A voice clone’s consent has to satisfy a statute and a platform

Tennessee’s ELVIS Act and two platforms’ own terms show what a written consent for a cloned voice needs to state.

First source published

July 1, 2024

Site publication

September 18, 2026

What happened

Tennessee’s Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act, effective 1 July 2024, amended the state’s personal-rights statute to add voice as a protected property right, defining voice as “a sound in a medium that is readily identifiable and attributable to a particular individual, regardless of whether the sound contains the actual voice or a simulation of the voice.” The act also created liability for distributing “an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology” whose primary purpose is producing an identifiable person’s voice without their authorization. Separately, two voice-cloning platforms’ current terms of service, retrieved 16 September 2026, describe different models for who may upload a voice: Suno permits a voice model only resembling the user’s own voice, while Kits.ai permits third-party voices where the uploader warrants they hold the necessary rights.

What the documents say

The statute gives an individual a property right and creates liability for a distributor of cloning technology who knowingly makes an unauthorized voice available – reaching the tool, not only the end use. Kits.ai’s terms put the burden on the uploader, requiring them to warrant they “have, or have obtained, all rights, licenses, consents, permissions, power and/or authority necessary” for any voice file submitted, while the company claims ownership of the resulting voice model. Suno’s terms instead close off the third-party case, stating a user “can only create a Voice Model resembling your own voice” and “expressly agree[s] not to create... a Voice Model of another person.”

Why it matters for makers

The mechanism to track is that a platform’s permission to clone a voice is not the same as the underlying person’s consent, and the statute treats those as separate failure points. A platform’s terms can be satisfied – the uploader ticked the warranty box – while the statute is still violated, if the warranty was false. Suno instead removes the question by refusing third-party voices, protecting the platform but not itself a rights framework a maker can rely on elsewhere. Where a third-party voice is genuinely wanted, the actual person’s written authorization satisfies both the statute and a platform’s warranty.

What to check before you use it

This is an editorial checklist, not legal advice. Confirm which state’s law applies to the individual whose voice is used, since these statutes are not uniform, and Tennessee’s is one of the more specific in force. Get the individual’s written consent naming the specific project and use, not a general release, since the statute ties liability to knowledge of authorization. Check whether a platform’s terms even permit a third-party voice model before building a project around one that must later be scrapped.

• Does a written consent from the actual person exist, naming this specific project?
• Does the platform’s terms of service permit a third-party voice model at all?
• Which state or country’s voice-as-property law, if any, governs the person being cloned?

None of these alone answers what a maker needs; the statute defines the right, and the platforms define two ways of complying with it. A durable consent must satisfy the strictest of the three, not merely the one the software enforces at upload.

Sources & reading trail

Defines voice as a protected property right, requires consent for use, and creates liability for distributing cloning tools without the individual's authorization.

Source published: 1 July 2024 · Retrieved: 16 September 2026

Requires uploaders to warrant they hold rights to any voice file and assigns ownership of resulting custom voice models to the company.

Source published: Not established · Retrieved: 16 September 2026

Prohibits creating a voice model of another person and using output to impersonate any person or entity.

Source published: Not established · Retrieved: 16 September 2026

Papers, terms and official documents establish the record; the maker reading and the checks are Signal to Song editorial analysis. This retrospective draft does not imply the site published on the event date.

Continue reading

• Tennessee made voice a protected property right against AI clones
• Two voice-conversion services now publish artist consent as a feature
• Browse the complete the archive

Published September 18, 2026, not on the date of the event described.