Aishwarya Rai, Karan Johar File for Personality Rights: New Legal Battles Over Identity in Digital India

In the past few weeks, a number of high-profile cases before the Delhi High Court, filed by Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, followed by Abhishek Bachchan, and now Karan Johar, have sparked a complicated legal and philosophical firestorm. They are fighting for control over what they call "personality rights." This is a vague legal idea that is being put to the test by Artificial Intelligence (AI), deepfake technology, and the internet's free market logic. The fact that they are rushing to court is not just a trend, but a desperate attempt to establish a legal moat around the self before it is completely erased by digital reproduction.Unlike the US, India does not have a specific law about the "right of publicity". Instead, the protection of a person's persona is a fragile mosaic made up of different legal ideas, each of which only partially covers the person. As the Madras High Court noted in the Rajinikanth vs Varsha Productions 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158 case, while no statute defines “Personality Right”, Indian courts have gradually recognised it through judicial precedent. This protection is indirect and fragmented.The Copyright Act of 1957 gives performers some protection. Sections 38A and 38B give performers exclusive commercial rights and "moral rights," which include the right to be credited and the right to maintain the work's integrity. Section 57 further safeguards an author’s (or performer’s) specific rights, a notion that intersects with the principle of personal dignity. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, also lets famous people register their names as "trademarks" (Section 2(m). This is how people like Baba Ramdev have their names registered as trademark and have protected their identities from being used for business purposes.The Constitution itself is still the most important legal anchor. The tension is a typical example of a democratic tug-of-war. Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of expression and the press, which includes the right to report on things that are of public interest about celebrities. The Right to Privacy, which was established in the landmark case Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union Of India ((2017) 10 SCC 1), and the Right to Life with Dignity under Article 21 are both pulling from the other end. This is where the courts have started to draw a new line in the sand. The Delhi High Court's omnibus injunction in the Amitabh Bachchan case [CS(COMM) 819/2022] was a first of its kind. It prohibited the world at large from using his name, image, voice, or any defining characteristic without consent.Part 1: What The *@#$ is AI? Why in Hell is it Taking My Job!The American Right of Publicity originated from privacy law, solidified in Haelan Laboratories vs Topps Chewing Gum (1953) (202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953)). The court acknowledged an individual's commercially valued, transferable interest in their image, separate from privacy considerations. Celebrities, like actors and athletes, make money by letting advertisers use their likenesses only. Such exclusivity is important and without it, the right isn't worth anything. The court held that an earlier grant of publicity rights is more important than later agreements that conflict with it within its term. This case made the Right of Publicity an interest that resembles property and holds a monetary value, separate from privacy or personal dignity.Traditionally, UK law emphasised defamation over privacy. A shift occurred in the early 2000s, notably with Douglas vs Hello! Ltd ([2005] EWCA Civ 595). The Douglases, who sold exclusive wedding photo rights to OK! Magazine, faced an intrusion when an unauthorised photographer sold images to rival Hello! Magazine. Although an initial injunction blocked publication, it was later lifted, prompting OK! to rush their issue and suffer losses. The Court of Appeal held that the Douglases and OK! had a legitimate commercial confidence in the photos, since they were not public and carried clear economic value. Each image represented confidential information, and Hello!’s interference intentionally undermined those rights. Damages were awarded for breach of confidence and economic loss. This case, along with the Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, established privacy as a legal safeguard for celebrities controlling their public image.There are, however, others who criticise this growth of personality rights as a possible weapon against free speech. The courts in India have indicated that they grasp this threat in a sophisticated way. The Delhi High Court made an important point in DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Baby Gift House & Ors 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790 that too much focus on publicity rights could negate the exercise of this invaluable democratic right. “In a free and democratic society, where every individual's right to free speech is assured, the over emphasis on a famous person's publicity rights can tend to chill the exercise of such invaluable democratic right. Thus, for instance, caricature, lampooning, parodies and the like, which may tend to highlight some aspects of the individual's personality traits, may not constitute infringement of such individual's right to publicity. If it were held otherwise, an entire genre of expression would be unavailable to the general public. Such caricature, lampooning or parody may be expressed in a variety of ways, ie, cartoons in newspapers, mime, theatre, even films, songs, etc. Such forms of expression cannot be held to amount to commercial exploitation, per se; if the individual is of the view that the form of expression defames or disparages him, the remedy of damages for libel, or slander, as the case may be, would then, is available to him.”Delhi High Court in DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Baby Gift House & Ors The court made room for caricatures, lampoons, and parodies, which are the heart and soul of satire and cultural critique.A personality right that is too strong can be used to censor others, letting the powerful stifle criticism and get rid of bad parody. One that is too weak makes a person a product that any company with the best AI model can buy, sell, and change. The courts are now striving to find that balance in real time with every new case.Anil Kapoor's Personality Rights: Licensing Must Not Lead to Creative CrackdownsThere is a reason for all the litigation. It is a direct response to a huge rise in the power of technology. Voice simulation and image modification, which were mentioned in the Bachchan case, are no longer things that only high-end VFX companies can perform. These options are available as either inexpensive software or subscription-based services online, or through various free AI tools accessible on the internet.AI doesn't just make it easier to break the law, it also changes the nature of the harm. A fake poster is a still image, a deepfake video is a moving, convincing falsehood. An AI-generated avatar of a celebrity, on the other hand, can hold unending live streams that promote companies and ideas in real time, ruining their reputation and dignity for good.“When the identity of a famous personality is used without their consent or authorisation, it may not only lead to commercial detriment to the concerned individual but also impact their right to live with dignity," said Justice Tejas Karia, who is presiding over some of these recent petitions. "In other words, the unauthorised exploitation of the attributes of an individual’s personality may have two facets – first, violation of their right to protect their personality attributes from being commercially exploited; and second, violation of their right to privacy, which in turn leads to undermining their right to live with dignity,”Justice Tejas KariaIn a recent hearing, he observed, “Personality Rights of individuals, simply put, entail the right to control and protect the exploitation of one’s image, name, likeness or other attributes of the individuals’ personality, in addition to the commercial gains that can be derived from the same. Personality Rights can be located in the individuals’ autonomy to permit or deny the exploitation of the likeness of other attributes of their personality.” This judicial focus on dignity marks a significant elevation of the discourse, framing it not just as a property dispute but as a fundamental rights issue.The petitioners are not just seeking damages for past infringements; they are seeking broad, preemptive injunctions for their digital selves. They are rushing to establish legal precedent before the technology evolves beyond the current judiciary’s understanding. They are, in effect, trying to future-proof their identities.There are still many unanswered questions on the road ahead. The courts have made progress, but a patchwork of case law is hardly a good base for something as important as identity. There is disagreement among legal professionals about whether there should be a comprehensive law that explicitly defines personality rights, their limitations, and their duration. For example, do these rights end with death, or can they be passed on like a trademark?The answers will not only shape celebrity culture, but also the essence of what we define as 'unique'. Will a strong personality right become something that only the rich and famous can afford to fight for in court? Would this create a two-tiered system where the identities of the powerful are legally safeguarded while those of regular people are freely mined for AI training data? The architecture constructed for Bollywood stars today could become the norm for everyone tomorrow, or it could just make things worse.Also, when AI-generated identities become more popular, will a completely fake influencer have "personality rights"? The legal fiction is already coming apart at the seams.In these well-known situations, the call to action is clear. It asks lawmakers to stop infighting and deal with the big problems that technology brings. It is a call for a public discussion on the limits of identity, consent, and business in a future where people could potentially be cloned without their knowledge.(The writer is a published author and praticing Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. This is an opinion piece. All views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)Deepfake Shared as Real Video of Notable Indians Promoting Musk’s Quantum AI

BECOME A MEMBER

Personality Rights: Should Laws Help Preserve Self or Protect Free Speech?

In a world of AI and deepfakes, celebrities today are trying to future-proof their identities.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Celebrity Digital Culture Members Only