In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, the Bombay High Court upheld the singer’s personality rights, ruling that unauthorized use of his name, voice, and image by the defendants, including AI-generated replicas, violated his rights. The court emphasized that celebrities have the right to control t
“The court upholds the personality rights of celebrities and prevents the dissemination of their personality attributes without explicit authorization.”
Citation: IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Date of Judgment: 26th July 2024
Bench: R.I. Chagla (J)
Facts
- Arijit Singh, the Bollywood singer, sought protection for his personality rights due to various defendants misusing them. The violation of personality rights includes unauthorized use of the singer’s name, voice, images, and other attributes associated with him.
- Defendants are alleged to be using AI tools to create artificial sound recordings of Arijit Singh’s voice. Additionally, it is alleged that the defendants have been selling merchandise featuring the plaintiff’s personality traits.
- These violations infringe upon his moral rights, as well as his personality and public rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Judgment of the Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court ruled that the unauthorized use of the singer’s name, voice, image, and other personal attributes by Codible Ventures LLP and others constituted a violation of his rights. The court emphasized that celebrities have the right to control their public image and prevent its commercial exploitation without their consent. The use of AI technology to replicate Arijit Singh’s voice was deemed a particularly egregious infringement.
The judgment sets a precedent for protecting the rights of celebrities in the digital age, where advancements in technology have made it easier to exploit their identities.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Whether using the plaintiff’s voices, images, and other personality traits without his authorization is in violation of his personality and publicity rights?
Yes
The court observed that personality rights is a well settled principle in India. Celebrities are entitled to protect their images, name, audio, likeness, etc. Personality rights play a crucial role in preventing unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties. The court relied upon Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.[1], in which it was declared that unauthorized usage of name or other personal attributes would amount to violation of their personality and publicity rights.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled against any commercial exploitation or unauthorized use of a celebrity’s identity, including their name, voice, or likeness, as evidenced by the landmark case of R. Rajagopal v. the State of T.N.[2] The court in para 9 of the landmark case also observed that a general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy arises in cases where “a person’s name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising — or non-advertising — purposes or for that matter, his life story is written — whether laudatory or otherwise — and published without his consent”[3].
While focusing on the constitutional aspects, the court ruled that using personality traits of an individual without his explicit authorization results in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. “None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent — whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.”
The court listed two requirements for considering personality rights breach:
- It is to be satisfied that the aggrieved party has attained celebrity status.
- The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the defendant’s unauthorized actions made the plaintiff recognizable, and that the defendant benefited financially from these actions.
The court looked into the matter of privacy violation by the usage of AI tools. The court ruled that AI technology that can replicate a celebrity’s voice without their consent infringes on their personal rights. By allowing anyone to imitate a celebrity’s voice, these tools exploit their identity and reputation. This unauthorized use of a celebrity’s voice not only denies them control over their own image but also opens the door to misleading or harmful content using their likeness.
2. Whether the defendant using the plaintiff’s personality rights affects the right to livelihood of the plaintiff?
Yes
The court made an observation by relying upon the landmark case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India[4]. The court recognized that the celebrity’s right of endorsement is one of the major sources of livelihood of a celebrity. The unlawful dissemination and selling of merchandise bearing celebrity’s personality attributes is in violation of his right to livelihood.
The use of AI tools and other technological components allows others to profit from the celebrity’s likeness without their involvement or compensation. For instance, a company could use a celebrity’s voice to sell a product without paying them. The ability to mimic a celebrity’s voice can be used for malicious purposes, like creating fake news or misleading the public. This harms the celebrity’s reputation and trust.
By using the celebrity’s domain name, the defendants are attracting traffic to its websites. While this is a source of revenue for them, they are essentially capitalizing upon the celebrity’s reputation and goodwill. Such a business venture of defendants leads to exploitation and potential abuse of the celebrity’s personality and publicity rights.
According to the court’s ruling, using personality attributes of the celebrity without explicit authorization could lead to potential impact on the plaintiff’s career and livelihood. Furthermore, permitting the defendants to employ the plaintiff’s identity, including their name, voice, and likeness, in AI-generated content without authorization poses significant risks. Not only does this jeopardize the plaintiff’s financial well-being and professional standing, but it also creates potential for malicious actors to exploit this technology for harmful purposes.
The court stated that it does recognize the freedom of speech and expression, but it does not provide license to defendants to exploit a celebrity’s persona for their commercial gain. The court, therefore, remarked in para 22 that “the plaintiff has made out a strong case for the grant of ad-interim injunction, which may also operate as a dynamic injunction.”[5] The balance of convenience is in plaintiff’s favor and if relief is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the court ruled in plaintiff’s favor to protect his personality and publicity rights.
[1] IPR Suit (L) No.17863 of 2024.
[2] (1994) 6 SCC 632.
[3] Ibid.
[4] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
[5] IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024.
