In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP[i], the Bombay High Court restrained third parties, such as AI platforms, restaurants, merchandise sellers, virtual music events, etc., from violating the personality rights of the renowned Bollywood singer Arijit Singh.
These entities were restrained from using Arijit Singh’s name, voice / vocal style and technique / vocal arrangements, photograph, image or its likeness, etc., in any form, for any commercial or personal gain in any manner whatsoever, without Arijit Singh’s consent.
Facts
It was submitted that Arijit Singh hailed from Murshidabad, a small town in West Bengal, and came from humble beginnings. From a young age, Arijit Singh had a strong passion for music, which led him from being a contestant on the musical reality TV show “Fame Gurukul” to becoming a celebrated playback singer and foremost singer worldwide. Therefore, Arijit Singh established that he had the position of a celebrity in India.
In this case, Arijit Singh sought protection of his personality rights, including his name, voice, signature, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona, and other personal attributes from unauthorized commercial exploitation and misuse. The case also involved the violation of Arijit Singh’s moral rights in his performances, as provided under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.
There were several infringing activities being done by third party entities which necessitated filing the present suit by Arijit Singh, a few of which were:
(i) AI Platforms Misusing Arijit Singh’s Voice and Image:
- AI platforms misused Arijit Singh’s voice and image by employing sophisticated algorithms to replicate his voice, image, and other personality traits without permission, exploiting his reputation.
- These platforms enabled the conversion of audio files into his voice using unauthorized datasets and promoted these activities through videos and online tutorials.
- Websites were created to produce AI voice models of Arijit Singh, offering tools that converted text or speech into his AI voice, and even produced music and deepfake videos that mimicked his voice and likeness, all without authorization.
(ii) False Association with Arijit Singh:
- A restaurant/pub, hosted an event in Bengaluru using Arijit Singh’s name and image without authorization.
- Another person advertised a virtual music event falsely implying Arijit Singh’s participation and endorsement.
(iii) Unauthorized Sale of Merchandise:
- A person exploited Arijit Singh’s publicity rights by selling merchandise bearing his name, image, and likeness on various e-commerce platforms.
(iv) GIF Platforms Exploiting Arijit Singh’s Image:
- A person allowed users to create and share GIFs of Arijit Singh’s performances, exploiting his image and likeness for profit without authorization.
(v) Infringing Domain Names:
- Unknown entities registered domain names containing Arijit Singh’s name, with one redirecting to a third-party website.
Arijit Singh argued that the instances of personality rights violations mentioned were not exhaustive, noting that several entities operated clandestinely, concealing their identities. Defendants whose details were known were named, while unidentified ones were listed as “Ashok Kumar” or “John Doe”.
Allegations
Arijit Singh argued that Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 provided tools for unauthorized AI-generated voice models of celebrities, while Defendants Nos. 9, 11 to 25 exploited Arijit Singh’s personality traits on merchandise. He emphasized that this misuse jeopardized his career and could not be justified under freedom of speech. Immediate relief was sought to prevent irreparable harm.
It was stated that the protectable aspects of Arijit Singh’s personality and publicity rights, which were the focus of this suit, included the following:
- Arijit Singh’s name;
- His voice, vocal style and technique, as well as his vocal arrangements and interpretations;
- His mannerisms and manner of singing;
- His image, photograph, caricature, and likeness;
- His signature.
It was argued Arijit Singh held the right to command and control the use of his personality traits, as these formed part of his exclusive Personality Rights and Publicity Rights. Any misappropriation of Arijit Singh’s personality traits for commercial purposes without his express permission was to be restrained not only based on his publicity rights, which is the exclusive right to commercially exploit his personality, but also on the basis of the tort of dilution, specifically tarnishment.
Additionally, any unauthorized distortion, mutilation, modification, or dissemination of Arijit Singh’s performances, voice, or video recordings that harmed his reputation would constitute a violation of his moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Court’s Analysis
The Court was convinced that Plaintiff was a notable singer in India who gained immense goodwill during his successful career and had therefore acquired a celebrity status in India.
It was observed that celebrities are entitled to protection of the facets of their personality such as their name, images, likeness, voice, signature, etc. against unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties.
The Court quoted a few relevant observations from Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory[ii] and Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India[iii] case, which are as follows:
- The celebrity’s right of endorsement is a major source of livelihood for the celebrity, which cannot be destroyed completely by permitting unlawful dissemination and sale of merchandise without their lawful authorisation.
- Technological tools, including AI, now allow anyone to illegally use, produce, or imitate a celebrity’s persona.
- The Court cannot overlook the misuse of a personality’s name and persona. Dilution, tarnishment, and blurring are actionable torts requiring protection.
- Celebrity’s name, likeness, image, and persona deserve protection, not only for the Celebrity but also for his family and friends, to prevent tarnishing or negative use of his likeness.
In an action for protecting personality rights and right to publicity, establishing the celebrity status of the plaintiff is only the primary ingredient. It must also be established that the plaintiff is identifiable from the defendant’s unauthorized use and that such use by the defendant is for commercial gain.
The Court observed that the record prima facie indicated that Defendant Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 25, 37, and 38 were unauthorizedly using Arijit Singh’s personality traits—such as his name, image, and likeness—in ways that clearly identify him. This exploitation appeared to be for commercial and personal gain, without any permission or authorization from Arijit Singh.
Making AI tools available that enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without his/her permission constitutes a violation of the celebrity’s personality rights. The Court was particularly concerned about the use of AI to create counterfeit content that misuses Arijit Singh’s identity, potentially jeopardizing his career and livelihood.
The unauthorized advertisement, promotion, and sale of merchandise bearing Arijit Singh’s personality traits by defendants were deemed a clear violation of his personality rights and right to publicity. The Court noted that Arijit Singh had made a conscious choice to avoid brand endorsements or commercialization of his personality traits for years.
The Court observed that even though freedom of speech and expression allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain. In these circumstances, the Court was inclined to protect Arijit Singh against any wrongful exploitation of his personality rights.
Judgement
The Court stated that in view of the circumstances outlined, and as described in paragraph 60 of the Plaint, providing notice to the Defendants would defeat the purpose of Arijit Singh’s application. Consequently, an ex-parte ad-interim order was issued in terms of the prayer of the plaintiff, which is inter alia as follows:
- Restraining defendants from violating Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights and Publicity Rights by using his name, voice, likeness, or any other attributes of his personality in any form, without his consent or authorization, including through AI technology, online platforms, or merchandise.
- Directing certain defendants to remove, cancel, or suspend the domain names containing Arijit Singh’s name, or alternatively, transferring these domain names to Arijit Singh.
- Ordering defendants to take down, remove, or block access to all infringing content and URLs identified by Arijit Singh in his plaint exhibit.
- Requiring defendants to disclose all particulars of the registrants of the impugned domain names.
- Even though there was no justification for the violation of Arijit Singh’s personality rights, the Court observed that removing entire videos were not unnecessary for certain defendants. Instead, certain defendants were ordered to edit or delete all references to Arijit Singh’s name, voice, image, and other personality traits from the specified YouTube videos.
Conclusion and Thoughts
The use of deepfakes and AI has become increasingly common in India and worldwide. People now have the ability to create content using the personality traits of celebrities, often misusing this content to tarnish their image or spread unendorsed messages to the public.
India
In India, this issue is particularly serious because many users may not realize, or may not attempt to verify, if the video is fake, leading to a permanently tarnished image of celebrities amongst the general public. This problem has led to several legal cases in India recently.
In a recent interim order in the case of Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store,[iv] the Delhi High Court safeguarded the personality and publicity rights of actor Jackie Shroff and has restrained various entities, including e-commerce stores, Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) chatbots, and social media accounts, from using Shroff’s name, image, voice, and likeness without his explicit consent.
In Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life and Others., the defendants were found misappropriating Anil Kapoor’s personality rights using generative artificial intelligence to superimpose his face on other famous actors’ bodies and creating cartoon characters, which led to the Court granting an interim relief to Mr. Anil Kapoor for protection of his name, likeness, voice, persona, and other attributes of his personality against unauthorized commercial use.
USA
Recently, in the United States of America, new legislation has been introduced to counter this unrestricted violation of personality rights of individuals without proper authorization.
In Tennessee, United States of America, a new law was enacted, titled the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act of 2024 (“Elvis Act”) replacing the Personal Rights Act. The Personal Rights Act previously prohibited unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name, photograph, and likeness. The Elvis Act expanded the publicity right by adding voice as a protectable element, potentially aiming at Artificial Intelligence companies that make available services or technology whose primary function is to produce such voices or photographs that are unauthorized. You can see the full post explaining the Elvis Act here.
Last week, U.S. lawmakers introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (“No Fakes Act”). The latest version of the draft No Fakes Act was released only a few days after the U.S. Copyright Office called for new legislation to regulate the use of digital replicas online in its report.
Currently, rights of publicity vary by state in the USA (as can be seen from the Elvis Act which is only applicable in the state of Tennessee), with some states lacking statutory or common law protections for these aspects of an individual’s identity. If No Fakes Act is passed, the law would create the first nationwide harmonized right of publicity, and create protection against unauthorized highly realistic, digital replicas that use an individual’s voice or likeness.[v]
End Notes:
[i] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, Interim Application (L) No.23560 of 2024 in Com IPR Suit (L) No.23443 of 2024.
[ii] Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Interim Application (L) No.17865 Of 2024 in Com IPR Suit (L) No.17863 Of 2024.
[iii] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
[iv] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store, CS(COMM) 389/2024.
[v] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/08/ai-and-publicity-rights-the-no-fakes-act-strikes-a-chord
Image generated on Dall-E
