forbes.com
AI Legal Developments in 2025: State and Federal Updates
In 2025, California and New York enacted new laws concerning AI-generated images and digital replicas, while federal efforts remain limited to the TAKE IT DOWN Act (regarding nude look-alikes), highlighting inconsistencies in state and federal approaches to AI regulation and intellectual property.
- What are the key legal changes in 2025 regarding the use of AI to create digital replicas of individuals?
- In 2025, California strengthened its Right of Publicity laws, prohibiting contracts for digital replicas without exceptions (lawyer representation, non-replacement of work, or SAG-AFTRA membership). New York mandated disclosure for AI-generated human images in ads unless the image is recognizable or in expressive works. Federal action remains limited, with the TAKE IT DOWN Act addressing AI-generated nude look-alikes.
- How do state-level legal responses to AI-generated content differ, and what challenges do these differences pose?
- These legal developments reflect a growing need to regulate AI's impact on human likeness and intellectual property. California's changes directly address the exploitation of individuals' images, while New York's law focuses on consumer transparency. The limited scope of federal legislation highlights the ongoing struggle to create uniform standards across states.
- What are the long-term implications of the current legal landscape for the use of AI in content creation and intellectual property rights?
- Future legal challenges will likely focus on the scope of fair use in AI training and the definition of copyright infringement for AI-generated content. The inconsistent rulings across states and the slow pace of federal legislation signal potential conflicts and uncertainties for companies using AI for content creation. The outcome of cases like Disney and Universal v. Midjourney will significantly shape copyright protection in the AI era.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's title, 'A Brief Update on AI Legal Developments,' sets a neutral tone, but the content leans heavily toward highlighting negative aspects such as legal challenges and potential harms. The sequencing of information, beginning with restrictive legislation and then moving to copyright infringement lawsuits, creates a sense of pervasive risk. The use of phrases like 'bad news' and 'languishing in Congress' subtly contributes to a negative framing.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but certain word choices such as 'avalanche of litigation,' 'rampant and flagrant use,' and 'desperate need' carry negative connotations and contribute to a pessimistic tone. More neutral alternatives might be 'substantial increase in litigation', 'widespread use', and 'significant need'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on legal cases and legislation, potentially omitting broader discussions of ethical concerns or societal impacts related to AI development. The lack of discussion regarding the potential benefits of AI, or counterarguments to the negative impacts highlighted, creates a potentially one-sided narrative. The article also omits discussion of the ongoing debate around AI regulation's impact on innovation and economic growth.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic view of the "fair use" defense in copyright law, portraying it as having clear-cut outcomes. The reality is far more nuanced, with varying interpretations across different courts. The portrayal of the debate over AI-generated content's copyright protection is also simplified, presenting it as a binary choice between protectable and unprotectable, without acknowledging the complexities of intermediate positions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses legal developments aimed at protecting individuals from unauthorized use of their likeness and voice in AI-generated content. This directly addresses the issue of ensuring equal rights and opportunities, preventing exploitation and discrimination, particularly in the entertainment industry where the power imbalance between established companies and individuals can be significant. The California legislation regarding digital replicas and the New York law on disclosure of AI-generated images in advertising are steps toward a more equitable playing field.