State Champ Radio legislation
A controversial California Assembly bill that would have forced Ticketmaster to share its ticketing inventory with resale sites StubHub and SeatGeek has been amended with anti-resale provisions that would allow promoters like Live Nation to ban Stubhub and SeatGeek from selling its concert tickets in California.
The whiplash legislative maneuvering is the result of the music industry’s successful effort to thwart Oakland lawmaker Buffy Wicks’ attempt to address long-standing consumer complaints against Ticketmaster, forcing her to significantly water down the legislation.
The original version of the bill was introduced on April 8, when Wicks held a press conference with the California Consumer Federation and members of several state Chamber of Commerce groups and unveiled a plan, endorsed by StubHub and SeatGeek, to “make the ticket market more competitive.” To accomplish this, the bill proposed to outlaw Live Nation’s use of exclusive venue contracts, which Wicks said gave the company an unhealthy 80% share of the concert market and had led to a steep price increase for tickets since the company’s merger with Ticketmaster in 2009.
Trending on Billboard
Wicks’ bill also included a clause — shocking to many in the live entertainment space — that would have required Ticketmaster to develop software integrations allowing rival ticketing companies and ticket resale sites to pull ticketing inventory from the Ticketmaster site and sell it on their own sites. Wicks said she wanted to create a Kayak.com-style marketplace for tickets, where sites like StubHub and SeatGeek, along with smaller primary ticketing companies like Dice and Tixr, sold the same concert tickets Ticketmaster was selling.
The proposal was immediately opposed by professional sports teams including the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco 49ers, along with concert promoters, venue operators, arts groups and a number of live music industry organizations including the National Independent Venues Association, the Recording Academy and the Music Artist Coalition. Critics said the bill stripped California venues of their rights to monetize their ticketing contracts and transferred the power to control how tickets were sold from artists and venues to third-party technology companies without any safeguards.
Wicks explained that the bill would help consumers by making ticketing companies compete to sell tickets, but opponents said sellers would still be incentivized to raise ticket prices for major concerts when demand significantly outpaced supply. Others argued that giving resale sites direct access to primary tickets would push more tickets into the hands of scalpers and cause prices to skyrocket.
Booking agent Sam Hunt with Wasserman Music described the bill as problematic during an April 16 subcommittee hearing, warning that it “punished artists” and “established a dangerous system for fans.”
“Artists agree that the ticketing process is deeply flawed,” said Hunt, before adding that the blame lies with “unregulated ticket brokers” and “the secondary platforms that allow them to exist and flourish.”
Facing universal opposition from the live music industry and several members of the committee, Wicks vowed to make changes to the legislation.
On Tuesday (April 24), during a hearing of the Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, Wicks introduced a new, partially completed bill that exempted professional and collegiate sports teams from the new rules. More notably, it included a clause stating that it would be an artist’s decision “to determine the terms and conditions related to the sale, pricing, distribution and transfer of tickets to their events.”
That new language, which mirrors that of legislation in other states as well as proposed federal legislation, was interpreted to mean that artists would be given the right to block resale sites from selling their tickets, potentially ending the resale of concert tickets in California — a sharp contrast with the original bill.
Wicks said the amendment resulted from a compromise with other legislators and was still being revised and amended. Lobbyists for secondary sites like StubHub and SeatGeek testified that they would pull their support for the bill if the new language remained.
Wicks isn’t the only politician tackling ticketing initiatives. Since the high-profile crash of the Taylor Swift Eras Tour ticket sale in November 2022, Ticketmaster has come under fire from members of both parties in Congress and is reportedly the subject of a DOJ investigation on antitrust charges. State lawmakers across the country have largely tried and failed to pass legislation curbing Ticketmaster’s power, but few have swung and missed quite like Wicks, who initially chose to align her efforts with the secondary ticketing market.
Today’s modern live music industry is a diverse cross-section of competing multinational corporations and independent businesses made up of venue operators, talent agencies, concert promoters, artists and their managers, and primary ticketing companies. The broad group of competing interests doesn’t agree on much, except for their universal opposition to the ticket resale business, which many believe caused the Swift ticket sale crash. The bot attack that preceded the temporary disruption of the sale had all the hallmarks of similar attacks utilized by ticket scalping groups.
In its defense, reps for the secondary ticketing business argue that sites like StubHub and SeatGeek provide a safe marketplace to buy and sell tickets that has been embraced by consumers and duplicated by Ticketmaster, which operates its own resale business.
The friction between the music industry and the secondary market involves access to high-demand concerts by artists like Swift and Olivia Rodrigo. Lobbyists for resale sites say Ticketmaster unfairly blocks ticket resellers from accessing high-demand tickets. Ticketmaster officials argue their artist clients want their tickets to be sold directly to fans and not marked up on resale sites.
Following the introduction of Wicks’ revamped bill in California, a new round of debate ensued. During the committee discussion of the legislation, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan said that Wicks’ logic that a Kayak.com site would push ticket prices down was flawed, noting that with hotels, “There’s no secondary market to sell a room for two, three or four” times what was originally paid to book the room.
Assemblymember Lori Wilson added that Wicks should focus her efforts on determining whether Ticketmaster held a competitive or unfair advantage. Committee chair Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said legislators needed to focus on putting consumers first, adding, “We as a committee don’t necessarily think the largest problem is the monopoly at the front end but the brokers in the middle who are buying up the tickets and leading to a lot of the problems” in the marketplace.
Despite these reservations, the new, radically different legislation will move forward. After a brief vote, the rewritten bill passed in the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee and now heads to the Appropriations Committee, where Wicks serves as chair.
A bill to create a new statewide live music fund in Tennessee has passed in the state’s Senate and House. It will now head to the desk of Governor Bill Lee, who is expected to sign it into law.
SB2508/HB2712 — composed of identical companion bills carried by Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson and House Majority Whip Johnny Garrett — was introduced as a collaboration between the Music Venue Alliance Nashville, the National Independent Venue Association and the Broadway Entertainment Association. The bill creates the structure of a live music fund that will one day provide grants to live music and performance venues, promoters and performers.
The legislation also defines elements of the live music industry in code for the first time, marking a fundamental step toward directing future support. The fund is set up to be administered by the Tennessee Entertainment Commission under the Department of Economic and Community Development.
Trending on Billboard
Though the bill does not allocate any government money to the fund during this fiscal year, it does allow it to receive donations and grants from individuals and the private sector. The opportunity for government-appropriated funds remains on the table for future years. Stakeholders will also soon come together to evaluate revenue streams flowing into similar funds in other states and determine if any opportunities exist that might be a good fit for the Tennessee fund.
“We are truly excited by the unanimous and bipartisan support for our independent venues,” said Chris Cobb, board president of the Music Venue Alliance Nashville, in a statement. “It has become increasingly difficult to own, operate, or grow an independent venue in today’s climate, and a fund like this will be a difference maker to ensure that independent venues across Tennessee not only survive, but thrive.”
“The Live Music & Performance Venue Fund creates a massive opportunity for us to protect and preserve Tennessee’s live music industry for years to come,” said Bob Raines, executive director of the Tennessee Entertainment Commission, in a statement. “Independent venues and performers across the great state of Tennessee are the foundation of our complex and vibrant ecosystem and we know their success is directly tied to the vibrancy and growth of our communities across the state.”
While Tennessee is only the second state in the nation to define a live music and performance venue in the state code, similar funds have been created in cities and states across the United States. Texas provided over 650 micro-grants to individual creatives in 2023 through a similar fund and also provided a grant to the historic Austin, Tex., independent venue Hole in the Wall that enabled it to secure a 20-year lease extension.
“We applaud Leader Johnson and Representative Garrett for their leadership, and thank the entire Tennessee General Assembly for their unwavering support of independent venues, promoters, and the entirelive entertainment sector in Tennessee,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, said in a statement. “Whether investment to bolster the fund comes from the live community, the private sector, or government, we look forward to rallying support and growing this fund in the years ahead to ensure the preservation of Tennessee’s legendary live music economy.”
Every passing day, a new statistic emerges that would make any aspiring artist, producer, or songwriter feel foolish for trying to fund their dreams.
Over 100,000 songs get ingested to Spotify daily, but the vast majority of them fail to surpass the 1,000-play mark. Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group reported record profits in 2023, but those numbers are largely driven by a small number of star artists. A 2017 study showed that out of 7,000 bands tracked, only 21 managed to headline a venue with a capacity exceeding 3,000. Limited opportunity and long odds face artists who don’t have significant industry backing.
Content saturation makes it harder to stand out, inspiring strategic conservatism from major labels, who, driven by data, fear financial risk and tend to invest in artists who demonstrate substantial market appeal.
Trending on Billboard
What are musicians — and, frankly, writers, visual artists, filmmakers, or any creators — in need of resources to do when corporations appear more risk-averse than ever?
Why do we need a grant system for individual artists?
While art is often considered a luxury rather than a public good, it has been shown to provide both cultural enrichment and economic stimulus.
In 2023, Americans for the Arts found that the nonprofit arts and culture industry provided 2.6 million jobs, generated $29.1 billion in tax revenue, and provided $101 billion in personal income to U.S. residents. These numbers include the individuals who benefit from public arts funding to become working artists, who tour, show their work at museums, and fill movie theaters.
America’s nonprofit and for-profit arts sectors work together to promote cultural growth as much as they stimulate economic activity locally and nationally.
Public funding for the arts has remained relatively steady in absolute terms. However, inflation-adjusted spending on the arts by local governments has declined consistently throughout the 2000s. Local arts agencies now receive 27% less in funding than they did in 2001.
Other countries have shown a better system can exist.
For 37 years, Canada’s FACTOR grant program has supported Canadian recording artists in meaningful ways.
FACTOR covers costs that traditionally require the debt financing of a label deal: recording, music videos, and tour funding chief among them.
Notable FACTOR recipients launched into successful careers include Jessie Reyez, Grimes, Charlotte Cardin, BADBADNOTGOOD and TOBi. Drake’s vaunted company October’s Very Own has also received a variety of grants from Canadian governmental sources — including funding for the 2014 OVO Fest.
In Sweden, robust arts education in public schools combined with an internationally-minded grant system contribute to the small nation’s outsized influence on popular music abroad, particularly in the United States where Max Martin’s Swedish pop sensibilities have dominated Billboard charts since Bill Clinton was in office.
While in America, artists can gain access to grants through institutions like the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation or the Henry Luce Foundation, or via state institutions, there is no unified federal mechanism for arts funding akin to FACTOR or the Swedish Arts Grant Committee. The National Endowment for the Arts has an impressive grantmaking operation but does not give direct grants to individual artists.
Introducing the CREATE Art Act.
We need a better system.
In 2024, we are working to bring the CREATE Art Act to the American public. Created by Congressman Maxwell Frost, a drummer and musician himself and the first Gen-Z person ever elected to the United States Congress, the CREATE Art Act proposes a novel grant system for individual artists of all disciplines.
CREATE grants go beyond international models in the way they target emerging artists, those creators who may not yet have the good fortune of making a living off of their art or wish to avoid potentially injurious record and publishing deals. Recipients must show net earnings of less than $50,000 in the previous five years and not more than $400,000 in the previous 20 years from their art. The art produced must be relevant to the community and accessible to the public. The grants include:
Progress Grant – Up to $2,000 to support a year of artist activities.
Project Grant – Up to $100,000 per project that can be used over two years.
Live Performance Grant – Up to $35,000 for live performances.
Development Fund – Up to $10,000 to pay the living and working expenses of artists
while they research, write, or cultivate stories or projects.
The purpose of the program is twofold.
First, and simply, more artists with funding means more art. The greater the creative output of our nation, the greater the diversity of voices with the potential to gain an audience, shift perspectives, inspire future generations, and tell new American stories.
Second, more artists creating means more economic activity in a sector experiencing an algae bloom of creators and consumers.
The current media landscape cuts a more jagged figure than ever. No monoliths. No starmakers. No obvious paths to success.
In a time of such noise and fragmentation, artists find it as hard as ever to fund their dreams and more difficult than before to cut through the clutter.
The CREATE Art Act would plant a foot on the right path forward, opening up possibilities for generations of American artists to come.
The first member of Generation Z to be elected to Congress, Maxwell Alejandro Frost is proud to represent the people of Central Florida (FL-10) in the United States House of Representatives. As a young Member of Congress and Afro-Latino, Congressman Frost brings a fresh, progressive perspective to an institution formerly out of reach for young, working Black and Latino Americans.
Jon Tanners is a manager, writer, and entrepreneur based in Los Angeles. He manages Grammy-winning, multi-platinum producers Dahi, Michael Uzowuru, and Take A Daytrip and is also co-founder of CreateSafe.
Elected officials in Maryland are currently moving a ticketing reform bill titled SB0539 through the state legislature, with approval from both the House and Senate pending. The proposed law is a consumer protection bill aimed at the sale and resale of live event tickets that has been endorsed by the Recording Academy, National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), National Independent Talent Organization (NITO), Eventbrite and more.
The current iteration of the bill would ban speculative ticketing (the practice of listing tickets on secondary sites before a reseller owns a ticket), as well as require ticketers to present “all in” pricing for consumers, meaning the full price of the ticket — including all fees — must be present in the price first shown to fans. The bill would pertain to concerts, theater shows and live sporting events.
Based on the bill’s language, resellers will have to provide the zone and seat number for non-general admission events. This would eliminate the common practice of resellers listing an unspecified seat and procuring a ticket — for a lesser price — once a consumer has purchased the “unspecified” seat from a secondary site. It would also reduce resellers’ ability to list generic tickets on resale sites before on-sale for the actual event has occurred.
Trending on Billboard
Audrey Fix Schaefer, vp of the board of directors and communications director for the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), tells Billboard that fans regularly search online for concert tickets for shows promoted by I.M.P. — where she also serves as communications director — and are directed to misleading secondary sites that mark up the price or offer tickets for events that haven’t yet gone on sale.
“It’s fraud,” she says. “It’s unregulated arbitrage that deceives fans into thinking that they have to overpay because they can’t get a ticket through us. They figure that it sold out when the tickets haven’t been put on sale.”
Fix Schaefer gives the example of Mitski’s upcoming tour, which will make two stops at I.M.P.’s Merriweather Post Pavilion in Columbia, Md., later this year. For those shows, $125 tickets were being advertised on secondary sites for $12,000 before the actual on-sale. “That’s obscene,” she says, and “there isn’t a single show [resellers] don’t do this on.”
The Maryland bill would also make it illegal for secondary ticketing platforms to provide a marketplace for the sale or resale of tickets that violate the law. If a consumer purchases a ticket that is counterfeit, canceled by the reseller or fails to meet its original description, the secondary platform would be responsible for paying the consumer back for the total amount paid, including any fees.
Making the platforms responsible for the refunds is “a huge win,” says Fix Schaefer, who notes that other consumer protection ticketing laws like the federal Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act tend to go after individual resellers who are harder to prosecute. Several states around the country are also looking to tackle unfair ticketing practices, including Arizona’s HB2040 (informally known as the “Taylor Swift bill”), which would make it illegal to use bots to purchase unauthorized amounts of tickets or circumvent electronic queues to skip lines ahead of waiting fans. But similar to the federal BOTS Act, the fines for violating these proposed laws would be borne by individuals — not the platforms.
Secondary ticketing platforms, Fix Schaefer adds, are “not going to want to take [the] hit for [resellers]…it’s like having a storefront where they know they’re selling illegal goods but they say, ‘Oh, I just rented that shelf out so somebody.’ No. You’re responsible.”
The Maryland bill would also mandate “all-in” ticket pricing — where consumers see the full price of the ticket, including fees, from the beginning of their transaction — and require those fees to be itemized so fans know where their dollars are going. Nathaniel Marro, managing director of NITO, explains that this portion of the bill will greatly benefit artists. “Artists have no capability of controlling the fees. They don’t make any money off those fees. They are going to the venue and the promoter and the ticketing company,” he says. “The artist wants those fees separated because when fans complain and get upset about how much tickets cost, the only people they are going to point to is the artist.”
Artists will also benefit from fans not spending their entire entertainment budgets on tickets alone. As Marro argues, most fans have a finite level of ancillary income and, if they are spending all or most of it on the ticket, that’s less money spent on music and merch, which goes directly to the performers they came to see.
While other measures, including a cap on resale prices and one that would have compelled secondary sites to identify resellers who are breaking the law, were stricken from the bill as it passed through the state legislature last month, a provision that remained was the commission of a study looking into ticketing practices. If the bill is passed, The Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General will conduct a review of how resellers are procuring their tickets, the price difference for fans on the primary versus secondary market, fraudulent tickets, the use of bots, what measures other states have enacted to protect consumers during the ticket buying process and more.
Fix Schaefer predicts that the study, which would be produced by the end of 2024, would succeed in bringing legislatures back to the table on measures like resale caps. “As they are gathering the facts and the data to see what kind of consumer deception and gouging occurs,” she says, “they will be left with a mission to come back and do more.”
Country star Lainey Wilson and Recording Academy president/CEO Harvey Mason voiced their support for federal regulation of AI technology at a hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet in Los Angeles on Friday (Feb. 2).
“Our voices and likenesses are indelible parts of us that have enabled us to showcase our talents and grow our audiences, not mere digital kibble for a machine to duplicate without consent,” Wilson said during her comments.
“The artists and creators I talk to are concerned that there’s very little protection for artists who see their own name or likeness or voice used to create AI-generated materials,” Mason added. “This misuse hurts artists and their fans alike.”
“The problem of AI fakes is clear to everyone,” he continued later. “This is a problem that only Congress can address to protect all Americans. For this reason, the academy is grateful for the introduction of the No AI FRAUD Act,” a bill announced in January that aims to establish a federal framework for protecting voice and likeness.
The star of the hearing was not from the music industry, though. Jennifer Rothman, a professor of law at University of Pennsylvania Law School, offered an eloquent challenge to a key provision of the No AI FRAUD act, which would allow artists to transfer the rights to their voice and likeness to a third party.
It’s easy to imagine this provision is popular with labels, who historically built their large catalogs by taking control of artists’ recordings for perpetuity. However, Rothman argued that “any federal right to a person’s voice or likeness must not be transferable away from that person” and “there must be significant limits on licensing” as well.
“Allowing another person or entity to own a living human being’s likeness or voice in perpetuity violates our fundamental and constitutional right to liberty,” she said.
Rothman cleverly invoked the music industry’s long history of perpetuity deals — a history that has upset many artists, including stars like Taylor Swift, over the years — as part of the reason for her objection.
“Imagine a world in which Taylor Swift‘s first record label obtained rights in perpetuity to young Swift’s voice and likeness,” Rothman explained. “The label could then replicate Swift’s voice over and over in new songs that she never wrote and have AI renditions of her perform and endorse the songs and videos and even have holograms perform them on tour. In fact, under the proposed No AI Fraud Act, the label would be able to sue Swift herself for violating her own right of publicity if she used her voice and likeness to write and record new songs and publicly perform them. This is the topsy-turvy world that the draft bills would create.”
(Rothman’s reference to Swift was just one of several at the hearing. Rep. Kevin Kiley [R – CA] alluded to the debate over whether or not the singer would be able to make it to the Super Bowl from her performance in Tokyo, while Rep. Nathaniel Moran [R – TX] joked, “I have not mentioned Travis Kelce’s girlfriend once during this testimony.”)
Rothman pointed out that the ability to transfer voice or likeness rights in perpetuity potentially “threatens ordinary people” as well: They “may unwittingly sign over those rights as part of online Terms of Service” that exist on so many platforms and are barely ever read. In the music industry, there is a similar problem already causing problems for a number of young artists who sign up to distribute their music through an online service, agree to Terms of Service without reading them, and later discover that they have unknowingly locked their music into some sort of agreement. In an AI world, this problem could be magnified.
Rothman’s comments put her at odds with the Recording Academy. “In this particular bill, there are certain safeguards, there’s language that says there have to be attorneys present and involved,” Mason said during questioning. (Though many young artists can’t afford counsel or can’t find good counsel.) “But we also believe that families should have the freedom to enter into different business arrangements.”
Mason’s view was shared by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R – FL). “If tomorrow I wanted to sell my voice to a robot and let that robot say whatever in the world that it wanted to say, and I wanted to take the money from that sale and go buy a sailboat and never turn on the internet again, why should I not have the right to do that?” he asked.
In addition to Rothman, Mason and Wilson, there was one other witness at the hearing: Christopher Mohr, who serves as president of the Software & Information Industry Association. He spoke little and mostly reiterated that his members wanted the courts to answer key questions around AI. “It’s really important that these cases get thoroughly litigated,” Mohr said.
This answer did not satisfy Rep. Glenn Ivey (D – MD), a former litigator. “It could take years before all of that gets solved and you might have conflicting decisions from different courts in jury trials,” Ivey noted. “What should we be doing to try and fix it now?”
Nearly 300 artists, songwriters, actors and other creators are voicing support for a new bipartisan Congressional bill that would regulate the use of artificial intelligence for cloning voices and likenesses via a new print ad running in USA Today on Friday (Feb. 2).
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The bill — dubbed the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act (“No AI FRAUD” Act) and introduced in the U.S. House on Jan. 10 — would establish a federal framework for protecting voices and likenesses in the age of AI.
Placed by the Human Artistry Campaign, the ad features such bold-faced names as 21 Savage, Bette Midler, Cardi B & Offset, Chuck D, Common, Gloria Estefan, Jason Isbell, the estate of Johnny Cash, Kelsea Ballerini, Lainey Wilson, Lauren Daigle, Lamb of God, Mary J. Blige, Missy Elliott, Nicki Minaj, Questlove, Reba McEntire, Sheryl Crow, Smokey Robinson, the estate of Tomy Petty, Trisha Yearwood and Vince Gill.
“The No AI FRAUD Act would defend your fundamental human right to your voice & likeness, protecting everyone from nonconsensual deepfakes,” the ad reads. “Protect your individuality. Support HR 6943.”
The Human Artistry Campaign is a coalition of music industry organizations that in March 2023 released a series of seven core principles regarding artificial intelligence. They include ensuring that AI developers acquire licenses for artistic works used in developing and training AI models, as well as that governments refrain from creating “new copyright or other IP exemptions that allow AI developers to exploit creators without permission or compensation.”
In addition to musical artists, the USA Today ad also bears the names of actors such as Bradley Cooper, Clark Gregg, Debra Messing, F. Murray Abraham, Fran Drescher, Laura Dern, Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgwick, Kristen Bell, Kiefer Sutherland, Julianna Margulies and Rosario Dawson.
The No AI FRAUD Act was introduced by Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL) alongside Reps. Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Joe Morelle (D-NY) and Rob Wittman (R-VA). The bill is said to be based upon the Senate discussion draft Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (“NO FAKES” Act), which was unveiled in October.
“It’s time for bad actors using AI to face the music,” said Rep. Salazar in a statement at the time the legislation was announced. “This bill plugs a hole in the law and gives artists and U.S. citizens the power to protect their rights, their creative work, and their fundamental individuality online.”
Spurred in part by recent incidents including the viral “fake Drake” track “Heart On My Sleeve,” the No AI FRAUD Act would establish a federal standard barring the use of AI to copy the voices and likenesses of public figures without consent. As it stands, an artist’s voice, image or likeness is typically covered by “right of publicity” laws that protect them from commercial exploitation without authorization, but those laws vary state by state.
The bill was introduced on the same day a similar piece of legislation — the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act — was unveiled in Tennessee by Governor Bill Lee. That bill would update the state’s Protection of Personal Rights law “to include protections for songwriters, performers, and music industry professionals’ voice from the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI),” according to a press release.
Since its unveiling, the No AI Fraud Act has received support from a range of music companies and organizations including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Universal Music Group, the National Music Publishers’ Assocation (NMPA), the Recording Academy, SoundExchange, the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) and the Latin Recording Academy.
You can view the full ad below.
When fake, sexually-explicit images of Taylor Swift flooded social media last week, it shocked the world. But legal experts weren’t exactly surprised, saying it’s just a glaring example of a growing problem — and one that’ll keep getting worse without changes to the law and tech industry norms.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The images, some of which were reportedly viewed millions of times on X before they were pulled down, were so-called deepfakes — computer-generated depictions of real people doing fake things. Their spread on Thursday quickly prompted outrage from Swifties, who mass-flagged the images for removal and demanded to know how something like that was allowed to happen to the beloved pop star.
But for legal experts who have been tracking the growing phenomenon of non-consensual deepfake pornography, the episode was sadly nothing new.
“This is just the highest profile instance of something that has been victimizing many people, mostly women, for quite some time now,” said Woodrow Hartzog, a professor at Boston University School of Law who studies privacy and technology law.
Experts warned Billboard that the Swift incident could be the sign of things to come — not just for artists and other celebrities, but for normal individuals with fewer resources to fight back. The explosive growth of artificial intelligence tools over the past year has made deepfakes far easier to create, and some web platforms have become less aggressive in their approach to content moderation in recent years.
“What we’re seeing now is a particularly toxic cocktail,” Hartzog said. “It’s an existing problem, mixed with these new generative AI tools and a broader backslide in industry commitments to trust and safety.”
To some extent, images like the ones that cropped up last week are already illegal. Though no federal law squarely bans them, 10 states around the country have enacted statutes criminalizing non-consensual deepfake pornography. Victims like Swift can also theoretically turn to more traditional existing legal remedies to fight back, including copyright law, likeness rights, and torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Such images also clearly violate the rules on all major platforms, including X. In a statement last week, the company said it was “actively removing all identified images and taking appropriate actions against the accounts responsible for posting them,” as well as “closely monitoring the situation to ensure that any further violations are immediately addressed.” Sunday to Tuesday, the site disabled searches for “Taylor Swift” out of “an abundance of caution as we prioritize safety on this issue.”
But for the victims of such images, legal remedies and platform policies often don’t mean much in practice. Even if an image is illegal, it is difficult and prohibitively expensive to try to sue the anonymous people who posted it; even if you flag an image for breaking the rules, it’s sometimes hard to convince a platform to pull it down; even if you get one pulled down, others crop up just as quickly.
“No matter her status, or the number of resources Swift devotes to the removal of these images, she won’t be completely successful in that effort,” said Rebecca A. Delfino, a professor and associate dean at Loyola Law School who has written extensively about harm caused by pornographic deepfakes.
That process is extremely difficult, and it’s almost always reactive — started after some level of damage is already done. Think about it this way: Even for a celebrity with every legal resource in the world, the images still flooded the web. “That Swift, currently one of the most powerful and known women in the world, could not avoid being victimized shows the exploitive power of pornographic deepfakes,” Delfino said.
There’s currently no federal statute that squarely targets the problem. A bill called the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act, introduced last year, would allow deepfake victims to file civil lawsuits, and criminalize such images when they’re sexually-explicit. Another, called the Deepfake Accountability Act, would require all deepfakes to be disclaimed as such and impose criminal penalties for those that aren’t. And earlier this month, lawmakers introduced No AI FRAUD Act, which would create a federal right for individuals to sue if their voice or any other part of their likeness is used without permission.
Could last week’s incident spur lawmakers to take action? Don’t forget: Ticketmaster’s messy 2022 rollout of tickets for Taylor’s Eras tour sparked congressional hearings, investigations by state attorneys general, new legislation proposals and calls by some lawmakers to break up Live Nation under federal antitrust laws.
Experts like Delfino are hopeful that such influence on the national discourse — call it the Taylor effect, maybe — could spark a similar conversation over the problem of deepfake pornography. And they might have reason for optimism: Polling conducted by the AI thinktank Artificial Intelligence Policy Institute over the weekend showed that more than 80% of voters supported legislation making non-consensual deepfake porn illegal, and that 84% of them said the Swift incident had increased their concerns about AI.
“Her status as a worldwide celebrity shed a huge spotlight on the need for both criminal and civil remedies to address this problem, which today has victimized hundreds of thousands of others, primarily women,” Delfino said.
But even after last week’s debacle, new laws targeting deepfakes are no guarantee. Some civil liberties activists and lawmakers worry that such legislation could violate the First Amendment by imposing overly-broad restrictions on free speech, including criminalizing innocent images and empowering money-making troll lawsuits. Any new law would eventually need to pass muster at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has signaled in recent years that it is highly skeptical of efforts to restrict speech.
In the absence of writing new laws that make deepfake porn even more illegal, concrete solutions will likely require stronger action by social media platforms themselves, which have created vast, lucrative networks for the spread of such materials and are in the best position to police them.
But Jacob Noti-Victor, a professor at Cardozo School of Law who researches how the law impacts innovation and the deployment of new technologies, says it’s not as simple as it might seem. After all, the images of Swift last week were already clearly in violation of X’s rules, yet they spread widely on the site.
“X and other platforms certainly need to do more to tackle this problem and that requires large, dedicated content moderation teams,” Noti-Victor said. “That said, it’s not an easy task. Content detection tools have not been very good at detecting deepfakes so far, which limits the tools that platforms can use proactively to detect this kind of material as it’s being posted.”
And even if it were easy for platforms find and stop harmful deepfakes, tech companies have hardly been beefing up their content moderation efforts in recent years.
Since Elon Musk acquired X (then named Twitter) in 2022, the company has loosened restrictions on offensive content and fired thousands of employees, including many on the “trust and safety” teams that handle content moderation. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, laid off more than 20,000 employees last year, reportedly also including hundreds of moderators. Google, Microsoft and Amazon have all reportedly made similar cuts.
Amid a broader wave of tech layoffs, why were those employees some of the first to go? Because at the end of the day, there’s no real legal requirement for platforms to police offensive content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a much-debated provision of federal law, largely shields internet platforms from legal liability for materials posted by their users. That means Taylor could try to sue the anonymous X users who posted her image, but she would have a much harder time suing X itself for failing to stop them.
In the absence of regulation and legal liability, the only real incentives for platforms to do a better job at combating deepfakes are “market incentives,” said Hartzog, the BU professor — meaning, fear of negative publicity that scares away advertisers or alienates users.
On that front, maybe the Taylor fiasco is already having an impact. On Friday, X announced that it would build a “Trust and Safety center of excellence” in Austin, Texas, including hiring 100 new employees to handle content moderation.
“These platforms have an incentive to attract as many people as possible and suck out as much data as possible, with no obligation to create meaningful tools to help victims,” Hartzog said. “Hopefully, this Taylor Swift incident advances the conversation in productive ways that results in meaningful changes to better protect victims of this kind of behavior.”
Tennessee governor Bill Lee has announced a new state bill to further protect the state’s “best in class artists and songwriters” from AI deepfakes.
While the state already has laws to protect Tennesseans against the exploitation of their name, image and likeness without their consent, this new law, called the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act (ELVIS Act), is an update to the existing law to specifically address the challenges posed by new generative AI tools. The ELVIS Act also introduces protection for voices.
The announcement arrives just hours after a bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers revealed the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act (No AI FRAUD Act), which aims to establish a framework for protecting one’s voice and likeness on a federal level and lays out First Amendment protections. It is said to be a complement to the Senate’s Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (NO FAKES Act), a draft bill that was introduced last October.
An artist’s voice, image or likeness may be covered by “right of publicity” laws that protect them from commercial exploitation without authorization, but this is a right that varies state by state. The ELVIS Act aims to provide Tennessee-based talent with much clearer protection for their voices in particular at the state level, and the No AI FRAUD Act hopes to establish a harmonized baseline of protection on the federal level. (If one lives in a state with an even stronger right of publicity law than the No AI FRAUD Act, that state protection is still viable and may be easier to address in court.)
The subject of AI voice cloning has been a controversial topic in the music business in the past year. In some cases, it presents novel creative opportunities — including its use for pitch records, lyric translations, estate marketing and fan engagement — but it also poses serious threats. If an artist’s voice is cloned by AI without their permission or knowledge, it can confuse, offend, mislead or even scam fans.
“From Beale Street to Broadway, to Bristol and beyond, Tennessee is known for our rich artistic heritage that tells the story of our great state,” says Gov. Lee in a statement. “As the technology landscape evolves with artificial intelligence, we’re proud to lead the nation in proposing legal protection for our best-in-class artists and songwriters.”
“As AI technology continues to develop, today marks an important step towards groundbreaking state-level AI legislation,” added Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of the Recording Academy. “This bipartisan, bicameral bill will protect Tennessee’s creative community against AI deepfakes and voice cloning and will serve as the standard for other states to follow. The Academy appreciates Governor Lee and bipartisan members of the Tennessee legislature for leading the way — we’re eager to collaborate with lawmakers to move this bill forward.”
“The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) resulted in fake recordings that are not authorized by the artist and is wrong, period,” said a representative from Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI). “The Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) applauds Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, Senate Leader Jack Johnson and House Leader William Lamberth for introducing legislation that adds the word “voice” to the existing law — making it crystal clear that unauthorized AI-generated fake recordings are subject to legal action in the State of Tennessee. This is an important step in what will be an ongoing challenge to regulate generative AI music creations.”
“I commend Governor Lee of Tennessee for this forward-thinking legislation,” said A2IM president/CEO Dr. Richard James Burgess. “Protecting the rights to an individual’s name, voice, and likeness in the digital era is not just about respecting personal identity but also about safeguarding the integrity of artistic expression. This act is a significant step towards balancing innovation with the rightful interests of creators and performers. It acknowledges the evolving landscape of technology and media, setting a precedent for responsible and ethical use of personal attributes, in the music industry.”
“The Artist Rights Alliance is grateful to Gov. Lee, State Senator Jack Johnson and Rep. William Lamberth for launching this effort to prevent an artist’s voice and likeness from being exploited without permission,” said Jen Jacobsen, executive director of the Artist Rights Alliance. “Recording artists and performers put their very selves into their art. Scraping or copying their work to replicate or clone a musician’s voice or image violates the most fundamental aspects of creative identity and artistic integrity. This important bill will help ensure that creators and their livelihoods are respected and protected in the age of AI.”
“AI deepfakes and voice cloning threaten the integrity of all music,” added David Israelite, president/CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association. “It makes sense that Tennessee state would pioneer these important policies which will bolster and protect the entire industry. Music creators face enough forces working to devalue their work – technology that steals their voice and likeness should not be one of them.”
“Responsible innovation has expanded the talents of creators — artists, songwriters, producers, engineers, and visual performers, among others — for decades, but use of generative AI that exploits an individual’s most personal attributes without consent is detrimental to our humanity and culture,” said Mitch Glazier, chairman/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). “We applaud Governor Bill Lee, State Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson and House Majority Leader William Lamberth’s foresight in launching this groundbreaking effort to defend creators’ most essential rights from AI deepfakes, unauthorized digital replicas and clones. The ELVIS Act reaffirms the State of Tennessee’s commitment to creators and complements Senator Blackburn’s bipartisan work to advance strong legislation protecting creators’ voices and images at the federal level.”
“Evolving laws to keep pace with technology is essential to protecting the creative community,” said Michael Huppe, president/CEO of SoundExchange. “As we embrace the enormous potential of artificial intelligence, Tennessee is working to ensure that music and those who make it are protected under the law from exploitation without consent, credit, and compensation. We applaud the cradle of country music and the birthplace of rock n’ roll for leading the way.”
According to a press release from the state of Tennessee, the ELVIS Act is also supported by Academy of Country Music, American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), The Americana Music Association, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), Church Music Publishers Association (CMPA), Christian Music Trade Association, Folk Alliance International, Global Music Rights, Gospel Music Association, The Living Legends Foundation, Music Artists Coalition, Nashville Musicians Association, National Music Publishers’ Association, Rhythm & Blues Foundation, Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC), Songwriters of North America (SONA) and Tennessee Entertainment Commission.
A bipartisan coalition of high-profile U.S. senators introduced a sweeping ticketing reform bill today that backers say would significantly improve transparency in concert and sports ticketing, better manage and enforce laws around ticket resale and ban deceptive sales tactics designed to trick consumers into overpaying for access to major events.
The Fans First Act, sponsored by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Peter Welch (D-VT) is the most comprehensive ticketing industry reform package ever introduced in Congress. It could lead to needed reforms long championed by consumer rights groups, advocacy groups and live music companies including both Live Nation and Ticketmaster, as well as members of the Fix The Tix coalition: the National Independent Venue Association, the Recording Academy, the National Independent Talent Organization, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Association of Performing Arts Professionals.
“The current ticketing system is riddled with problems and doesn’t serve the needs of fans, teams, artists, or venues,” Sen. Cornyn said in a statement. “This legislation would rebuild trust in the ticketing system by cracking down on bots and others who take advantage of consumers through price gouging and other predatory practices and increase price transparency for ticket purchasers.”
Klobuchar added, “Buying a ticket to see your favorite artist or team is out of reach for too many Americans. Bots, hidden fees, and predatory practices are hurting consumers whether they want to catch a home game, an up-and-coming artist or a major headliner like Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny. From ensuring fans get refunds for canceled shows to banning speculative ticket sales, this bipartisan legislation will improve the ticketing experience.”
The Fans First Act boasts more than a dozen reform proposals aimed at protecting consumers, including requiring sites like StubHub and Ticketmaster to disclose the full price of tickets including fees at the beginning of the sale and detail if tickets are being sold by a primary seller or a reseller.
The bill would also strengthen the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act, signed into law in 2016 by President Barack Obama, which prohibits the use of automated bots to purchase tickets online. It would additionally require sellers and resellers to provide proof of purchase to consumers within 24 hours of purchase and refund consumers the full cost of their tickets when events are canceled. If passed, the bill would also commission a Government Accountability Office study to investigate the marketplace and make recommendations.
Among other provisions, the Fans First Act would also ban the sale of a ticket that the reseller claims they possess but don’t acquire until they have already secured a sale for the ticket. Known as speculative ticket sales, the practice is often the subject of complaints from consumers who later learn they significantly overpaid for tickets.
Those who violate the law could face civil penalties and be added to a reporting website for fans to file complaints about illegal ticket sales tactics that would then be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.
“Fans have become increasingly frustrated with how difficult it has been to obtain affordable tickets to see their favorite artists perform,” said Sen. Blackburn. “Bots are snatching up tickets and selling them for exorbitant prices on secondary markets, while some ticketing companies are selling speculative event tickets that don’t even exist. This bipartisan legislation builds upon my work to safeguard artists and their fans in the online ticket marketplace.”
Sen. Luján stated that the “current ticketing system is limiting access to live entertainment,” adding, “That’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Fans First Act to ensure the sale of tickets is accessible to all consumers.” Sen. Wicker added, “Deceptive ticketing practices have become far too common. This bipartisan effort would result in more transparency and less price gauging.”
The Fan First Act is expected to be heard by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Earlier this week, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce passed a similar bill called the Speculative Ticketing Oversight and Prohibition (STOP) Act, which is now eligible for a vote by the full House.
The STOP Act also bans speculative ticketing, and like the Fans First Act, addresses a range of deceptive ticketing practices and pricing transparency issues. Live Nation and other groups have also expressed support for the STOP Act.
Earlier today, Live Nation officials issued a statement endorsing the Fans First Act.
“We support the Fans First Act and welcome legislation that brings positive reform to live event ticketing. We believe it’s critical Congress acts to protect fans and artists from predatory resale practices, and have long supported a federal all-in pricing mandate, banning speculative ticketing and deceptive websites, as well as other measures. We look forward to our continued work with policymakers to advocate for even stronger reforms and enforcement,” the statement reads.
Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason jr. also came out with a statement supporting the bill on Friday. “With the introduction of the Fans First Act today, the Recording Academy applauds Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, Blackburn, Luján, Wicker and Welch for taking this important step towards comprehensive ticketing reform,” he said. “As we work together to improve the ticket marketplace, we urge Congress to act on this bill quickly and continue its effort to protect both artists and fans by increasing transparency and limiting bad actors that take away from the joyous experience of live music.”
Buying concert tickets could become an easier, more straightforward process after the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce passed the Speculative Ticketing Oversight and Prohibition (STOP) Act on Wednesday (Dec. 6). The bill is now eligible for a vote by the full House.
The STOP Act, which Rep. Gus Bilirakus (R-Fla.) called the “biggest ticket reform in years,” does far more than prevent speculative ticketing, though. The bill also addresses a range of deceptive ticketing practices and transparency issues that perplex, aggravate and annoy consumers.
For starters, the bill requires ticket sellers to conspicuously show the final ticket price at the beginning of the purchase process rather than at check-out. “The first price that you see when you order the ticket is the price that you pay — not a penny more,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) during Wednesday’s hearing.
The bill also ensures ticket buyers can get refunds when concerts are cancelled or postponed. Ticket buyers will have the option of receiving a full refund or, subject to availability, a replacement ticket if the event is postponed and rescheduled in the same or a “comparable” location.
“Consumers should not be left on the hook if an event is canceled or postponed and should have the option to receive a full refund or comparable ticket to a rescheduled show or game,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (C-NJ).
The STOP Act also helps consumers know if they’re buying a ticket from the primary seller or a secondary marketplace. The bill would require ticket sellers to provide buyers with a “a clear and conspicuous statement” that the provider is engaged in the secondary sale of the ticket. In addition, the secondary ticket marketplace cannot state that it is “affiliated with or endorsed by a venue, team, or artist” unless a partnership agreement exists.
Deceptive websites that could mislead ticket buyers are also banned. Ticket providers are prevented from using a domain name or subdomain that contains the name of a specific team, league, venue, performance or artist — including “substantially similar” and misspelled names — unless authorized by the owner of the name. Ticket sellers must also make their refund policies known up front.
Finally, as the name of the bill implies, the STOP Act bans speculative ticketing, in effect barringprimary and secondary ticketing marketplaces from selling tickets they do not possess.
For its part, Live Nation, owner of the country’s largest ticketing company, Ticketmaster, welcomes the new measures. “We’ve long supported a federal all-in pricing mandate, along with other measures including banning speculative ticketing and deceptive websites that trick fans,” the company said in a statement. “We’ll continue working with policymakers, advocating for even stronger reforms and enforcement to stop predatory practices that hurt fans and artists.”
Even if the STOP Act passes in the full House, the U.S. Senate must pass a version of the bill for it to become law. Two similar bills have already been introduced in the Senate. Like the STOP Act, the TICKET Act, introduced by Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), would prevent hidden ticket fees, require upfront pricing and stop speculative ticket selling. The Unlocking Ticketing Markets Act, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would limit exclusive, multi-year ticketing contracts in live entertainment.
