Introduction

Indian courts have not lost an opportunity towards protecting an individual’s right to restrict commercial exploitation of his/her identity including personality, name, image, likeness, mannerisms and gestures. India’s legal landscape has seen significant developments driven by landmark judicial judgements whether favoring the celebrities in question like in the case of Daler Mehndi ¹, Karan Johar ², Amitabh Bachchan ³, Rajat Sharma ⁴, Anil Kapoor ⁵ or against them in the case of Gautam Gambhir ⁶.

As Indian courts grapple with an increasing number of such cases, they’ve started to acknowledge the nuanced facets of personal identity, striving to balance freedom of expression with privacy rights. Currently, one of the biggest reasons for the surge in personality rights cases is artificial intelligence(AI) which was recently discussed in the case of Arijit Singh vs Codible Ventures LLP and Ors ⁷ . This article explains the Indian legal landscape with respect to personality rights while delving into Singh’s case and other relevant cases.  

Understanding Personality Rights

In India, personality rights aren’t explicitly governed by a single law. Instead, they emerge from a blend of privacy rights, the tort of passing off, the Copyright Act of 1957, and the Trade Marks Act of 1999. Personality rights in the form of the right to privacy were first recognised explicitly in R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) ⁸, also known as the Auto Shankar case where the court observed that the personality right is said to be violated when a person’s identity is used for any purpose without the consent of such person.

In a case filed by actor Rajinikanth ⁹ seeking a stay on the release of a Bollywood movie, ‘Main Hoon Rajinikanth,’ the court stated that personality rights are vested onto those individuals who are publicly known and have attained the status of a celebrity. Likewise, in Singh’s case, the court acknowledged that celebrities are entitled to protect various facets of their personality from unauthorised commercial use and the primary ingredient in such a suit is establishment of celebrity status. The definition of the term ‘celebrity’ also comes from the case of Titan Industries Ltd v Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) ¹⁰, wherein it held that a celebrity is “a famous or a well-known person and is someone who “many” people talk about or know about”. 

Court’s Approach to Generative AI

AI-generated content is sparking concern in the entertainment industry, driving artists to litigate as its misuse threatens their livelihoods and reputations. The surge in cases due to the misuse of AI has prompted Indian courts to be more assertive in recognising these rights. This shift is evident in Singh’s case, where the court expressed astonishment at how celebrities like Singh are being exploited by unauthorised generative AI and ruled against all parties involved. The court, referencing similar cases, stated that AI tools allowing a celebrity’s voice to be copied without permission violate their personality rights. This not only threatens their career but also takes away their control over their voice and likeness, opening the door for misuse.

Given AI’s role in misusing Singh’s rights, it’s essential to differentiate between real performances and AI-generated imitations. Traditional performance rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957 may not cover AI replications, as they don’t involve directly copying previous performances. Singh’s case, along with Anil Kapoor’s, highlights this issue, as AI content mimics their voices and personas without replicating past performances. This suggests a need for new legal frameworks or specific AI-related laws to address these challenges effectively.

Ever Changing Legal Landscape

Through their landmark judgments in the field of personality rights, Indian courts have demonstrated a nuanced approach, taking various aspects into consideration. From recognising the non-conventional aspects of an individual’s persona to balancing personality rights with freedom of speech and assessing the defendant’s intent, Indian courts have evolved significantly in this domain.

In Anil Kapoor’s case ¹¹, the court initially hesitated to extend protection to the manner in which the actor uses the word “Jhakaas,” but ultimately granted an injunction against its unauthorised use. Similarly, in Amitabh Bachchan’s case ¹², the court protected his distinctive manner of addressing computers as “Computer ji.” These judgments illustrate the adaptable nature of Indian law, capable of addressing the evolving challenges posed by AI and digital media. It has also been interesting to see how the courts do not opt for a ‘one size fits all’ approach. In Jackie Shroff’s case ¹³, the court ruled in favor of a parody video stating that it constituted artistic expression and that restricting it would stifle free speech. On the other hand, in Singh’s case, the court opined that even though freedom of speech and expression allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant a license to exploit a celebrity’s personality with the intention of commercial gains. 

Gautam Gambhir’s ¹⁴ attempt to injunct restaurant owners from using the tagline “By Gautam Gambhir” was dismissed, as the court found that the restaurant had used its own images without misleading the public about Gambhir’s involvement. Whereas, in Singh’s case, the court ruled that unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s identifiable image constitutes a clear violation of personality rights. The lines are not yet clear and future disputes will clarify what constitutes infringement and what does not. 

Conclusion

Courts have been innovative in fashioning answers to the complicated legal quandaries that the use of AI raises. However, the attempt is akin to using a square peg to fill around the hole. Legislative interpretation will be the need of the hour.

[1] D.M. Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC Online Del 4790.

[2] Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Com IPR Suit (L) No.17863 Of 2024.

[3] Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del) [Hereinafter Titan Industries Ltd.].

[4] Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors., CS (OS) 495/2024.

[5] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India And Ors., CS (Comm) 652 Of 2023 [Hereinafter Anil Kapoor].

[6] Gautam Gambhir v. D. A. P & Co. & Anr., CS(COMM) 395/2017.

[7] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP And Ors., Com IPR Suit (L) No.23443 Of 2024.

[8] R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632.

[9] Mr. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. M/S. Varsha Productions, (2015) (62) PTC 351 (Mad.)

[10] Titan Industries Ltd. supra note 4.

[11] Anil Kapoor, supra note 6.

[12] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi and Ors., CS(COMM) 819/2022.

[13] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., (2024) 2024 SCC Online Del 3664.

[14] Gautam Gambhir, supra note 7