Licensing, Authors Guild, Copyright Clearance Center, National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are sponsoring this act. The proposed legislation creates a new right of publicity “in any medium in any manner” for life + 10 years.

OTW Legal is concerned about the potential impact of this Act, and believes Tennessee fans should be aware of the profound risks posed to both RPF and fictional fanworks that invoke an actor's image. One part of the law is relatively minor: it adds “voice” to the existing right of publicity, which covers commercial uses. But it goes further. There is new, broad liability for anyone who knowingly “publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public” content that includes someone's voice or likeness, with no limitation to commercial uses. This could potentially harm artists, authors who describe an actor (or a character played by a particular actor), vidders, and other fannish creators. There is also broad liability for anyone who “distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service or device” whose purpose is to make the replicas.

Because the ELVIS Act establishes liability for both the “user” and the “developer/platform”, it means that – without clear definitions – there could be a legal free-for-all on social media. The act's wording could mean that anyone clicking on an infringing document could be at legal risk. One of the OTW's partner organizations, NetChoice has more information about why the ELVIS Act could put fans at risk just for posting concert photos or for being associated with violations. As their post points out, there could be better laws passed instead to ban deep fakes.
The ELVIS Act is unnecessary as Tennessee law already adequately handles fraud, deception, and misappropriating someone’s likeness. If you are also concerned about this Act, let Tennessee officials know.

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Pages Navigation

(Previous comment deleted.)
1. InsideA14YearOldGirl Sat 16 Mar 2024 04:31PM UTC
  
  I think you have little or no understanding of free speech laws to say that. Countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. have loophole on pornographic laws that would make a good portion of the writers on this site child pornography producers. Brazil has laws criminalizing speech if it offends sexual minorities, as the Supreme Court said there is no distinction between being offending races or sexual minorities, resulting in at least one comedian being arrested. Japan has the whole pixel thing, that I guess it's minor, but offending real people, either with truths or lies, can lead you to be prosecuted for defamation.
  The USA is by far one of the countries with the most free speech. This law can be easily be challenged on First Amendment grounds on the terms it would limit parodies of real people.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Dillymackey Tue 19 Mar 2024 09:02PM UTC
    
    Hate speech and misinformation are NOT free speech. Seriously.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:27AM UTC
      
      Free speech is the right to say things you dislike.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. Linstar Thu 21 Mar 2024 01:40PM UTC
      
      And who decides what counts as "hate speech" and "disinformation", then?
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    3. Htp3rSqu1d Thu 21 Mar 2024 09:11PM UTC
      
      Hate speech is completely allowed by the first amendment. All of the following are not covered by the first amendment. obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Hate speech is not among those. Misinformation is allowed if it's not defamatory (e.g misinformation about other people) or as long as it's not advertising a good or service.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
  3. AngieNoir Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:15PM UTC
    
    "Brazil has laws criminalizing speech if it offends sexual minorities" As it should
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  4. victoriancuddler Wed 27 Mar 2024 03:45AM UTC
    
    I think your specific quantifications on what counts as free speech, especially regarding fiction, are erroneous in this case.
    Brazil's law as you are aware protects people from defamation, if someone were to write — say — a fanfic on Boate Kiss victim who happens to be a minor you MAYBE could be persecuted if the person brought it up to a lawyer but the possibility of it actually getting penalized for it would be slim because the lawyer would have to prove the author of this fic set out to slander the name of the victim to begin with.
    The Tenesse ELVIS Act less to do with free speech and more to the idea of fannish works falling prey to the wants of IP holders wanting to keep the monetization for themselves. As it's always been a recurring problem in fandom.
    Also checking up on the things you write I can see why you'd be worried about what counts as defamation in fannish works but it's not necessarily the issue OTW is holding up as potentially harmful to fandom.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  5. Gameline Thu 28 Mar 2024 01:59AM UTC
    
    I mean idunno, considering i've written smut, and read plenty of it too im fairly confident europe doesnt care (I live in the EU) because if it did actually enforce that i'd be imprisoned by now
    
    Last Edited Thu 28 Mar 2024 01:59AM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
LadyShelley Thu 14 Mar 2024 07:13PM UTC

Doing some reading on this, it sounds like a typical government reaction. Someone told them this was a problem, so they decided to "fix it" without really understanding the technology they were trying to legislate. (The old "The internet is a series of tubes" issue.) I get what they are *trying* to do, but yeah, this is a poorly worded bill. This is also the sort of thing that needs legislating at the federal level, not state by state.
With all of that said, would it even matter if people outside Tennesee comment? We aren't within their justification (or voter roles) for our opinion to really matter to them.

Comment Actions
- Frozen
- Thread
1. honilee Fri 15 Mar 2024 01:54AM UTC
  
  With all of that said, would it even matter if people outside Tennesee comment?
  
  This is my question as well -- I doubt it. Glad that the OTW is keeping abreast of this issue and I hope Tennessean fen raise their voices against this proposal.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. PazithiGallifreya Fri 15 Mar 2024 06:39PM UTC
  
  Given the absolute clown car that is the Tennessee state legislature, I doubt anything from the public will sway them, even from residents of the state. They're reactionary MAGA types almost down to the last one, as well as readily bending over for any corporate interest that throws money at their campaign fund. They don't even serve the people who vote for them, much less anyone who disagrees. Good luck.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
3. 1. Rens_Knight Sat 16 Mar 2024 10:24PM UTC
    
    It may surprise you, but some Tennesseean conservatives are capable of nuance. The MAGA term is probably not appropriate for me because I don't give personal loyalty to any politician. I do intend to write to let them know my thoughts on how issues like those the bill is intended to address are best handled and what the unintended impacts might be; I have a feeling I might be paid attention to a little more because of the fact I won't be coming at it with an antagonistic tone.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. PazithiGallifreya Sat 16 Mar 2024 10:33PM UTC
      
      Piss poor reading comprehension there, unless you're a legislator, buddy 🤣
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Morncreek Wed 20 Mar 2024 02:22PM UTC
        
        I have seen "piss poor reading comprehension" and that is not it. 🙄
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. PazithiGallifreya Wed 20 Mar 2024 02:38PM UTC
        
        They read a comment specifically about the state's current legislators and assumed it was a personal attack on them, so unless they are currently an elected official in Tennessee, it really doesn't involve them whatsoever. I'm not sure what else to call a bald misunderstanding of written text.
        I can't help that politicians are corrupt and beholden to moneyed interests more than the population they claim to represent.
        A hit dog barks, I guess.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
4. MalcontentCatboy Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:29AM UTC
  
  While I'm not a lawyer, this also doesn't sound like something Tennessee would have jurisdiction over. This almost definitely would conflict with federal law and possibly the Constitution itself.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
5. 1. PazithiGallifreya Wed 20 Mar 2024 02:45PM UTC
    
    Unconstitutional laws get passed with some frequency. The problem is that they then must be challenged in court, and the court must judge whether they believe it is in fact unconstitutional, and overturn it, after the fact.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. klainelynch Mon 25 Mar 2024 09:42PM UTC
      
      As Gloria Johnson often says, the Tennessee legislature passes lawsuits, not laws.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. PazithiGallifreya Mon 25 Mar 2024 09:48PM UTC
        
        🤣🤣🤣
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
TheTorturedAnkleBoot Thu 14 Mar 2024 08:16PM UTC

I hate the American government. Between this and banning TikTok I feel like they're gonna take everything we like just to flex their power. 🙄😒

Comment Actions
- Frozen
- Thread
1. LeviAndTheOso Thu 14 Mar 2024 10:33PM UTC
  
  to be fair, the reason TikTok is being possily banned is for country security, and nothing to do with "flexing power". Its a safety reason and it has nothing to gain with making us miserable.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. RoyanderBivolt Thu 14 Mar 2024 10:52PM UTC
    
    Safety concerns that are completely unfounded and only gained traction due to everyone perpetuating conspiracy theories about China. Twitter and Facebook collect more of your data than TikTok does. The whole thing is asinine.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. NeoQwerty Fri 15 Mar 2024 02:13AM UTC
      
      What they needed to do: ban their intelligence agency employees from fecking using social media and their private accounts on their workplace devices.
      What they did: let the alphabet agency idiots keep using facebook and twitter just fine and ban everyone from tiktok.
      Gotta admire how stupid that is, because this is a "solution" even a cryptobro could tell you is not going to solve the problem.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. LordiTheRailgun Fri 22 Mar 2024 08:50AM UTC
        
        I hear tell the feds tried to manipulate Wikipedia articles about them to be more favorable and/or shift the growing list of controversies and human rights abuses.
        Total psyops. Pretty scary
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
    3. nippletwister69 Fri 15 Mar 2024 09:45PM UTC
      
      Twitter and Facebook DO collect more data than TikTok; the Facebook data collection was being looked into and then the topic suddenly dropped. Now they're just honing in on TikTok, for some reason.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    4. 1. queen_ofthedead Tue 19 Mar 2024 02:39AM UTC
        
        the thing I've noticed is America's fine with their companies getting our data, but not foreign companies... wonder how much lobbying they've done
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. CoyoteWrites Fri 22 Mar 2024 08:09PM UTC
        
        Pretty sure FB and Twitter sell user data to anyone with the money to buy it, including foreign interests. So the matter would be the government being okay with US-based companies PROFITING OFF OF our data, not simply having it.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
    5. squeegybug Sun 17 Mar 2024 01:16AM UTC
      
      TikTok has a function that allows you to target a specific demographic of person and insure that everyone in a specific area that answers to those characteristics gets 'triggered' at a specific timeframe. It is a terrifying next level propaganda tool, that is no doubt being lauded as an inspired capitalist advertising tool. A few sweeps and you can organize a Jan 6 type get together anywhere in the country with very little ramp up time, which makes it easy for a (terror) group to handle multiple 'events' at once. Imagine the Timothy McVeigh OKC 'event' in every state capital on the same day, same time. Now imagine how much time it would take for each Governor to respond. Think Uvalde, but nationwide. Not many know about that feature being there or have even thought about the possibilities.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    6. 1. RoyanderBivolt Wed 20 Mar 2024 01:44AM UTC
        
        "TikTok has a function that allows you to target a specific demographic of person and insure that everyone in a specific area that answers to those characteristics gets 'triggered' at a specific timeframe." It's called an algorithm and it's not nor has it ever been exclusive to TikTok. YouTube recommends fascist propaganda and right wing bullshit to me constantly even tho I never watch anything related to it. Twitter keeps promoting posts by literal Nazis onto everyone's timeline. Tumblr is full of advertisements that redirect to actual neo nazi webrings and transphobic hate groups made to fearnonger.
        TikTok has never been special. The difference is that murica only wants its population to be subjected to their own unique and ever so special brand of propaganda and information siphoning and doesn't like that a company from another country is ruining their monopoly.
        That and also how it's easy for people to post the truth of current events (ie post footage of brutality or hate crimes committed by law enforcement or worse) to disprove whatever the government is telling everyone to believe but no one wants to talk about that for some reason. Maybe it has something to dye with the fact the TikTok ban was first proposed under trump for these reasons? Who knows.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
    7. Pluckydono Sat 23 Mar 2024 08:47AM UTC
      
      Have you read the TOC for that communist platform? You're basically giving all your user accounts and passwords on your phone to China. Don't take my word for it though, read it yourself.
      I was considering making an account until I read the terms of operational conditions, then said hell no! Its far more invasive than FB or similar.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    8. 1. RoyanderBivolt Tue 26 Mar 2024 02:29AM UTC
        
        "communist platform" lol. rofl even. I think your roleplay of the red scare 2 electric boogaloo would be appreciated by the folks running Fox news at least.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
  3. Dubiousculturalartifact (222Ravens) Fri 15 Mar 2024 02:29AM UTC
    
    It's not a safety issue, it's red scare nonsense.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  4. chantolove Fri 15 Mar 2024 01:47PM UTC
    
    It's not for security. It's because the senators who drafted the ban are now trying to become an investor group and buy the platform. It's about money.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  5. Waterball13 Sun 17 Mar 2024 05:54PM UTC
    
    True it was a bi-partisan effort it’s a security issue
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  6. MalcontentCatboy Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:30AM UTC
    
    America can't allow another country to manipulate our social media. That's our job!
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
3. Account Deleted Fri 15 Mar 2024 04:56AM UTC
  
  This isn't "the American government", its the state of Tennesee
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. 0ats Fri 15 Mar 2024 03:51PM UTC
    
    which is part of the american government.
    every time a harmful bill gets passed in the US, there's always that crowd that tries to make it seem like the stupidity is exclusive to one state
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. PazithiGallifreya Fri 15 Mar 2024 06:40PM UTC
      
      This. State legislatures generally copy each other's bills, which are usually written by lobby groups to begin with.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. Account Deleted Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:31PM UTC
      
      Yeah.. not what I was "trying" to do at all. I'm just a pedant.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
5. HerdOfTurtles Fri 15 Mar 2024 03:14PM UTC
  
  TikTok is a Chinese owned company and par CCP law, all companies in their country are required to hand information to the government if the CCP asks for it. Looking at TikTok terms of services, the security issue primarily comes from the fact that the app is allowed to store data on pretty much all keyboard typing done outside of the app—so passwords and personal information are free game.
  Facebook and Twitter also collect a lot of data. They also don't have a law binding them to work with the government and hand the information over (even though we know that they have done so on a massive scale in the past, but they're considered US assets so I doubt they'd do anything to restrict them in that way).
  From a quick scan of this law, reading the bill, it primarily looks aimed against commercial exploitation. It would be better to define 'likeness' in it, but I don't think it will be abused so widely. Maybe two or three people might be willing to try; but you can't be summoned to court unless someone is willing to dedicate years and money to submit a specific complaint about what you've done in accordance with the law. In court, there's an actual argument put forth that has to prove you've used AI in a manner that the bill wants to prevent. Then there's often a Jury, too. I highly doubt anyone will try to take someone to court over a concert video or less—a lawyer simply wouldn't advise it, that case would be too difficult to sell to a jury or judge and you'd surely bomb your case.
  The interesting part is that, if you do use an AI straight-up as the bill intends to prevent, you might be able to win the court case anyway if you apply strict scrutiny. You might say it's an infringement on 1st amendment in the US. It would render the law immediately invalid until proven that it isn't an infringement.
  If taken to court over a video, you could also win this case by the bill itself. It argues from a standpoint that voice is one's property, and usage of it without permission violates that property. Imitation doesn't count then; and for a video? It could be reasonably argued by common sense that a concert video is consented based on the singer's knowledge that people will record them if they sing at a concert, and so a video wouldn't count.
  
  Last Edited Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:17PM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
6. 1. Darker_Dreams Sat 16 Mar 2024 01:43AM UTC
    
    The problem is AI is used for voice to text in applications for those whom have trouble typing, AI is also used for Spell Check & it is even used in apps like Adobe Photoshop, Video Editors, Etc. All those little "helpful" things that can be done are part of AI, so if you use any of those tools for any variety of reasons, you could potentially end up hurting.
    It may be unlikely to go to court; but I remember when fanfiction & other fan run sites went down due to copyright lawsuit warnings under DMCA (1998). There were sites that removed whole works & there's still works that cannot be used because authors & other creators reached out requesting fan works be forbidden from being posted on such sites.
    Also, the argument about concerts & events might not hold up either if it's announced prior to the concert or even written on tickets or in the Terms of Service when purchasing tickets that the buyer/goer will not record the concert & will only pay for an official recording. That was what Broadway & other Concerts used to do way back in the day & I've been seeing it more again in the Terms of Service on certain sites where ticket purchases can be made.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. HerdOfTurtles Sat 16 Mar 2024 02:11AM UTC
      
      Not so, technically. The whole bill is argued from a perspective of voice ownership. The only people who could potentially be charged are people using the voices of real, living people who haven't conceded permission. If the AI voice isn't belonging to anyone (automated) or the contributing voice actor has given permission for the usage, then there is no basis for a court case. The AI voices on Spell Check, Adobe Photoshop, and Video Editors are either automated or already have to have legal rights for the usage and therefore no one would get in trouble for using them. Unless, of course, one of these apps is using someone's real voice against their will.
      Secondary part— I can see this throwing a wrench into AI voices of characters singing songs. If one of the voice actors decides to go after a fan for doing this, they could. I'm not sure what to think of this specifically, because I can see how a voice actor might be uncomfortable with it, and I would agree that they should have some semblance of control over what their own voice is used for. I have some reservations on the grounds that these AI voice characters are usually fun, but I don't know if my fun and expression should outweigh someone's control over their voice. I would have to think on this one longer.
      As for the last part, if the Terms of Service are going to say that you can't record, then yes, breaking that is a viable court case. But that would be with or without this bill. If you are blatantly going against the wishes of the singer and breaking the Terms of Service that's possible grounds for getting summoned to court; you might still probably win that case in the US using Facebook v. Power Ventures as a guideline.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Darker_Dreams Sat 16 Mar 2024 02:35AM UTC
        
        I guess for me I was looking less at the "voice" of the actors & more at what OTW had typed up here:
        "This could potentially harm artists, authors who describe an actor (or a character played by a particular actor"
        I know that in the US there are already some laws that prevent the use of an actor's picture being taken & used against their wills; however, drawn pictures were different, now those might be called into question as well.
        However I could see in a speech to text use how someone whom was using speech to text might get in trouble for describing an actor & or character using the AI tool even if they had come up with the story themselves. Which is what makes me a bit nervous.
        I myself would not film a concert or play; with or without this bill just in case of the terms of service as mentioned above.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. HerdOfTurtles Sat 16 Mar 2024 03:14AM UTC
        
        If the picture is drawn and doesn't use AI aid, I don't think it would count. I need to read that section of ELVIS act more thoroughly though. I assume an AI generated image of them would be subject to scrutiny.
        As for the AI reader, 'Likeness' needs to be better defined in this bill, no doubt. Strangely I think that if someone actually gets taken to court over this, it will do the most to alter it, because it's during the court session that a precedent and definition will have to be set and a person could win their case and force the law to change. But an AI reader is very much in real-time, so unless you record yourself using an AI tool to read speech to text description of a hypothetical actor who decides to charge you for it, they can't really prove you've done it in court unless you admit it and don't try to appeal it. I think it would be very easy to defend and difficult to charge.
        Once again, I think the easiest way to approach this legally would be strict scrutiny. It would also force Tennessee to narrow the wording of the law.
        
        Last Edited Sat 16 Mar 2024 03:16AM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        HerdOfTurtles Sat 16 Mar 2024 03:29AM UTC
        
        Also apologies, I don't mean to be dismissive of all fears. I just want to point out the many ways people could have hope. It's possible to get around, and it's probably not going to make massive damages. I only want to give some peace of mind. If there's a law that one believes could be abused, it's not uncommon for someone to make a sort of appeal to pathos by showing the worst possible scenarios in order to draw awareness to the problem and hopefully get people to fix it quickly. I simply think this approach, while creating urgency that swiftly makes patches, can tire people out easily. I want this law to be fixed, I also don't want people to spend undo time stressing on it.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        (6 more comments in this thread)
  3. kenjikfc Sat 16 Mar 2024 08:42AM UTC
    
    Yes, exactly! I know Tiktok is fun (in doses, at least?), but it’s really quite interesting how unaware - and upon discovery, uncaring - the general public is about this fact. I understand the general malaise and sentiment that privacy might not even exist, anymore - but wouldn’t it at least be nice to start with supporting a move /towards/ it? In a way that could feasibly be couched in terms of national security and then expanded to corporations in general?
    On your other point: super interesting analysis about the bill. In my (highly inexpert) the wording does feel. Super weird. Just- extremely vague and somewhat poorly clarified. Not really sure what exactly they’re hoping to accomplish here, but I’d be interested in hearing your take, as you seem to know a fair bit about the mysticism of copyright law. I’d guess that “knowingly” is hard to prosecute for (and a bad foundation to rest your case on), but I see the intention, almost, in regards to content scraping and ad-revenue generation from supposedly ‘non-commercial’ work…? Honestly, though, I’m in doubt this would work at all to prevent anything. In a more broad sense, away from fanwork-and-adjacent realms (where, personally, I feel that creators have reluctantly accepted that fanwork not going away, and that their best bet to stop it is to shut up about it or simply Never Publish. I mean, look at Anne Rice-!), what’s to stop the arguments of, ‘oh, this isn’t a likeness of X, X has a mole on their forehead!’ and where is reasonable doubt defined? Who owns the rights to an image of actor A dressed in a character’s outfit? Does ‘likeness’ include all past and future likenesses, or simply as one @present? (It’ll never be relevant, but it’s a little funny to think about because, truly, at a certain point, all babies look exactly the same.)
    Really I’m mostly worried/curious as to how the entertainment industry might develop from here, because I feel like there’s only two paths we’re going to split down. 1. There’s a glut of low quality AI-generated content. 2. Some sort of revitalization/conglomeration movement (most likely led by Disney, if I had to guess?), that consolidates the big platforms, signs on a few big-name actors with some well publicized non-compete/singular rights to image contracts, stirs up the public about AI, and creates some “official” stream of movies/TV while (attempting) to stamp out the horde of AI content constantly around but impossible to get rid of. This way is better for actors, maybe, and most likely better for viewers regarding quality, but ugh. Even so. Not looking forwards to either of these - and I like technology! And you can’t really anything actual when it’s international (or in this case, not in TN…).
    Interesting issues, all around. Sorry for rambling all over, I was just very drawn in by your well-written comments and wrote out this ridiculously long response on the reflex of, ‘oh man this person is smart now I’ve got to /think/ about this.’ Hope you don’t mind too much!
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  4. 1. HerdOfTurtles Sun 17 Mar 2024 03:20PM UTC
      
      Oh boy my comment box is fuller than usual. Uhhh...
      all I can say about the entertainment industry is that AI revolution is probably going to be at least a little similar to the industrial revolution, but instead of craftsmen it'll be storytellers? Entertainment will probably get cheaper and you're right that there will be a lot more at a lower quality. It'll be interesting to watch unfold.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. myguitarisinmymind Tue 19 Mar 2024 02:46PM UTC
        
        The ominous thing IMO is that entertainment is already enormously plentiful and affordable. Even things that that can be expensive, e.g. tickets to sports games or theatrical performances, are often televised/recorded in some way and made available to the public for a low cost. Not to mention the number of entertainers eager to give away their work for free, just for the pleasure of it - AO3 being a perfect example. So while the industrial revolution raised standards of living (while coming with some serious drawbacks), it's hard for me to imagine much benefit to humanity coming from AI entertainment. And the potential drawbacks... woof.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. HerdOfTurtles Tue 19 Mar 2024 04:13PM UTC
        
        The cheapness will be on the production end.
        AI will be most useful for organising data and writing contracts/non-artistic texts and bulk code (reviewed by a human at this stage of course). It hallucinates too often to be left to is own for now. I'm certain that it will be used for writing small things like commercials / corporate advertisements eventually.
        People will also soon be able to use it to animate, or help render animation / make the process faster. I see AI could take out a lot of concept artists. Also will most likely be prevalent in por n industries that don't care for script writing and only care for mass content production.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      3. MrToddWilkins Wed 20 Mar 2024 10:39PM UTC
        
        what on earth is the thing in your profile picture
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      4. HerdOfTurtles Thu 21 Mar 2024 01:10AM UTC
        
        I get that a lot.
        
        It's a dog.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        MrToddWilkins Thu 21 Mar 2024 01:11AM UTC
        
        wish I could have something that cool
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
StarlingEclipse Thu 14 Mar 2024 08:49PM UTC

Their should be a way to mass download fics like for fandom or tag.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. FroogieBurger Mon 18 Mar 2024 09:54PM UTC
  
  That would use way too much data, wouldn't it? There would be something like five people with incredibly powerful computers that could handle it, if you're suggesting downloading all fics for a specific fandom.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. StarlingEclipse Wed 20 Mar 2024 11:32PM UTC
    
    Realising that now lol, I was a little sleep deprived when I commented
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. Pinky G Rocket (pinkygrocket) Thu 21 Mar 2024 04:01AM UTC
    
    If you exclude media (e.g. no images, vids, etc.), it would not be particularly expensive. The entirety of the English Wikipedia is only 22GB as of writing. Text is cheap datawise.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  3. Panicked117 Thu 28 Mar 2024 05:04PM UTC
    
    Eh, it’s possible to do though. And if someone, or a group of people, backed up a lot of the site there’s always the possibility that it could get saved to something like the internet archive so that everything isn’t lost.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
kurage Thu 14 Mar 2024 09:07PM UTC

This is about protecting musicians from AI. Could it be used to go after fanworks? Maybe, but that's very obviously not the intent. In my perspective, the good of this bill vastly outweighs any potential constraints on fannish activity. Whether or not this is the best possible anti-AI bill is beside the point—let's get, and keep, the ball rolling on legislation that prioritizes human employment and human creativity over AI profit mongering.

Last Edited Thu 14 Mar 2024 09:09PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Frozen
- Thread
1. grommile Thu 14 Mar 2024 09:34PM UTC
  
  Never trust the alleged intent of a content restriction law.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. purple_pages Fri 15 Mar 2024 01:30AM UTC
    
    This
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
3. Aja Thu 14 Mar 2024 09:39PM UTC
  
  The intent of these bills hardly matters here. What you have to consider are the potential impacts upon websites and platforms that don't have the ability to protect themselves in lawsuits brought about by the most extreme and bad-faith weaponizations of the law. This law, while presenting itself as just intending to protect celebs from deepfakes and AI recordings, also deliberately undermines the cornerstone internet protections of Section 230, which says that platforms are not responsible for the content of their users. Attempts to erode Section 230 in the U.S. are becoming strategic and targeted by lobbies which use bills like this on their face to do so.
  Look at the bill known as FOSTA-SESTA for a quintessential example. Although it was touted as a child safety act, what it really did was penalize online sex work and online sex-positive internet communities, while actually adding very little to protections for children already in place under existing laws. When it passed, it immediately caused several benign websites, like Craigslist personals, to shut down because they could not risk continuing to exist under the broad scope of FOSTA-SESTA. This is the kind of thing we're talking about here.
  And Tennessee is the last place in the country you should look to anyone being moderate about their intent behind this law. If it passes, it can and will be used to punish marginalized content creators.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. kurage Thu 14 Mar 2024 10:55PM UTC
    
    You make good points about the ELVIS Act, and I appreciate you taking the time to write out this analysis. Having done a little more reading, I do see the potential for abuse and I feel that the bill should be more carefully tailored to the problem that it is intended to address. That said, I am overall in favor of legislation that might be broadly described as anti-AI, and I would likely support a more carefully targeted version of this bill, even at the risk of some impingement on fannish activity.
    There are some value judgments embedded in your comment that I disagree with; I am a liberal and a feminist, and I get the sense that you would probably describe yourself in the same way, but I think we're coming at that from different angles.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. not_quite_a_furry Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:21AM UTC
      
      That said, I am overall in favor of legislation that might be broadly described as anti-AI
      
      And that’s precisely the issue. This act vaguely gestures at AI to pass extreme limitations to fair use. Some commenters here assume this was out of ignorance, but I’m not as charitable.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
5. taemincroptop (Loki_Likey_Thor_Odinson) Sat 16 Mar 2024 04:44AM UTC
  
  The last content restriction law they put in was to ban books that harmed children. The books that got banned were critical race theory and such. You trust the US government on restriction of content?
  
  Comment Actions
  - Frozen
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
6. 1. kurage Sat 16 Mar 2024 12:45PM UTC
    
    In a world with generative AI, yes, I am in favor of certain kinds of "content restriction" (if that's how you want to frame it). Laws need to be very carefully designed to laser target AI-generated content and avoid unintended bad consequences/bad faith weaponization, but I will frankly say that I don't care in the slightest if AI-generated fanvids/fanart/fanfic wind up on the wrong side of any future restrictions on AI-generated content.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Frozen
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. taemincroptop (Loki_Likey_Thor_Odinson) Sat 16 Mar 2024 05:17PM UTC
      
      It isn't even about the fan content made by AI as a whole - text to speech uses AI. Many disabled access usage relies on AI. Most fanart things use AI such as Adobe. The way this is currently being done would wipe pretty much anything except this content. The people making this content aren't scared by this, they'll just go and do it elsewhere in the most likely scenario. If this was such a pressing issue, why are the government only caring now and not anytime in the past 12 years when things such as deepfakes started?
      Thing is, this timing is really weird, it would wipe a very large amount of disability access and more. If they actually want to pass this bill, it needs to be correctly worded and structured. And, frankly, when the government itself is literally known for illicit sexual activity that is DEEPLY illegal, it's very strange that suddenly they care so deeply about these things right now at this instant ahead of massive pushes for bills to make things like trans health care illegal, racial issues and more.
      The fact is, if this was actually about protecting women and children, then they'd be doing a lot more than just going after some random AI deepfakes - such as ending their legal legislation that still allows child marriage in TNS. Frankly, this is dodgy as hell that right now ahead of some massive bills coming in is heavily suspicious - and again, the way is structured would remove MASSIVE amounts of accessibility to readers, writers, artists and more and NOT JUST for fan content in the very large long run.
      The last time they did something like this to "protect the civilians", it turned into a dystopian nightmare. It's weird as hell that right now is their time to pull this and actively worrying.
      These things SHOULD be regulated and such, entirely, yet, the timing, the politicians backing it and more are mostly known for being dodgy. Any type of content restriction enforced by a government that is not specific should always be questioned.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. kurage Sat 16 Mar 2024 10:52PM UTC
        
        I think you missed the part where I said that bills restricting AI-generated content should be carefully crafted to avoid bad-faith weaponization or other unintended harmful consequences.
        >why are the government only caring now and not anytime in the past 12 years when things such as deepfakes started?
        Because AI has advanced exponentially in the past twelve years, and it now poses a host of extremely serious and almost entirely novel problems.
        >Thing is, this timing is really weird
        It really, really, really isn’t. I mean this in the nicest way possible: Have you been following the news about AI over the past year and a half? At all?
        (That's a rhetorical question; I think this is the point at which we should agree to disagree.)
        
        Last Edited Sat 16 Mar 2024 10:55PM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. taemincroptop (Loki_Likey_Thor_Odinson) Sun 17 Mar 2024 12:23AM UTC
        
        And I believe you missed the point where I've literally pointed out the government is extremely skewered, and if you take 10 minutes to research usually when they roll this out, it's to cover something else up / to ban something else under the guise of caring for the people.
        The technology for this has been developing rapidly for YEARS. The development of AI in the past 1-2 years shouldn't be an impact here. Deep flakes reached a point in 2010, 2013, 2015 and other years where the technology was extremely advanced, videos were going haywire over the internet and was being used in extremely bad faith. People have been begging since about 2015/2016 for laws like this and now once they show up, it's this buck ass badly written bill, that is still ignoring other serious major concerns with AI such as theft, that is still written in a way that wouldn't even properly affect these things but massively affect other areas and more.
        The timing is definitely weird. No one is saying this content shouldn't have restrictions, limitations and more, but removing everyone's 1st Amendment because the government refused to listen for years and now has to quickly write something up (again, ahead of bills they dont want people to actually look too closely at them discussing) is strange to say the least. AI generated deepfskes and such have had peak technology (and could make hands) long before the past two years
        Anyone claiming this is a few year problem hasnt cared about this issue, or even followed it.
        I will stop replying and I guess agree to disagree but the thing is the development of AI isnt inherently the issue here since the technology to do these things have reached a peak long ago and was mainly used for deepfakes and scam calls to banks and similar things. So yes, when this has been begged to do for years and completely ignored, and now suddenly the government(s) care about it ahead of basic right withdrawal bills is extremely strange timing. This is after the peak of this technology. No one cared previously.
        And now this specific bill is written in a way that would straight up remove 1st Ammendment rights.
        I've been following this since it became a problem. Not when everyone finally realised AI might actually be a problem.
        
        Last Edited Sun 17 Mar 2024 12:37AM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        kurage Sun 17 Mar 2024 12:41AM UTC
        
        Generative AI has massively more advanced capabilities than it did just a few years ago, and it has become almost infinitely more prominent in the public consciousness. You are correct that there were already signs of trouble brewing in the mid 2010s, but the simple fact is that the large majority Americans—including legislators—either did not see AI as an urgent problem or were unaware of it in the first place. That has changed. While I am not saying that this bill is above suspicion, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about the timing.
        I am blocking you now, so feel free to write another semicomprehensible multiparagraph rant if it brings you joy, but do be aware that I won't be reading it.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Frozen
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
Mistress_Day27 Thu 14 Mar 2024 11:48PM UTC

Que horror , esto afecta al fandom extranjero?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. BananaBro Fri 15 Mar 2024 07:31AM UTC
  
  No, solo Tennessee
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
ittorou Fri 15 Mar 2024 02:05AM UTC

The US has recently been hard pushing for a centralized internet where they can control anything and everything their citizens see and it is frightening. I truly hope we can move past this without any negative effects but I have my doubts...the longer the internet is around, the more they will push for absolute control over the content people see. It breaks my heart.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:32AM UTC
  
  To be entirely far, the whole world has been doing that.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. LordiTheRailgun Fri 22 Mar 2024 08:57AM UTC
    
    Like the EU and Chat Control 2.0 🙃
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
FPBarbieri Fri 15 Mar 2024 03:42AM UTC

Is this limited to actors and other public figures? I have placed several friends and acquaintances and people I admire, including some scholars who are well known in their field, in some fics, and now you've got me worried that some prosecutor with an itch for notches on his gun might find that objectionable. I doubt any of the people concerned would themselves object.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:42AM UTC
  
  Do you live in Tennessee? Do they? If the answer to either is "no" you're probably safe, and if it's to both, then you definitely are. For now, at least.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. FPBarbieri Fri 29 Mar 2024 05:13AM UTC
    
    What bothers me is, today Tennessee, tomorrow the world. Dubious or downright bad ideas tend to spread. I agree I am in no danger now, but who knows how many politicians and lawyers are looking at the ELVIS act and thinking it's a good idea?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
Acts_of_Tekla Fri 15 Mar 2024 04:25AM UTC

I put together a template for folks who want to leave feedback!
----
I am concerned about the potential impact of the ELVIS Act. There is new, broad liability for anyone who knowingly “publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to the public” content that includes someone's voice or likeness, with no limitation to commercial uses. This could potentially harm artists, authors who describe an actor (or a character played by a particular actor), vidders, and other fannish creators. There is also broad liability for anyone who “distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service or device” whose purpose is to make the replicas.
Because the ELVIS Act establishes liability for both the “user” and the “developer/platform”, it means that – without clear definitions – there could be a legal free-for-all on social media. The act's wording could mean that anyone clicking on an infringing document could be at legal risk. NetChoice has pointed out that the ELVIS Act could put fans at risk just for posting concert photos or for being associated with violations. As their post points out, there could be better laws passed instead to ban deep fakes.
[optional personal story, e.g. "I create art for the TV show Supernatural and post it on Instagram, and I'm concerned that could be a violation of the law not only for me, but for my 1400 followers."]
The ELVIS Act is unnecessary as Tennessee law already adequately handles fraud, deception, and misappropriating someone’s likeness.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. aftershocked Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:57PM UTC
  
  Thank you so much, I was scrolling through the comments looking for something exactly like this!!
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Raberba girl (Raberba_girl) Fri 15 Mar 2024 04:45AM UTC

Thank you for staying on top of these things and keeping us informed.

Comment Actions
- Thread
kageyamasanji14 Fri 15 Mar 2024 04:54AM UTC

(sorry if I made a few mistakes I'm barely 18 and those older than me probably have much better things to say... dont read this vent from this random teenager)
As a US Citizen, I feel that America is always going to control us into making it so they can figure out everything about us for our "safety." According to what America is, it is simply a free, democratic land where everyone hs a role in what is happening. Unfortunately, the real truth is that without enough power or a Government position you really are just under control of what the Government says.
Sure, America is doing better than other countries when it comes to this. But they aren't necessarily good at it, either.
I do not live in Tennessee, but in the state I live in I also feel like we don't really have as much freedom when it comes to what we learn in school, either. We take way too many assessments for the state that it feels like I take more tests than actual learning. (this may just be my city but idt so)
In conclusion, I feel that myself and other US citizens should taje a look at everything before deciding what to do next. Presidential Elections are coming up, and this point it's Biden or Trump, who's better. If you are a US Citizen with the power to vote, I would make sure to look at the person who you are voting for will follow some of the things you are looking for. Scratch that, not just for Presedential Elections. When voting for any Government position, think about what affect that person will play on the US and on personal interest.

Last Edited Fri 15 Mar 2024 04:56AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
herbiecide Fri 15 Mar 2024 05:37AM UTC

Another day, another government power grab using a giant hammer to try and "fix" supposed problems in regards to copyright.
I hope that this wave of invasive garbage vanishes without a trace someday soon, but the way that Congress is going after TikTok with a bill that also grants them powers to stop anyone from accessing any website they deem a security risk... I'm not convinced.
We are sliding face first into a world where everyone will have to tie their entire internet activity to Government ID's just to access the web...

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Writing_by_Moonlight Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:11AM UTC
  
  And they're all "Sure, if this passes we COULD use it to crush small fan creators, but we totally won't. This power grab will never be used to push a Bible-thumping agenda or try to keep our ailing asses in power. Pinkie promise!"
  Which is rich, coming from the government. Especially in TN.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. MammasRose Sun 17 Mar 2024 02:04AM UTC
    
    🤣🤣🤣 As a “Bible-thumper” (without the thumping) myself, I am personally very concerned about anything that infringes on freedom of speech. I may not agree with you, but we all have the right to express our opinions.
    I’m also someone who DOESN’T trust the government, they mess shut up WAY too much.
    
    Last Edited Sun 17 Mar 2024 02:07AM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
SassyYah Fri 15 Mar 2024 05:55AM UTC

Notice how it's specifically named the ELVIS act so that uninformed people will support it because Elvis, the celebrity, was generally well liked as an artist.. I can't with government..

Comment Actions
- Thread
A_commie_who_luvs_fanfiction Fri 15 Mar 2024 07:24AM UTC

More us government powergrabs

Comment Actions
- Thread
Dantz_JM Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:24AM UTC

Can somebody summarize this please? I need it in a reply to this comment.

Comment Actions
- Thread
Account Deleted Fri 15 Mar 2024 10:46AM UTC

People need protection from AI and deepfake. I highly doubt they are coming after fanwork. If they were, you’d need to prove that.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. grommile Fri 15 Mar 2024 11:10AM UTC
  
  The Tennessee legislature has wiped its arse on the First Amendment (specifically the Establishment Clause) at least once in the past eight years, even when the state AG said up front that if they passed the bill in question, he and his department would not defend the bill in the face of the inevitable (and inevitably successful) constitutional challenge.
  They are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Account Deleted Fri 15 Mar 2024 05:00PM UTC
    
    Not pertinent.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
3. FeFe_the_cat Fri 15 Mar 2024 05:04PM UTC
  
  I get this! People should not be profiting off of claiming AI work as their own. Legal action should be taken in the event of someone claiming to have created something that they used AI for. If someone creates a piece of work on their own or clarifies that it was created by AI then there are no issues as far as I know.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. Darker_Dreams Sat 16 Mar 2024 01:54AM UTC
    
    But what about in the case of a writer or author whom uses speech to text which is an AI generated tool. The writer/author wrote it in a notebook or on paper but then in order to get it "digitally" created by dictating it on an app like Microsoft Word where the AI 'typed' it out because the writer/author has trouble using 2 hands.
    Or what if an author has difficulty with both hands/arms & so uses speech to text to type it up?
    Their works would be affected by this whether they're fan works or not. Especially if it passes in Tennessee & more states or countries decide to pick it up & use it.
    You also have to take into account the amount of fans whom use video editors, Adobe Photoshop, & other programs that use AI Tools in order to make the very contents that many fans produce through. It may not seem like it's targeting fans, but it could still end up being a side effect in the long run.
    
    Last Edited Sat 16 Mar 2024 02:05AM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. FeFe_the_cat Sat 16 Mar 2024 03:00AM UTC
      
      By AI generated content, I meant putting a prompt into a generator such as Chat GPT or Gemini and claiming the content as your own.
      Examples of unobjectionable use of AI:
      -speech to text
      -anything in which money doesn't exchange hands
      -clarification
      -video editors
      Examples of objectionable use of AI:
      -telling Chat GPT to write a book and then publishing it as your own
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Darker_Dreams Sat 16 Mar 2024 04:11AM UTC
        
        The explanation site AO3 provided, mentioned that even editing a video or picture with gray scale or brightening filters would legally require the person whom snapped a picture to or created a video to add a disclaimer that an AI tool to edit the picture/video; meaning someone using speech to text would also have to admit to using the tool with a similar disclaimer.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. FeFe_the_cat Sat 16 Mar 2024 02:54PM UTC
        
        If one uses speech-to-text to generate work, then they shouldn't have to clarify anything because it's still their own creativity. They're using something powered by AI, but AI isn't necessarily creating the content itself; it's converting something originally created by a person from audio to text.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Darker_Dreams Sat 16 Mar 2024 03:18PM UTC
        
        However, in a fanfic/fanwork setting, it could affect them still if they described a character as portrayed by an actor or if they used photoshop to alter a picture or edit pictures together in some way shape or form. According to this bill, anyone using the tools has to admit to such & then could be targeted even if it is a work of their own creation simply because they used the tool to help them in someway.
        Even original creators might come under target for simply using the tools if the wording is not made more specific & tailored specifically to deepfakes. This could even affect readers of works as it makes the readers & the sites liable again too.
        I'm not from Tennessee, my worries will not be taken into account by the government there; however, it is important to discuss some of these things ahead of time, so that if it does come to pass, creatives outside of Tennessee can help those whom want to avoid some troubles by removing photoshopped fan work pictures & placing tags that content was speech to text is used in works.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        FeFe_the_cat Sat 16 Mar 2024 04:26PM UTC
        
        Oh, thank you for explaining that.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Darker_Dreams Sat 16 Mar 2024 08:39PM UTC
        
        You're welcome.
        I'm sorry I was having trouble explaining my thought process previously.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        FeFe_the_cat Sat 16 Mar 2024 08:55PM UTC
        
        It’s fine, I was too.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
FeFe_the_cat Fri 15 Mar 2024 05:02PM UTC

The only plausible explanation for banning fanfiction that I can think of is if it impacts the creator of the fandom’s income or money exchanges hands. As far as I know, there’s no way to spend/receive money on ao3 so there’s no reason why this would be a problem. I can get behind banning the sale of fanfic. But I can’t and won’t support the banning of fanfic altogether. I can’t speak for anyone else but if I want to read smth about a character that already exists and I can’t find it I will do it myself

Comment Actions
- Thread
FeFe_the_cat Fri 15 Mar 2024 05:06PM UTC

If I ever publish a book and someone tries to get y’all in trouble for fanfiction and/or fanart, show them this comment. It’s my blanket permission for everyone to do whatever they want with anything I create, be it a drawing, a book, a fanfic, or any other thing. I write for myself.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 20 Mar 2024 05:34AM UTC
  
  If you mean that, you should actually release your works into the public domain. What you said has very little legal basis because it's revocable and not clearly defined. Look at Creative Commons Zero.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. FeFe_the_cat Wed 20 Mar 2024 10:21AM UTC
    
    Thank you for sharing your brainings
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
Magyareagle Fri 15 Mar 2024 06:27PM UTC

Unfortunately that is the intent of the ELVIS act, but the good news is that it is very likely to be killed by the supreme court on 1st amendment grounds. Lets face it, no one in power would advocate for fan creators, but the fact that it will hurt social media companies and tech giants is going to be an issue for Tennessee, as well as the fact that it will run afoul of the of the federal governments exclusive right to deal with matters regarding interstate commerce. Since ELVIS will effect commerce beyond the state, it faces another very large constitutional hurdle there.

Comment Actions
- Thread
StrangeColoredGlasses Fri 15 Mar 2024 07:26PM UTC

The concerns about this bill need to be spread more widely. This is the only place I've heard about this bill. The more publicity of how stupid it is, the more likely it will drop. These politicians are just hoping no one cares so they can enact it. As someone who has written fan fic since 12 years old, would be a major blow to me and many other writers. My question also would be what would ao3 do should this bill become a reality?

Last Edited Fri 15 Mar 2024 09:54PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread

AO3 News