Author: Ms. Somya Gupta, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies affiliated to GGSIPU
To the point
The law of personality rights occupies a unique intersection between privacy, property, and intellectual property. Traditionally invoked by celebrities to prevent unauthorised commercial use of their image or name, these rights now face new threats from AI-generated content capable of cloning human likeness and voice with uncanny precision.
Unlike conventional infringement, where proof of direct copying or use is possible, AI-generated simulations operate through algorithmic training and probabilistic generation, often making it difficult to establish mens rea, authorship, or consent. This raises a crucial legal issue: does unauthorised AI replication of a person’s identity amount to infringement of personality rights, even when no physical act of copying occurs?
The Concept and Legal Nature of Personality Rights
Personality rights, also referred to as publicity rights or right to identity, protect the commercial and moral value associated with an individual’s persona. They encompass the right to control the use of one’s name, image, likeness, voice, signature, and other distinctive attributes.
They derive partly from:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India (right to life, liberty, and dignity),
Common law principles of privacy and passing off, and
Doctrines of unfair competition and unjust enrichment.
Although India lacks codified legislation on the subject, courts have interpreted these rights expansively, blending constitutional and tort law doctrines to address misuse of personal identity.
Use of Legal Jargon
Persona juris – legal personality or individual identity
Jus in personam / Jus in rem – right against a person / right against the world
Right of publicity – control over commercial use of one’s image or likeness
Right of privacy – protection from unwarranted intrusion
Misappropriation of persona – unauthorised use of personal attributes
Passing off / False endorsement – misleading association with another’s identity
Unjust enrichment – wrongful gain from another’s persona
Quantum of damages – amount of compensation awarded
Onus probandi – burden of proof
Prima facie – apparent at first sight
Ubi jus ibi remedium: where there is a right, there is a remedy
Mens rea / Actus reus – guilty mind / wrongful act
Ex parte injunction – interim restraint without hearing the other party
Locus standi – legal standing to sue
Algorithmic misappropriation – AI-based replication of one’s identity
Digital impersonation / Deepfake – synthetic simulation of real persons
Statutory vacuum – absence of a governing law
Constitutional morality – adherence to the values of the Constitution
Right to dignity – intrinsic facet of Article 21
The Proof
Establishing proof in cases involving AI-generated impersonation poses unique evidentiary burdens:
Causation: The claimant must establish a causal nexus between the AI output and the misappropriation of their persona. Expert forensic testimony and digital watermarking evidence are often required.
Identifiability: Even if AI alters certain features, liability arises if the content creates a recognisable association with the claimant’s identity (Titan Industries, supra).
Lack of Consent: Proof of non-consensual use—especially where no licence or authorisation exists—forms the core of the claim.
Commercial Exploitation: Courts typically require that the persona be exploited for commercial advantage or unjust enrichment.
Harm to Reputation or Dignity: When AI-generated content is defamatory, obscene, or misleading, the harm extends beyond economic loss to constitutional injury under Article 21.
Statutory and Regulatory Lacunae
India lacks codified legislation specifically addressing personality rights or AI-generated impersonation. The IT Act, 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, provide partial remedies but do not encompass identity synthesis or deepfake misuse. Absence of a dedicated statutory regime creates interpretative uncertainty regarding jurisdiction, intermediary liability, and quantum of damages.
Abstract
The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has disrupted the boundaries of creativity, privacy, and intellectual property. Among the most pressing legal questions is the status of personality rights—an individual’s proprietary and dignitary interest in their own identity—when confronted with AI-generated content such as deepfakes, synthetic voices, and virtual avatars. This paper examines the doctrinal evolution of personality rights in India, analyses judicial precedents, compares global legal responses, and explores the evidentiary and enforcement challenges posed by AI-generated impersonation. It argues that the protection of personality rights must be anchored not only in commercial exploitation concerns but also in the constitutional guarantee of dignity and autonomy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Case laws
1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632: The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy includes control over publication of one’s life story without consent, except in matters of public record. This decision laid the constitutional foundation for personality protection under Article 21.
2. ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) 26 PTC 245 (Del): The Delhi High Court differentiated between privacy and publicity rights, recognising that every individual has the exclusive right to profit from their persona. It emphasised that the right of publicity vests in the individual, not in the event or activity they are associated with.
3. Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) 50 PTC 486 (Del): The Court restrained unauthorised use of actors Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan’s images in an advertisement, holding that using a celebrity’s persona without consent amounts to misappropriation and passing off.
4. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 6462): The Delhi High Court granted sweeping injunctive relief to Anil Kapoor, restraining deepfakes, AI-generated content, or memes misusing his face, voice, and gestures. The judgment explicitly acknowledged that digital and AI misappropriation fall within the ambit of personality rights.
5. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 4147): The Court issued an omnibus injunction protecting the actor’s name, image, voice, and likeness from unauthorised commercial exploitation, setting a strong precedent for digital and AI contexts.
Comparative Jurisdictions
United States: The right of publicity is recognised under state laws (notably in California and New York). Celebrities have successfully litigated cases involving voice imitation and deepfakes. For instance, Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988) held that unauthorised voice imitation infringes the performer’s right of publicity.
European Union: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and proposed EU AI Act impose strict consent and transparency obligations on AI systems generating human-like content. The right to erasure (Article 17 GDPR) empowers individuals to demand deletion of AI-generated impersonations.
United Kingdom: Though lacking a statutory right of publicity, individuals may seek redress under passing off, data protection, or misuse of private information. In Irvine v. Talksport Ltd. (2002), use of a racing driver’s image without consent was held actionable as false endorsement.
Challenges in Enforcement
Jurisdictional Ambiguity: AI content is disseminated globally, complicating the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts.
Anonymity of AI Actors: Identifying the person or platform responsible for generating or hosting the infringing content remains difficult.
Absence of Statutory Framework: Unlike copyright or trademark law, personality rights lack codified procedures for registration or enforcement.
Platform Liability: The role of intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000 remains uncertain when AI systems hosted on their platforms produce infringing material.
Legislative and Policy Imperatives
To reconcile innovation with personal autonomy, India should consider:
Codifying Personality Rights: Through a separate Right of Publicity and Digital Identity Protection Act.
Mandatory Consent and Attribution: Before any use of an individual’s likeness or voice in AI-generated content.
Takedown Mechanism: Similar to copyright notice-and-takedown, for AI impersonations.
Criminalisation of Deepfake Misuse: Where content causes reputational or dignitary harm.
Ethical AI Guidelines: Incorporating consent and fairness principles at the design stage.
Conclusion
AI has democratised creation but simultaneously weaponised imitation. The unauthorised replication of human identity—whether by image synthesis, voice cloning, or generative modelling—violates not only property interests but also the constitutional value of dignity. Courts in India have taken proactive steps through injunctive orders, yet the absence of statutory clarity leaves the field uncertain.
In the ultimate analysis, personality rights must evolve as a hybrid of privacy, property, and moral rights—ensuring that technology respects the individuality it mimics. The law’s guiding principle should be simple: human identity is inalienable, and no algorithm may own it.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What are personality rights?
They are the legal rights that protect a person’s name, likeness, image, voice, or other unique attributes from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
Q2. Do personality rights exist in India by statute?
No. They are recognised through judicial interpretation under Article 21 of the Constitution and common law principles.
Q3. Can AI-generated content violate personality rights?
Yes. If an AI tool creates or distributes content that imitates a person’s likeness or voice without consent, it may amount to infringement, misappropriation, or passing off.
Q4. Are deepfakes illegal in India?
There is no specific statute, but deepfakes can attract liability under the IT Act, IPC provisions on defamation and cheating, and tort principles of misrepresentation.
Q5. Who owns AI-generated content that uses a person’s identity?
If created without consent, such content cannot confer ownership rights to the creator or platform. The person whose identity is used retains moral and legal control over it.
Q6. What remedies are available?
Aggrieved individuals can seek injunctions, damages, takedown orders, and in severe cases, criminal action under cyber and defamation laws.
