In a recent judgment in the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Others, the Bombay High Court addressed a legal dispute of infringement of personality rights through the use of AI. Personality rights, which holds the protection of an individual’s identity, privacy, and dignity, are foundational to safeguarding personal independence in both physical and digital worlds. The boundaries of these rights are being pushed in new ways as AI systems now have the ability to create believable images, voices, signatures, photograph and even personae.

In this case, the Plaintiff, Arijit Singh, who is an eminent singer sought judicial protection against the use of his name and also voice/vocal style/technique /vocal arrangements & interpretation, manner/singing mannerism/manner/image/photo/caricature/likeness/signatures. The suit also involved a claim for the violation of his moral rights under Section 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Plaintiff’s Claims

The Plaintiff claimed that as one of the most celebrated artists, he is entitled to his personality rights which includes his name, voice and vocal style, singing manner, image and signature. He said that any unauthorized appropriation of these same qualities (of his persona) for commercial purposes bears upon and invades the right vested in him to control, exploit, and derive financial benefit from his own persona. The Plaintiff also contended that unauthorized interference with his performances, voice or recordings can damage his reputation and will amount to violation of his moral rights as well.

The infringing actions that led the Plaintiff to initiate the present suit:

  • Use of AI tools to create fake recordings of the Plaintiff’s voice.
  • False representation of an association with the Plaintiff.
  • Sale of merchandise featuring the Plaintiff’s name, image, and likeness.
  • Creation and distribution of GIFs and infringing domain names.

Court’s Opinion

A Single Judge Bench headed by Justice R.I. Chagla assessed the risk of damage that would occur from the production of new audio or video content under the name of the Plaintiff, or giving the voice, image, or likeness of the Plaintiff without his consent, in the context of his career or means of livelihood. In the ex-parte order, the Court noted that a prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for a temporary injunction preventing misuse.

The Court acknowledged Mr. Singh’s substantial reputation and celebrity status in India. It affirmed that celebrities are entitled to protect aspects of their personality from unauthorized commercial exploitation. This is under both publicity rights referring to the protection of commercial use of one’s image and dilution, particularly tarnishment. In addition, any unlawful changes or deletion and any other type of alteration, distribution of the Plaintiff’s performances / voice or video tapes/recordings that has the tendency to place him in a bad light/prejudice his persona would be a breach of the Plaintiff’s moral rights in respect of his performances.

The Court cited precedents, such as the case of Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., which recognized that unauthorized use of a celebrity’s name or persona violates their personality rights. The Court also referenced the Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, stating that the Plaintiff’s personality traits are protected under publicity rights. The defendants were found to be unlawfully using the Plaintiff’s attributes for their gain. The Court expressed concern that AI tools enabling unauthorized replication of a celebrity’s voice could undermine their ability to control and protect their identity.

As a result, the Court issued an ad-interim injunction that, while temporary, could act as a dynamic injunction. This order prohibits the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s traits such as name, voice, vocal style, manner of singing, image, signature, persona, etc. for commercial or personal gain without his permission or authorization.

The Court’s order also included:

  • Restrain the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s name, voice, likeness, or other personal attributes without his consent.
  • Direction to certain defendants to lock or suspension of domain names associated with the Plaintiff and removal of infringing material from the videos.
  • To issue an order to stop the sales or any other form of brand endorsement or gross commercialization that uses the Plaintiff’s personality traits.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court decision reiterates the seriousness of personality rights with a strong stand against unauthorized commercial exploitation of the attributes of a celebrity especially through AI technology. You can read more about protection of the personality rights from AI at our blog available here.

The Court has further ordered that the interim injunction, as issued, shall subsist up to September 3, 2024, with the said matter scheduled for further hearing on September 2, 2024.

Written by Khushboo Agarwal