SB 6041
In CommitteeSenate
Personality rights
Updating personality rights protections.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates Washington’s personality rights law to strengthen protections for the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of both living and deceased individuals, especially those with commercial value at death. It clarifies ownership, transferability, and enforcement rights—including penalties for unauthorized use—and expands exemptions for fair use and media activities.
- Clarifies that the right to control use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is a property right that survives death and can be transferred or licensed like other assets.
- Expands the definition of a 'deceased personality' to include anyone whose identity had commercial value at death—even if they never used it commercially—and extends coverage to those who died within 50 years before 1998 or later.
- Strengthens enforcement by allowing civil penalties of $3,000 per infringement, plus actual damages and profits, and permits recovery even if the infringement was not for profit.
- Adds new prohibitions on unauthorized use for fund-raising, advertising, or dissemination of voice/likeness in any medium, regardless of profit motive.
- Expands exemptions for fair use, including satire, parody, news, education, political campaigns, fine art, and incidental or descriptive uses—especially protecting media platforms and creators who use identities in protected contexts.
Who is affected
- Estates and heirs of deceased individuals or celebrities — Heirs, estates, or designated successors of deceased individuals or personalities may gain or clarify ownership and control over commercial use of the person's name, voice, signature, photo, or likeness after death.
- Businesses and content creators — Businesses, marketers, or creators who want to use a person’s identity (e.g., for merchandise, ads, or media) must now ensure they have proper consent from the rights holder, whether living or deceased.
- Fundraising organizations — Fundraising organizations (e.g., nonprofits, schools, charities) must obtain consent before using a person’s identity to solicit donations.
- Media and advertising platforms — Media outlets and platforms (e.g., newspapers, TV, online services) may be protected from liability when they merely republish ads or content created by others—unless the ad promotes the platform itself.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Clarifies that personality rights are transferable property rights that survive death and can be inherited—protecting heirs (especially those without legal or financial resources) from unauthorized commercial exploitation of a loved one’s identity. This is especially meaningful for families of historically marginalized individuals (e.g., Indigenous artists, Black jazz musicians) whose legacies have often been exploited without consent or compensation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1 & Sec. 3(1)(a)Prohibiting use of identity in fund-raising without consent—even noncommercial—prevents predatory or misleading campaigns (e.g., scammers using a local hero’s photo to solicit donations for fake disaster relief), thereby protecting vulnerable donors, especially seniors and low-income communities, from fraud. This strengthens consumer protection in a space with historically weak oversight.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1)(a)(iii) & Sec. 4(2)Shielding media platforms (e.g., newspapers, online publishers) from liability for republishing third-party ads that infringe personality rights—unless the platform itself is promoting its own brand—reduces legal risk for local news outlets and digital publishers, helping preserve independent journalism and free expression in Washington media ecosystems.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 6(4)Explicitly protecting political campaigns, satire, parody, and educational uses (e.g., a high school theater group performing a musical about a local icon) helps safeguard expressive freedoms and civic engagement, especially for youth and community-based creators who rely on transformative use to participate in public discourse.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 6(2)(b) & Sec. 6(1)
Potential Concerns (4)
Expanding liability for unauthorized use of identity to include *any* fund-raising use—even noncommercial or grassroots efforts—could expose small nonprofits, schools, and community groups to lawsuits over unintentional use (e.g., a PTA using a local hero’s photo in a flyer without realizing they lack written consent). This creates a chilling effect on low-resource community organizing and increases legal risk for informal fundraising, especially in rural or underfunded districts.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 4(1)(a)(iii) & Sec. 4(1)(b)The bill imposes strict liability for unauthorized voice/ likeness use—even without profit motive—potentially penalizing independent creators, podcasters, or student filmmakers who use archival footage or voice clips in transformative or noncommercial contexts (e.g., a documentary about local history). While exemptions exist, the $3,000 statutory penalty per use creates high legal risk for individuals without legal counsel to navigate the nuances of fair use or de minimis exceptions.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 4(1)(c) & Sec. 4(2)The $3,000 civil penalty per infringement—recoverable regardless of actual damages or profit—combined with mandatory attorneys’ fees for prevailing parties, disproportionately burdens small businesses and creators who may lack resources to litigate, even when they reasonably believed their use was lawful (e.g., a local band using a deceased athlete’s nickname in merch after assuming it was public domain). This creates a two-tiered system where only well-resourced entities can afford to test the boundaries of the law.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 5(2)While the bill expands fair use exemptions (e.g., satire, education, political campaigns), it does not clarify how these interact with the new fund-raising and dissemination prohibitions. This ambiguity could deter teachers, student groups, or museums from using historical figures’ likenesses in classroom materials, exhibits, or school events—even for noncommercial, educational purposes—due to fear of misinterpreting the law or facing costly litigation.
EducationRef: Sec. 6(1) & Sec. 6(2)(a)-(e)
Who Is Most Affected
Heirs of deceased individuals with commercial value (e.g., estates of musicians, athletes, or artists) gain clear legal standing to enforce and license rights, but may face challenges if the deceased had no estate planning or if rights are contested among multiple heirs under intestacy laws.
Small businesses and independent creators face heightened legal risk due to the $3,000 per-infringement penalty and broad prohibitions on fund-raising/voice/likeness use—even for noncommercial or good-faith uses—potentially chilling creative expression and increasing compliance costs.
Nonprofits and community groups (e.g., schools, churches, charities) gain protection from fraudulent use of identities in fundraising but may be deterred from legitimate, low-budget campaigns due to fear of unintentional violations and costly litigation.
Media platforms and publishers benefit from liability shielding for republished ads, but must still ensure their own promotional materials comply—reducing legal exposure while maintaining some operational responsibility.
Large corporations and entertainment entities gain stronger, more enforceable rights to monetize legacy IP (e.g., licensing a deceased celebrity’s voice for AI-generated ads), but face no new restrictions beyond existing industry norms—net benefit is positive for concentrated commercial interests.