Using His Name, Voice & Likeliness In Form Of AI Content Leaves Room For Misutilization Of Such Tools: Bombay HC Protects ‘Personality Rights’ Of Arijit Singh

The Bombay High Court has protected the ‘Personality Rights’ of famous Bollywood singer Arijit Singh against usage of his name, voice, likeliness, etc. in form of AI (Artificial Intelligence) content.

The Court said that such usage of AI tools not only risks severe economic harm to Arijit’s life/career, but also leaves room for opportunities for misutilization of such tools by unscrupulous individuals for nefarious purposes.

The singer had filed an interim application and suit seeking protection of his personality rights viz. his own name, voice, signatures, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona, and various other attributes of his personality against unauthorized/unlicensed commercial exploitation, misuse of all hues thereof.

A Single Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla observed, “What shocks the conscience of this Court is the manner in which celebrities, particularly performers such as the present Plaintiff are vulnerable to being targeted by unauthorized generative AI content such as that of some of the Defendants herein. These Defendants are attracting visitors / drawing traffic to their websites and/or AI platforms by capitalizing on the Plaintiff’s popularity and reputation, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff personality rights to potential abuse. … Additionally, allowing the Defendants to continue using the Plaintiff’s name, voice, likeness etc. in the form of an AI content, without consent of the Plaintiff, not only risks severe economic harm to the Plaintiff’s life/career, but also leaves room for opportunities for misutilization of such tools by unscrupulous individuals for nefarious purposes.”

The Bench remarked that such platforms are emboldening internet users to create counterfeit sound recordings and videos that misuse the singer’s character and identity and creation of new audio or video content/songs/videos in the singer’s AI name/voice, photograph, image, likeness and persona without his consent and commercially using the same could potentially jeopardize his career/livelihood.

Advocate Hiren Kamod appeared on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff.

In this case, the suit pertained to the violation of Arijit Singh’s moral rights in his performances conferred upon him by virtue of Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. According to the plaintiff (Arijit), the infringing activities of the defendants necessitated the filing of the suit. The suit was filed seeking protection against AI models/tools synthesizing artificial sound recordings of plaintiff’s voice; false representation of association with the plaintiff by restaurant/pub hosting an event by unauthorizedly using the plaintiff’s name and image for commercial gain; sale of merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness and caricature; platforms to create, store, search for and share Graphic Interchange Format files (GIFs) in respect of the plaintiff; and infringing domain names such as arijitsingh.com, arijitsingh.in, etc. containing the whole of the plaintiff’s name.

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the aforesaid instances of violation of the plaintiff’s personality rights are not exhaustive and that in addition to the above, there are several entities/persons who are operating in a clandestine manner without a clear disclosure of their names, address, and other details. It was further submitted that the defendants are misusing and exploiting the plaintiff’s personality traits for personal and commercial gain at the expense of the plaintiff’s rights and permitting the defendants to continue exploit/violate the plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights, without his consent jeopardizes his career as a performer/singer and his status of a celebrity.

The High Court in view of the above submissions by the counsel noted, “… I am of the view that the Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including the Plaintiff’s name, voice, photograph / caricature, image, likeness, persona, and other attributes of his personality are protectable elements of the Plaintiff’s personality rights and right to publicity. … It is a settled proposition of law that in an action for protecting personality rights and right to publicity, establishing the celebrity status of the plaintiff is only the primary ingredient. Additionally, it must 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 further emphasised that 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 and such tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity's voice, which is a key component of their personal identity and public persona.

“This form of technological exploitation not only infringes upon the individual’s right to control and protect their own likeness and voice but also undermines their ability to prevent commercial and deceptive uses of their identity. … Further, there cannot be any doubt that the advertisement, promotion and sale of merchandise such as posters, caricatures, portraits, t-shirts / clothing, framed photographs, guitar tabs, face-masks, etc. bearing / exploiting the Plaintiff’s personality traits as done by the Defendant Nos. 11 to 23, without any permission from the Plaintiff, is in violation of the Plaintiff’s personality rights and right of publicity”, it added.

Moreover, the Court agreed with the submission of the plaintiff’s counsel in the context of freedom of speech and expression that even though such freedom allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity's persona for commercial gain.

“… this Court is inclined to protect the Plaintiff against any wrongful exploitation of his personality rights and right to publicity. … I am of the prima facie view that the Plaintiff has made out a strong case for the grant of ad-interim injunction, which may also operate as a dynamic injunction. … The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Unless the reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money”, it said.

The Court clarified that at this stage, the defendants shall only lock/suspend the domain names arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in and they shall not permit any transfer thereof to third parties until the next date of hearing.

“While there cannot possible be any reasonable justification for the blatant violation of the Plaintiff’s personality rights and right to publicity as aforesaid, I do not think that taking down the entire videos of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 7 on the following links is appropriate. A direction to these Defendants to simply remove or delete all the references to the Plaintiff’s name, image, voice, personality traits etc. in the said videos should suffice”, it also added.

So far as the videos on some links were concerned, the Court directed the defendants to edit/delete/remove all references to the plaintiff’s personality traits, including his name, voice, image, likeness, etc. from the said videos.

Accordingly, the High Court protected the plaintiff’s personality rights, issued certain directions, and listed the interim application on September 2, 2024 for further ad-interim reliefs.

Cause Title- Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors.

Appearance:

Applicant/Plaintiff: Advocates Hiren Kamod, Prem Khullar, Neha Iyer, Vaibhav Keni, and Priyanka Joshi.

Click here to read/download the Order