Introduction
Artificial intelligence is developing at breakneck speed and thereby bringing radical changes in various fields, such as music, cinema, and digital media. It’s now possible to use an AI tool to create texts, produce images, and even replicate someone’s voice almost perfectly. However, the increased use of AI for generating content brings with it the serious legal and moral implications of impersonally appropriating an individual’s personality-including their voice and likeness[1].
An illustrative classic case of this issue in India is Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, whereby the Bombay High Court found itself seized with the matter regarding unauthorized AI-generated replication of the voice of the Arijit Singh[2]. The case raises critical issues like the personality right, copyright protection, and ethical use of AI in content creation. The judgment of the court in favour of Singh marks a watershed moment for Indian intellectual law and accentuates the pressing need for regulatory measures to protect artists from digital impersonation and exploitation.
This article shall discuss the details of the case, its legal implications, AI ethics in more general terms, and the consequent need for reform in Indian law to address the challenges opened by AI-generated content.
Background of the Case
As one of the most revered playback singers of India, Arijit Singh became engulfed in a legal battle when he discovered that Codible Ventures LLP had created AI-based software that could mimic his characteristic voice. The software allowed anyone to generate new songs from the AI voice of Singh without his consent. The case was taken to the Bombay High Court, where Singh claimed that the unlawful imitation of his voice was an infringement of personality rights and amounted to commercial digital impersonation to his detriment[3]. He argued that any AI impersonations of his voice would confuse the public, cast him in a bad light, and deprive him of monetization from his well-deserved artistic endeavours.
Codible Ventures LLP stood in defence of what they called fair use of their AI technology, stressing that their product was a new technological advancement that did not infringe upon anything. They also claimed that there was no direct legislative authority in India regulating AI-produced content, making it difficult to categorize their actions as illegal. Nonetheless, Singh was later ruled in favor, creating an important precedent addressing the use of AI-generated likenesses of celebrities in India. The judgment reaffirmed the need for clearly defined legal deterrents against AI exploitation of an individual’s personal attributes[4].
Legal Framework Governing Personality Rights in India
Personality rights were prominently at the forefront of the dispute between Arijit Singh and Codible Ventures LLP, which protect an individual’s identity which consists of their name, picture, voice, and likeness, from being used for commercial purposes without their consent. Personality rights are not addressed under a special statute in India; however, this important right is recognized in India through constitutional provisions, certain intellectual property laws, and certain common law principles.
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Right to privacy related to Article 21 has been constitutionalized as a fundamental right by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The right secures against unauthorized control over a person’s personal qualities, voice and image included[5]. Impersonation through AI would be nothing else but an infringement of such a right.
- Intellectual Property Laws
Personality rights in India have not been specifically covered under the intellectual property laws of India. Different elements of trademark and copyright law can be invoked to suit the protection of a celebrity’s persona:
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999[6]
Celebrities generally register their names and other attributes as trademarks so that no one makes an unauthorized commercial use of them.
- The Copyright Act, 1957[7]
As stated in the Copyright Act of 1957, though copyright law is silent on AI-generated impersonations, it did include original works such as musical performances and compositions from unauthorized reproductions.
- Tort of Passing Off
It is tort of passing off that does not allow by misrepresentation economic detriment to a celebrity. When an AI voice generated with false pretences implies an association that does not exist with the original artist, such passing off can be contested legally. In Star India Pvt Ltd v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd, the Bombay High Court held that misrepresentation would induce an economic injury to the brand or persona of an individual[8], and it is actionable.
- The Right of Publicity
Right of publicity, though not codified in Indian law, has been litigated and upheld in various decisions. It protects the exclusive right of celebrities and public figures to commercially exploit their identities. The Delhi High Court in DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House recognized that unauthorized use of a celebrity’s identity for commercial gain is a violation of the right of publicity[9]. Unauthorized AI voice impersonation would fall within this violation.
Key Issues Addressed in the Judgment
The verdict given by the Bombay High Court in the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP had pivotal legal interpretations with respect to AI-generated content and infringement of celebrity personas. The following core issues were raised:
- Personality Right Violation
The court ruled that AI-generated Voicing based on a celebrity’s voice would infringe their personality rights. Also, it holds that one’s voice is as much identity as a name or even image itself and needs to be protected against unauthorized use. In furtherance of the precedent set in Midler v. Ford Motor Co., wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals held that impersonation of voice without consent would infringe a celebrity’s right of publicity[10]; it goes.
- Economic and Reputational Damages
The decree assumed that the economic loss involved in the impersonation done via AI. It was acting in a manner such that most of the revenues that could have flowed to the artist were diverted from him and were misleading their audiences[11] into thinking that the content developed by AI was original.
- The Role of AI Ethics and Fair Use
Thus, though AI-driven creativity is a legal technological advancement, the court has rejected Codible Ventures LLP’s fair use approach, alleygating that there is unauthorized commercial exploitation[12] of a celebrity persona through AI and that such activity is not protected under fair use.
- The Call for an AI Regulation
The order demands laws defining urgent application concerning the use of deepfake in the digital world such that rights of persons are going to be protected[13].
Comparative Analysis with Global Jurisdictions
The legal discourse about AI impersonation is not solely India’s concern; several other jurisdictions have been aggressive in acting upon it in some form:
- United States
In the United States, there exists the Right of Publicity, which bars commercial exploitation of an individual’s name, likeness, and voice without due authorization[14]. California’s Celebrity Rights Act extends these protections after death so that no postmortem celebrity impersonation may be done without proper authorization.
- European Union
Biometric data are protected under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)[15], so this can be applied in order to shield impersonation from AI-generated images.
- China
Recent regulations in China now stipulate explicit marking of AI-generated media to minimize the risks of deception and unauthorized use.[16]
The Need for AI-Specific Legislation in India
The case of Arijit Singh versus Codible Ventures LLP speaks about the urgent demand of India to bring forth AI-specific regulations regarding legal and ethical implications of lawful impersonations through AI. An indicative list of possible legislative reform might include the following:
- Specific amendments to the Copyright Act, years ago, to cover AI-generated creations.
- A distinct Personality Rights Law akin to the U.S. Right of Publicity.
- Regulatory oversight in AI development with transparency and consent for approval of all AI-generated works.
Conclusion
An important precedent is set in the ruling of the case, Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP, that could safeguard the rights of celebrities in the AI era[17]. AI-generated impersonations may be regarded by the Bombay High Court as an infringement of personality rights, thus taking a huge step in guarding against digital exploitation of the artists’ rights. But there is no clear legal framework regarding AI-generated content which calls upon legislation reforms.
In this context of continual change ushered by AI in the creative fields, it is important to establish strong law that could achieve a balance between such technical progress and the distinct protections for individual rights. Only such broad regulations for AI would assure the ethical development of AI in India while guaranteeing the privacy and commercial interest of artists and celebrities.
Author: Vimansha Nawalgaria, BBA LL.B. (H) student of JIS University, Kolkata (4th year, 8th semester)
Wish to read more articles? Click the link to read more: https://jpassociates.co.in/a-r-rahman-copyright-case/
Link to Bombay High Court’s website: https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/ord_qrywebcase.php
[1] Daniel J. Solove, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age 23–29 (2004)
[2] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, (2024) Bom HC Unreported, available via court records.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, ¶ 3.
[6] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 2(1) (zb), India.
[7] The Copyright Act, 1957, § 14, India.
[8] Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 81 (Bom), ¶ 12.
[9] DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2003 (26) PTC 385 (Del), ¶ 10.
[10] Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), at 463.
[11] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, supra note 2.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1 (West 2024).
[15] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), art. 4(14).
[16] Cyberspace Administration of China, Provisions on the Administration of Deep Synthesis Internet Information Services (2023).
[17] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, supra note 2.
