Publicity rights in the AI era: Key takeaways from artist Arijit Singh’s recent legal Victory in India

This cat is totally spooked by the idea of mew cloning!
(photographed by Mina)

In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors., the Bombay Court recently took a pro-publicity and -personality rights stance in an ex-parte ad-interim order concerning the unauthorized use and cloning of Indian artist Arijit Singh’s voice by multiple defendants. The court ordered the following actions: (1) to take down, remove, delete, block access to, or suspend all infringing content that had been uploaded; (2) to suspend the domain names arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in; and (3) to delete all references to the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, personality traits, etc., in existing videos.

This decision underscores the critical importance of voice as an integral part of a one’s persona, while also highlighting the impact that voice synthesis and cloning technologies have on the publicity and personality rights regime.

Background

Arijit Singh, a globally recognized award-winning Bollywood playback singer and composer, who first rose to fame on the music reality show "Fame Gurukul”, sought to protect his publicity and personality rights, including his likeness, image, name and, most importantly, his voice, vocal style, and mannerisms in an effort to prevent the unauthorized commercial exploitation of these elements in the context of deepfakes.

In essence, Arijit Singh lamented a troubling array of violations of his publicity and personality rights. This included the misuse of AI technology to create deepfake recordings of his voice, misleading events that falsely implied his endorsement, and the registration of domain names bearing his name. 

In its judgment, the Court acknowledged that the proliferation of technological tools, including AI, has made it easier for unauthorized users to exploit and imitate one’s own personal attributes. 

The court ruled in favour of Singh, drawing on established precedents, namely Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India. In its reasoning, the court emphasized that publicity and personality rights are legally recognized in India, and that unauthorized use of one’s own personal attributes may breach such rights. The same court had previously affirmed in the Karan Johar case that publicity rights are vested in celebrities, and that any unauthorized use of their name or personal attributes might have implications for their career and livelihood.

Building on this, and connecting to cases of false endorsement and merchandising, the court referenced Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, which stated:

The celebrity's right of endorsement would in fact be a major source of livelihood for the celebrity, which cannot be destroyed completely by permitting unlawful dissemination and sale of merchandise … bearing the face or attributes of their persona on it without their lawful authorisation. (Emphasis added)

It is important to note that the suit also addresses the breach of Singh’s moral rights in his performances, as granted under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. However, the court did not address this aspect at this stage. [It will be interesting to see how and if this issue develops as the case progresses]

From Bollywood to Hollywood to the EU?

This Kat views this decision with a paw-sitive eye. In the AI era, where technology increasingly blurs the lines between actual and virtual reality, protecting one’s public persona is more critical than ever. These elements are not only central to individual identity, but also form the foundation of one’s own professional success.

Recent developments suggest a growing concern towards establishing a more comprehensive publicity and personality rights regime that is going to address the rampant creation and dissemination of deepfakes. 

Before voice cloning was a thing…

Not too long ago, Warner Music CEO Robert Kyncl advocated for treating "name, image, likeness, and voice" with the same level of protection as copyright, suggesting a stronger property-like right. Earlier this year, the US state of Tennessee took a significant step forward by adopting the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act. For the first time, the Act explicitly includes a person's voice as a protected property right, defining "voice" broadly to encompass both an individual's actual voice and any simulation of it. 

Hollywood performers are also making strides in securing control over their personal attributes. Recently, SAG-AFTRA struck a deal with Narrativ, allowing its members to license their “digital voice replicas” for use in digital audio advertising. Meanwhile, the U.S. Copyright Office has published the first part of its report on Copyright and AI, addressing a wide range of issues related to digital replicas, covering AI-generated content in various forms, including musical performances, robocall impersonations of political candidates, and also images in pornographic content. 

So, the million-dollar question is once again: Quo vadis Europa? Is the mention of deepfake technology in the recently enacted AI Act (Article 50, paragraph 4) sufficient to regulate this issue across the EU, or is more legislative work needed to strengthen the fragmented image rights regime in Europe? [Most probably the latter]