The Melody of Rights: Safeguarding Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP
Interim Application (L) No. 23460 of 2024
Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Justice R. I. Changla
Decided on 26-07-2024
Facts:
Arijit Singh, one of India’s most celebrated singers, sought legal protection for his Personality Rights in the Bombay High Court. The case revolved around unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s name, voice, image, and other personal attributes for commercial exploitation, particularly through AI-generated content. The complaint highlighted several infringing activities, including the use of AI models to synthesize his voice, false associations with his brand, unauthorized merchandise sales, creation and sharing of GIFs without permission, and use of infringing domain names. The Plaintiff argued that these actions violated his exclusive Personality and Publicity rights, as well as his moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. He contended that allowing such exploitation without his consent jeopardized his career and celebrity status.
Issues:
Whether plaintiff’s name, voice, image, and other personal traits are legally protectable elements of his personality and publicity rights and to what extent these rights can be safeguarded against unauthorized commercial exploitation, particularly in the context of emerging technologies like AI-generated content and digital impersonation. Further, how to balance the protection of Plaintiff’s personality rights against the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
Held
Justice R.I. Chagla, granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Plaintiff, recognizing his celebrity status and the need to protect his personality rights. The court held that celebrities are entitled to protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their personal attributes. The Court relied on Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India[1], and opined that Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including his name, voice, photograph/caricature, image, likeness, persona, and other attributes of his personality were protectable elements of his personality rights and right to publicity. Further, the court ruled that using AI tools to recreate singer’s voice without permission violated his personality rights, acknowledging that such technological exploitation infringes upon an individual’s right to control their identity and prevent deceptive uses.
[1] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
The injunction restrained the defendants from violating Plaintiff’s Personality and Publicity rights by using his name, voice, image, or any other attributes of his personality without consent for commercial or personal gain. The court also addressed specific issues, directing the suspension of infringing domain names and the removal of content violating singer’s rights from various online platforms. Importantly, the court balanced this protection with free speech principles, clarifying that while critique and commentary are allowed; exploiting a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain without consent is not permissible under freedom of expression.
This decision sets a significant precedent in the digital age, addressing the challenges posed by AI technology to personality rights. It underscores the legal system’s recognition of the potential threats that AI impersonation poses to celebrities’ careers and reputations. The injunction, effective until September 3, 2024, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2, 2024, marks a crucial step in the ongoing dialogue between law, technology, and individual rights in the entertainment industry.
The Melody of Rights: Safeguarding Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Analysis of Draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024
The Supreme Court Mandates Self-Declaration For Ethical Marketing
Jurisdiction Dilemma : Insights From IP Litigation
The Melody of Rights: Safeguarding Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP
Interim Application (L) No. 23460 of 2024
Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Justice R. I. Changla
Decided on 26-07-2024
Facts:
Arijit Singh, one of India’s most celebrated singers, sought legal protection for his Personality Rights in the Bombay High Court. The case revolved around unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s name, voice, image, and other personal attributes for commercial exploitation, particularly through AI-generated content. The complaint highlighted several infringing activities, including the use of AI models to synthesize his voice, false associations with his brand, unauthorized merchandise sales, creation and sharing of GIFs without permission, and use of infringing domain names. The Plaintiff argued that these actions violated his exclusive Personality and Publicity rights, as well as his moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. He contended that allowing such exploitation without his consent jeopardized his career and celebrity status.
Issues:
Whether plaintiff’s name, voice, image, and other personal traits are legally protectable elements of his personality and publicity rights and to what extent these rights can be safeguarded against unauthorized commercial exploitation, particularly in the context of emerging technologies like AI-generated content and digital impersonation. Further, how to balance the protection of Plaintiff’s personality rights against the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
Held
Justice R.I. Chagla, granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Plaintiff, recognizing his celebrity status and the need to protect his personality rights. The court held that celebrities are entitled to protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their personal attributes. The Court relied on Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India[1], and opined that Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including his name, voice, photograph/caricature, image, likeness, persona, and other attributes of his personality were protectable elements of his personality rights and right to publicity. Further, the court ruled that using AI tools to recreate singer’s voice without permission violated his personality rights, acknowledging that such technological exploitation infringes upon an individual’s right to control their identity and prevent deceptive uses.
[1] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
The injunction restrained the defendants from violating Plaintiff’s Personality and Publicity rights by using his name, voice, image, or any other attributes of his personality without consent for commercial or personal gain. The court also addressed specific issues, directing the suspension of infringing domain names and the removal of content violating singer’s rights from various online platforms. Importantly, the court balanced this protection with free speech principles, clarifying that while critique and commentary are allowed; exploiting a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain without consent is not permissible under freedom of expression.
This decision sets a significant precedent in the digital age, addressing the challenges posed by AI technology to personality rights. It underscores the legal system’s recognition of the potential threats that AI impersonation poses to celebrities’ careers and reputations. The injunction, effective until September 3, 2024, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2, 2024, marks a crucial step in the ongoing dialogue between law, technology, and individual rights in the entertainment industry.
The Melody of Rights: Safeguarding Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Analysis of Draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024
The Supreme Court Mandates Self-Declaration For Ethical Marketing
Jurisdiction Dilemma : Insights From IP Litigation
The Melody of Rights: Safeguarding Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP
Interim Application (L) No. 23460 of 2024
Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Justice R. I. Changla
Decided on 26-07-2024
Facts:
Arijit Singh, one of India’s most celebrated singers, sought legal protection for his Personality Rights in the Bombay High Court. The case revolved around unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s name, voice, image, and other personal attributes for commercial exploitation, particularly through AI-generated content. The complaint highlighted several infringing activities, including the use of AI models to synthesize his voice, false associations with his brand, unauthorized merchandise sales, creation and sharing of GIFs without permission, and use of infringing domain names. The Plaintiff argued that these actions violated his exclusive Personality and Publicity rights, as well as his moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. He contended that allowing such exploitation without his consent jeopardized his career and celebrity status.
Issues:
Whether plaintiff’s name, voice, image, and other personal traits are legally protectable elements of his personality and publicity rights and to what extent these rights can be safeguarded against unauthorized commercial exploitation, particularly in the context of emerging technologies like AI-generated content and digital impersonation. Further, how to balance the protection of Plaintiff’s personality rights against the principles of freedom of speech and expression.
Held
Justice R.I. Chagla, granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Plaintiff, recognizing his celebrity status and the need to protect his personality rights. The court held that celebrities are entitled to protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their personal attributes. The Court relied on Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India[1], and opined that Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including his name, voice, photograph/caricature, image, likeness, persona, and other attributes of his personality were protectable elements of his personality rights and right to publicity. Further, the court ruled that using AI tools to recreate singer’s voice without permission violated his personality rights, acknowledging that such technological exploitation infringes upon an individual’s right to control their identity and prevent deceptive uses.
[1] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
The injunction restrained the defendants from violating Plaintiff’s Personality and Publicity rights by using his name, voice, image, or any other attributes of his personality without consent for commercial or personal gain. The court also addressed specific issues, directing the suspension of infringing domain names and the removal of content violating singer’s rights from various online platforms. Importantly, the court balanced this protection with free speech principles, clarifying that while critique and commentary are allowed; exploiting a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain without consent is not permissible under freedom of expression.
This decision sets a significant precedent in the digital age, addressing the challenges posed by AI technology to personality rights. It underscores the legal system’s recognition of the potential threats that AI impersonation poses to celebrities’ careers and reputations. The injunction, effective until September 3, 2024, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2, 2024, marks a crucial step in the ongoing dialogue between law, technology, and individual rights in the entertainment industry.
The Melody of Rights: Safeguarding Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Analysis of Draft Trade Marks (Holding Inquiry and Appeal) Rules, 2024
The Supreme Court Mandates Self-Declaration For Ethical Marketing
Jurisdiction Dilemma : Insights From IP Litigation
Connect with our Experts to resolve your legal issues!
KAnalysis is a boutique full service law firm, well positioned to represent its international and domestic clients.
© 2007 – 2024 KAnalysis Consultant Private Limited. All Rights Reserved