AI Generated Melodies: Arijit Singh And The Personality Rights Debate
Though the right to freedom of speech allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the licence to exploit a celebrity's persona for commercial gain, the Bombay High Court has held.
Artificial intelligence tools that enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without their permission constitute a violation of the celebrity's personality rights, the Bombay High Court has held.
Arijit Singh, one of the most sought-after singers in the Bollywood music industry, filed a case before the high court in an attempt to seek protection of his personality rights—in other words, his own name, voice, signature, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona, and various other attributes of his personality—against unauthorised commercial exploitation.
It was Singh’s contention that various online platforms were exploiting different facets of his personality for commercial gain. These include the use of AI models to create content using his voice, the use of his pictures as click-bait to sell event tickets, the sale of merchandise featuring his name and images, and similar practices.
In this backdrop, Singh demanded that the platforms in question be restrained from using his personality rights so that his status and his career are not jeopardised.
Allowing his request, the high court said that even though the right to 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.
What shocks the conscience of this court is the manner in which celebrities, particularly performers such as Arijit Singh, are vulnerable to being targeted by unauthorised generative AI content.Bombay High Court
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, the court said.
Citing precedents wherein courts have taken a similar view, the high court observed that allowing such platforms to continue using Singh’s personality in the form of AI content, and that too without his consent, not only risks severe economic harm to his career but also leaves room for opportunities for misuse of such tools for nefarious purposes.
The court also restrained the unauthorised use of any of Singh's personality traits in any form or media, including online platforms, publications, advertisements, promotional materials, merchandise, domain names, or any other commercial endeavour.
A Divergent Legal View
It is fairly settled that celebrities are entitled to protect various facets of their personalities against unauthorised commercial exploitation by third parties.
There are some recent high court decisions that have reiterated this principle, coupled with a 1994 top court verdict in what is famously known as the “Auto Shankar” case.
In the Auto Shankar case, the court stated that it cannot turn a blind eye to the misappropriation of a celebrity's name and other aspects of their persona. It stated that dilution, tarnishment, and blurring of movies and photographs are all actionable torts from which the person in question must be safeguarded.
However, there is a unique view that the Delhi High Court took last year while adjudicating a dispute wherein some cricketers were seeking to protect their personality rights.
The high court remarked that using names or pictures of celebrities in parodies, art, scholarship, music, academics and other similar ways is permissible, as facets of the right to freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution, and would not violate their personality rights.
It stated that the right to publicity of one's personality cannot be infringed merely on the basis of a celebrity being identified or a party making commercial gain out of the publicity. In the absence of specific legislation, the right to publicity cannot be an absolute right in India, as the high court highlighted.
As a natural consequence of these observations, the high court refused to restrain the third-party app that was using these cricketers’ personalities for commercial gain.
In today's day and age, there are myriad ways in which a celebrity's personality traits can be exploited for monetary gain. It would only be appropriate that the apex court take a fresh view of the controversy and settle the personality rights debate for the foreseeable future.
