The SOUL Act’s Version of Ownership

H.R. 8323, introduced in the House on April 16, 2026, offers a concrete answer to the identity problem: create a new federal right in “unique likeness” and place it inside Title 17. This chapter explains what the introduced Sovereign Ownership of Unique Likeness Act of 2026, or SOUL Act, would cover, who would hold the right, how long it would last, and what would happen when a replica is released online. The bill is a proposal referred to the House Judiciary Committee, not enacted law, so its text shows a legislative design rather than a rule that currently governs everyone.

The design is broader in some respects than the Copyright Office’s recommended right for realistic digital replicas. It uses the language of ownership and exclusive rights, but it also includes exceptions, platform procedures, speech protections, and a preemption clause. To understand the bill, it helps to read those pieces as one system: first define the identity, then assign the rights, then set the boundaries and enforcement mechanisms.

The Bill Starts With a Broad Definition of Identity

The bill would add a new Chapter 14 to the Copyright Act. Its key object is an individual’s “unique likeness,” which the text defines broadly. The list includes a name, image, physical likeness, body shape, movements, habits, style, voice, biometric identifiers, certain genetic markers, and related avatars, deepfakes, or digital replicas derived from those elements. The voice provision expressly includes artificial-intelligence-generated reproductions. The bill says the term should be construed broadly enough to adapt to technological change.

This is a different starting point from a rule limited to a realistic video, image, or audio recording that is difficult to distinguish from an authentic depiction. A realistic-replica rule focuses on the output and its apparent authenticity. The SOUL Act begins with the person’s traits and then protects representations that reproduce or simulate them. That may allow the law to reach new forms of synthetic identity data, but it also creates more questions about where a protected trait ends and ordinary resemblance, artistic style, or general human behavior begins.

The bill’s definition includes some qualifiers. Biometric identifiers such as facial geometry, iris patterns, vocal timbre, gait, or fingerprints are covered when used to replicate or identify an individual for commercial purposes, with exclusions for law enforcement or national security. Genetic markers are described in relation to commercial replication or misuse, with exemptions for medical or research purposes under applicable laws. Those qualifiers matter because they show that the bill is not simply declaring every fact about a body to be private property. It is tying some sensitive categories to specified uses.

Even so, the overall scope is expansive. It reaches familiar identity signals such as a name or face, performance-related traits such as movement or style, and technical representations such as avatars and AI-generated identity data. A person reading the bill should not assume that its coverage is limited to the kind of near-authentic audio or video at the center of the Copyright Office report. The bill’s language could reach a wider set of representations, subject to interpretation by courts.