Introduction
Certain words or images immediately make us think of celebrities like “Jhakaas” for Anil Kapoor, or outstretched arms for Shah Rukh Khan. These recognizable traits make up a celebrity’s persona, which is unique and has a lot of commercial value.
With social media, digital content, and fast-changing technology, it is becoming harder to protect these personas. The rise of AI tools like deepfakes and voice cloning has made protecting personality rights more important than ever. It is necessary to address this changing legal area to protect a person’s dignity, prevent misuse for profit, and fill gaps in current laws.
What is personality right?
Personality rights give a person the power to control how their identity like their name, image, voice, or likeness is used for commercial purposes. These rights are different from copyright but are related. They act like a form of intellectual property or publicity right, helping prevent others from exploiting someone’s fame or persona without permission.
Personality rights are often enforced through laws like trademark (for passing off), privacy rules, and other specific statutes. They are especially important today with the rise of AI, deepfakes, and digital misuse.
While copyright protects creative works like books, music, or art, personality rights protect the individual themselves and the commercial value of their fame, ensuring that they stay in control of how their identity is used.
Let’s discuss one of the most important judgments on this topic which is Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors (2024).
Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. (2024)
Brief details in Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. (2024)
| Name of the Case | Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. |
| Parties of the Case | Plaintiff – Arijit SinghRespondent – Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. |
| Equivalent Citations | COM IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024 |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay |
| Bench | Justice Riyaz Iqbal Chagla |
| Judgment Date | 26/7/2024 |
Facts of the case
Arijit Singh, originally from Murshidabad, West Bengal, came from a humble background and had a strong passion for music from a young age. He rose to fame as a contestant on the reality show Fame Gurukul and later became one of India’s most celebrated playback singers, establishing himself as a prominent celebrity.
In this case, Arijit Singh sought legal protection for his personality rights, including his name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, caricature, and other personal attributes, against unauthorized commercial use. The case also involved violations of his moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Several unauthorized actions by third parties forced Arijit Singh to approach the court. Various AI platforms were found to be misusing his voice, image, and other personal attributes without his consent. These platforms enabled users to convert text or audio into his voice, create music, and generate deepfake videos that closely imitated his voice and likeness. Such tools were actively promoted through online tutorials, and dedicated websites offered AI models based on his identity without any authorization.
Apart from this, there were instances of false association with Arijit Singh. A restaurant in Bengaluru used his name and image to promote an event without his permission, while another individual advertised a virtual music event that falsely suggested his participation or endorsement.
His personality rights were also misused through the unauthorized sale of merchandise bearing his name, image, and likeness on various e-commerce platforms. Additionally, certain GIF platforms allowed users to create and share GIFs of his performances for profit, exploiting his image without consent.
Further, unknown entities registered domain names containing Arijit Singh’s name, some of which redirected users to third-party websites. Arijit Singh clarified that these examples were only illustrative and not exhaustive, as many infringers operated anonymously. While defendants whose identities were known were specifically named in the case, unidentified parties were named as “Ashok Kumar” or “John Doe.”
Issues raised in Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. (2024)
- Whether a third party can use a celebrity’s name, voice, image, or other personal attributes for commercial purposes?
- Whether individuals or entities operating AI and related platforms can justify using a celebrity’s attributes without consent by claiming protection under the right to freedom of speech and expression?
Arguments from both sides
Arijit Singh approached the court because several people and platforms were using his name, voice, image, and likeness without his permission to make money. AI platforms were copying his voice and creating fake songs and videos, while others used his name to promote events, sold merchandise with his image, shared clips and GIFs from his performances, and even registered websites using his name. He argued that all this misuse harmed his reputation and violated his personal and legal rights.
The court agreed that a celebrity’s identity has real value and cannot be used without consent. It clarified that freedom of speech does not allow anyone to commercially exploit a celebrity’s persona. As a result, the Court granted protection to stop further misuse of Arijit Singh’s personality rights.
Judicial analysis in Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors. (2024)
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court addressed a case involving the misuse of a celebrity’s personality and made important observations:
Protection of personality traits
The court recognized that celebrities have the right to protect key aspects of their personality such as their name, image, voice, signature, and likeness from being used commercially without permission.
Unauthorized use as violation
The court noted that the defendants’ use of the plaintiff’s name, voice, photo, image, likeness, and other personal attributes for commercial purposes, including offering AI tools that could imitate a celebrity’s voice, amounted to a violation of the plaintiff’s personality rights and public persona.
Not protected under free speech
The court clarified that such commercial exploitation is not protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression. While free speech allows for commentary or critique, it does not permit using a celebrity’s personality for profit without consent.
Judgment in Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP (2024)
Based on these findings, the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. This dynamic injunction prevents the defendants from violating the plaintiff’s personality rights in any way for commercial or personal gain. Additionally, the defendants were directed to remove, suspend, or transfer any domain names or other materials that violated the plaintiff’s rights.
Conclusion
The Arijit Singh case makes it clear that a celebrity has the right to control how their name, voice, image, and identity are used. The Bombay High Court firmly held that no one can misuse a person’s identity for profit, even through AI tools or digital platforms, without permission. This judgment is important because it protects individual dignity and sets a strong warning against the misuse of technology, especially in cases involving deepfakes and voice cloning.
