One test decides everything: is the face on screen readily identifiable as a specific real person's? That's the phrase the pending federal bill uses, and it's the same question state likeness law asks. A character generated from a text description isn't identifiable as anyone, because there's no anyone. A character generated from someone's photographs is — however fictional the character.
There's one question underneath all of this, and learning it once answers most of the paperwork.
What's the actual test?
Identifiability, not method.
The NO FAKES Act — a bill, not law — defines a digital replica as a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual.
That phrasing is worth holding onto, because it's doing all the work. It doesn't ask how the representation was made. It doesn't ask what you called the character. It asks whether a viewer could identify who it's meant to be.
State right-of-publicity law asks a version of the same question today, and has for decades. The bill would add a federal layer rather than a new test.
- Digital replica
- A highly realistic representation readily identifiable as a specific real person's voice or visual likeness. The test is identifiability. It also covers real footage of someone where the fundamental character of the performance has been materially altered.
- Fully synthetic character
- A character with no real-world counterpart. Nothing is readily identifiable as an individual, because no individual is being represented.
Ask one question: could a viewer name the person? Everything else follows from the answer.
The trap catches people constantly. A character generated from photographs of a real person is not fully synthetic, however fictional the character is. The reference carries the likeness into the output, and identifiability is assessed on the output.
Which means the practical test isn't what the character is called or whether they exist. It's what went into the generation.
So which kind of face should you use?
Four options in practice, and the rights position differs for each.
| What you use | Identifiable as a real person? | What it needs | Practical limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| A character generated from a text description | No | Nothing. Keep a note of what created it | Can still resemble someone by accident |
| A face you upload | Yes — whoever is in the photograph | That person's documented consent | There's no consent step on upload, so this is a discipline rather than a gate |
| A human creator from a library | Yes — licensed | Nothing further. Consent, verification and payment are already in place | Digital use only, light edits only, and needs a paid tier above the entry plan |
| No face at all — faceless mode | No | Nothing | The product or the voiceover has to carry the piece |
Source: Hexcoded actor library, Terms of Service and pricing page, checked September 2026. Legal requirements vary by jurisdiction.
Where this falls short. A generated character can resemble a real person by accident, and identifiability is assessed on the output rather than on your intent. That's why keeping your reference material matters even in row one.
What does a library licence actually cover?
Narrower than "commercial use" suggests, and worth knowing before you plan around it.
On Hexcoded, a human creator has passed a liveness check and a face-match before their likeness could be published, has accepted a licence recorded with a timestamp, and earns on every render. When you cast one, you're shown a consent-verified receipt.
What that licence permits is digital only — paid ads and organic posts on online platforms, plus your own websites and apps. Television, print and outdoor need a separate written agreement.
And light edits only: trimming, cropping, captions, music and end-cards are fine, but you may not re-generate, morph or re-voice a face outside the platform. That isn't just a terms clause — using a licensed likeness outside the licensed scope is listed as a prohibited use, which makes it an enforcement matter.
One more thing worth planning for. A creator can stop new use of their likeness at any time. Delivered content stays valid; new generation stops.
What would the federal bill change?
Nothing yet, and the shape is worth knowing.
S. 4591 was advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on 18 June 2026 and has not passed the Senate. If enacted it would create a federal right in voice and visual likeness, make distributors liable for unauthorised replicas, make platforms liable for hosting them knowing the depicted person didn't consent, and establish a notice-and-takedown process.
The right wouldn't be assignable during life, though it would be licensable — which matters for anyone drafting a buyout rather than a licence.
What's expressly excluded?
Five exclusions in the bill as drafted, and they're broader than most coverage suggests.
News, public affairs and sports where the replica is materially relevant. Documentary, historical and biographical work representing the person as themselves, including some degree of fictionalization. Commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire and parody in the public interest. Incidental or negligible use. And advertising that promotes any of those four.
Two limits on them. The documentary exclusion fails where the use creates a false impression of authenticity or involves unauthorised musical synchronisation. And no exclusion at all applies where a replica depicts sexually explicit conduct — that override is absolute.
Where this falls short. Whether a given piece is commentary or commercial use is exactly the question that gets litigated. A framing device doesn't convert an advertisement into satire, and the fifth exclusion only covers advertising a permitted use.
What paperwork do you actually need?
For anything derived from a real person:
- Who is depicted — name, and how identifiability was established
- What they consented to — the specific uses, not a general permission
- Scope — use, territory, duration
- Storage — where reference and replica files live, and who can reach them
- Deletion — when the files go, and who confirms it
- Payment — amount, trigger, and whether it recurs per use
The point most creators miss: consent isn't a signature, it's a record you can produce later. A signed release buried in an inbox isn't a rights position. A retrievable file showing scope and payment history is.
On a library platform much of this is held for you. Hexcoded keeps a creator's consent record permanently and keeps master face and voice recordings only while brand content made with that likeness remains licensed, then deletes or irreversibly anonymises them. What you still need is your own record of which creator appears in which project.
Where this falls short. This is a checklist, not a contract. A lawyer draws the contract.
What's changing next?
Two directions, moving at different speeds.
The federal bill would preempt future state laws while preserving existing ones, so the state patchwork doesn't disappear — it gets a layer on top. Whether it reaches the Senate floor at all is unclear.
Meanwhile state legislatures are producing AI disclosure obligations faster than Congress has moved on likeness. Those are a separate system. Labelling synthetic content isn't the same as having the right to create it.
Current as of the publication date. The NO FAKES Act is pending legislation and had not passed the Senate at the time of writing. Likeness law varies by state and is changing. Hexcoded's terms and actor licence are governed by the laws of India, with jurisdiction in Gurugram, Haryana. Nothing here is legal advice.
- Ask one question first: is this face readily identifiable as a real person's? Everything follows from the answer
- A character generated from a text description is the low-friction option. Nobody is identifiable, so nothing attaches
- A face you upload is identifiable as whoever is in the photograph, including yourself
- There's no consent step on upload. The tool won't stop you, and that's the point
- A human creator arrives with consent, verification and payment in place — digital use only, light edits only, paid tier and above
- Don't plan around the NO FAKES Act as law. It cleared committee on 18 June 2026 and hasn't passed
- Structure likeness paperwork as a licence, not a transfer. The right wouldn't be assignable during life
- Consent is a record you can produce, not a signature you obtained
Yes, and the position depends on whose face it is. A character generated from a text description isn't readily identifiable as anyone, so no likeness obligation attaches. A face derived from photographs of an identifiable real person needs that person's documented consent.
Being readily identifiable as a specific real person's voice or visual likeness. That's the test in the pending federal bill, and identifiability is assessed on the output rather than on your intent. It also covers real footage where the fundamental character of the performance has been materially altered.
No. S. 4591 was advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on 18 June 2026 and moved to the full Senate. It hasn't passed, and its text has been revised once already.
Only with their documented consent. There's no consent step on upload, so nothing in the product prevents it — which makes the consent your responsibility rather than a gate the tool enforces. A likeness built from someone's photograph is identifiable as that person.
On Hexcoded, run the content as paid ads and organic posts on online platforms, plus on your own websites and apps. Digital only — television, print and outdoor need a separate written agreement. And light edits only: no re-generating, morphing or re-voicing a face outside the platform.
Identifiability is assessed on the output, so accidental similarity can still be a problem. Keeping your reference material is how you show the resemblance wasn't derived from that person — and it can't be reconstructed after the fact.
Four options, one test
Generate a character from a description, upload a face, cast a human creator with consent verified and payment on every render, or use no face at all. The table above is how the library is organised, because it's how the law is organised.
See the actor libraryMore on characters, consent and reusable elements in Elements.