Personality Rights in India
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Polity
Source: TH
Context: The Delhi High Court protected the personality rights of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan against AI-generated misuse of their images and voices.
About Personality Rights in India:
What are Personality Rights?
• Definition: Legal rights safeguarding a person’s name, image, likeness, signature, and voice from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
• Constitutional Basis: Rooted in Article 21 (Right to Privacy & Dignity).
• Statutory Anchors: Copyright Act, 1957: Performers’ rights under Sections 38A & 38B. Trade Marks Act, 1999: Celebrities can trademark names, catchphrases, signatures. Common Law Tort of Passing Off: Protects against false endorsements or misuse of goodwill (Sec. 27).
• Copyright Act, 1957: Performers’ rights under Sections 38A & 38B.
• Trade Marks Act, 1999: Celebrities can trademark names, catchphrases, signatures.
• Common Law Tort of Passing Off: Protects against false endorsements or misuse of goodwill (Sec. 27).
Judicial Evolution of Personality Rights:
• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – SC upheld privacy as part of Article 21; recognised control over identity use.
• Rajinikanth case (Madras HC, 2015) – Unauthorised film use of name/image restrained even without proof of deception.
• Anil Kapoor v. Various Entities (Delhi HC, 2023) – Protected voice, catchphrases, and persona; clarified free speech exception for satire & parody.
• Jackie Shroff case (Delhi HC, 2024) – Prohibited misuse on e-commerce & AI chatbots; stressed on brand equity dilution.
• Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (Bombay HC, 2024) – Voice cloning using AI ruled violation; highlighted generative AI risks.
Personality Rights vs Free Speech:
• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, but subject to reasonable restrictions (Art. 19(2)).
• Courts balance dignity of individuals with public interest in creativity.
• Permissible Uses: Lampoon, satire, parody, news reporting, art, scholarship.
• Prohibited Uses: Commercial exploitation, false endorsement, degrading deepfakes.
• DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) cautioned against over-expansion that may stifle free speech.
Challenges in the Digital Era:
• AI & Deepfakes: Voice cloning, synthetic videos, and impersonation threaten privacy and dignity.
• Rapid Proliferation: Content spreads faster than takedowns, making enforcement weak.
• Fragmented Laws: No single statute codifies personality rights; remedies depend on scattered precedents.
• Women Vulnerability: Increasing misuse in revenge porn and morphed images.
• Censorship Risk: Overexpansion may chill satire, parody, or political critique.
Way Ahead:
• Comprehensive Legislation: Codify personality rights while harmonising privacy, IP, and IT laws.
• AI Regulation: Mandate watermarking, accountability of platforms, and liability for deepfake misuse.
• Clear Exceptions: Protect satire, criticism, and academic use to avoid overreach.
• Gender-Sensitive Safeguards: Stronger remedies for women against non-consensual digital exploitation.
• Awareness & Registration: Facilitate voluntary registration of celebrity attributes as intellectual property.
Conclusion:
Personality rights are emerging as a vital shield for dignity and identity in the AI-driven digital era. Courts have stepped in to fill the legal vacuum, but fragmented protection creates inconsistencies. A balanced statutory framework is essential to protect individuals while safeguarding free expression and democratic values.