Cloning celebrities, politicians, and other public figures
Famous voices are the most legally protected voices, not the least. The ELVIS Act, the FCC's robocall ruling, the New Hampshire deepfake fine, and where parody actually stands.
Updated June 11, 2026
The instinct to check, stated plainly
A voice being famous makes it feel public, the way a landmark feels public. The law runs the other way: the more recognizable and commercially valuable a voice is, the more protection it attracts and the more motivated its owner is to enforce it. Celebrities and politicians are the two groups most likely to have lawyers on retainer for exactly this.
On Cantari the question is settled before the law even enters: the cloning consent flow asks whether you have the speaker's permission, and for a public figure you do not. The legal background below is why that line exists everywhere, not just here.
Tennessee said it first: the ELVIS Act
In March 2024 Tennessee passed the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act (SB 2096, Public Chapter 588), the first state law written specifically for AI voice replicas. It added the word voice to the state's protected personal rights and reaches simulations, not just recordings. It took effect July 1, 2024, with both civil claims and criminal enforcement behind it.
Tennessee moved first because Nashville did the math on what unconsented voice cloning does to working musicians. Other states are following the template.
The FCC: a cloned voice on a robocall is already illegal
In February 2024 the FCC issued a declaratory ruling (FCC 24-17) confirming that AI-generated voices count as artificial voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. No new statute was needed: robocalls with cloned voices require the called party's prior express consent, today, full stop.
The ruling had a fresh example behind it. Two days before the 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary, robocalls carrying a cloned voice of President Biden told voters to stay home, spoofed to appear from a local political figure's number. The FCC traced the campaign to the political consultant who commissioned it and in September 2024 issued a $6 million forfeiture order (FCC 24-104) against him.
Election deepfakes: the fastest-moving corner
Most US states now regulate synthetic media in elections in some form, with rules that differ on timing windows, disclaimers, and penalties. That landscape, including the EU's labeling requirements, has its own page: deepfake disclosure laws.
The short version for this page: if a cloned voice of a politician is involved, you are standing in the single most regulated spot in all of synthetic audio.
Parody and satire, honestly
Parody has real protection in American speech law, and some publicity statutes carve out commentary, news, and satire. Those defenses are genuinely there, and they are genuinely complicated: they vary by state, they depend on context and intent, and they get resolved by courts after the fact, not by checkboxes before it. We are not your lawyer, and anyone selling you a clean rule here is overselling.
Our product decision is simpler than the case law. The attestation asks for the speaker's permission, parody does not grant permission, so impersonating a real person is against the terms on Cantari regardless of comedic intent. If your satire project has the subject's actual blessing, in writing, that is a different situation, and the consent guide describes what that should look like.
Character work is the legitimate path: an original voice doing a style or an archetype is yours to create. The line is a specific real person.
What this means on Cantari
Cloning requires attesting to the speaker's permission, which cannot honestly be done for a celebrity or politician, and the terms prohibit impersonating a real person or implying they said something they did not. Voices that break that rule are removed when found, and community clips always name their engine and voice, so nothing published here passes itself off as a real person's recording.
If you find a voice on Cantari that imitates a real person without their consent, report it from the voice or clip page. Related reading: voices of the dead covers the estate-permission case, and voice scams covers impersonation used for fraud.