Context: The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and Karan Johar, prohibiting the unauthorized use of their images, voices, and likenesses in AI-generated content, deepfakes, and associated merchandise.
- This ruling reinforces the protection of their personality rights in the digital age.
What Are Personality Rights?
- Personality rights protect an individual’s name, image, voice, signature, and likeness from unauthorised commercial use.
- Personality rights in India, though not codified in a single law, are based on common law doctrines of privacy, defamation, and publicity, upheld by judicial precedents.
- Courts can issue injunctions, damages, or takedown orders to prevent unauthorized use in ads, merchandise, AI content, or digital platforms.
Legal Framework and Protection Mechanisms
- Privacy and Defamation Laws: Personality rights are derived from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy, and the defamation law that safeguards against unauthorized use or misrepresentation of one’s persona.
- Statutory protection: It is provided across intellectual property laws.
- The Copyright Act, 1957, grants performers exclusive rights (Section 38A) and moral rights (Section 38B) to control the reproduction and prevent misuse of their performances.
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999, allows individuals, especially celebrities, to register distinctive traits like names, signatures, or catchphrases as trademarks.
- For example, actors like Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Ajay Devgn, and Amitabh Bachchan have trademarked their names.
- The tort of “passing off” under Section 27 of the Act protects the goodwill of unregistered marks and prevents misrepresentation that may mislead the public or suggest false endorsement.
Important Judicial Precedents
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu(1994): The Supreme Court upheld privacy rights, ruling that defamation suits, not prior restraint, are the remedy, and consent isn’t needed for public information.
- Rajinikanth v. Producers of Main Hoon Rajnikanth (2014): The Madras High Court upheld Rajinikanth’s right to prevent unauthorized use of his name, image, and style, ruling that infringement doesn’t require proof of falsity or confusion if the celebrity is easily identifiable.
- 2023, Anil Kapoor Case: The Delhi High Court protected Anil Kapoor’s personality rights, barring unauthorized use of his name, image, voice, and catchphrase “jhakaas.”
- 2024, Jackie Shroff Case: The Delhi High Court emphasized that unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s persona violates their rights and damages their brand value.
- 2024, Arijit Singh Case: The Bombay High Court reaffirmed protection of an individual’s name, voice, image, and likeness under personality and publicity rights.
Challenge of Balancing Personality Rights with Free Expression
- A critical concern arising from the protection of personality rights is its potential to infringe upon freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Critics argue that the expansive scope of personality rights may stifle creative works such as parodies, satire, and artistic expression.
- Courts, however, have continuously sought to strike a balance, ensuring that genuine creative uses, such as criticism or commentary, are protected under the right to free speech.
- DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010): In this case, the Delhi High Court ruled that while personality rights protect an individual’s likeness, parodies and lampooning are generally exempt from such protection, acknowledging that freedom of expression should not be unduly constrained.
- Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt. Ltd. (2023): The Delhi High Court reinforced that satire and artistic uses of celebrity personas do not infringe upon publicity rights, as long as there is no misrepresentation or deception that could mislead the public.
Need for Legislative Reform
- Despite progress by the judiciary in protecting personality rights, experts,emphasize the urgent need for legislative intervention.
- The lack of a comprehensive framework results in piecemeal protections, creating gaps in enforcement.
- Additionally, personality rights shouldn’t be exclusive to celebrities, as ordinary citizens, particularly women, face increasing threats from deepfakes and revenge pornography, necessitating targeted legal reforms.
Conclusion
India has made progress in protecting personality rights, especially for celebrities, challenges remain in providing consistent legislative safeguards, particularly in the digital age. The rise of generative AI and digital manipulation underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legislative reforms to balance privacy, dignity, and creative expression.
