Introduction
The Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India case throws light on the misuse of public figures’ personas in the digital age. Kapoor’s voice, likeness, and identity were exploited for unauthorized endorsements and objectionable content. The Delhi High Court’s ruling emphasized protecting personality rights against technological misuse, particularly AI-generated content like deep fakes. This case underscores the urgent need for legal frameworks to safeguard personal and professional integrity in the face of evolving digital threats.
Real Use of what is Artificial
Something so fundamental to our personhood, something that forms what makes us human – can become a topic of controversy in terms of ownership and usage. This is a reality to many, specifically to those who are public figures and who are walking brand deals and advertisements themselves.
The internet opens us to a spectrum of creativity and is a fairly open platform for one to utilise and create or generate content for commercial and social consumption. Yet, renowned Actor Anil Kapoor of bollywood fame was entangled in a legal fight for his rights, showcasing the misuse of this creative freedom.
His name, his voice, image, likeness, persona and even the manner of his speaking were being misused across various internet platforms. His name and likeness were used for false endorsements alongside charging fees to use his artificially generated images for the publishing of pornographic content. Further, unauthorized domain names were created on ‘his behalf’.
From a socio-ethical perspective, The Delhi High Court went on to lament and condemn the disproportionately open lives those embroiled in fame must face, of how while free speech protects genuine criticism and creative autonomy of parody, unauthorized commercial use will remain illegal. This is especially because endorsement rights are a major source of livelihood that needs protection. As a protection measure, the court ordered the immediate blocking of offending links and the takedown of the pornographic content.
With Great Rights comes Great Responsibilities
The courts demarcated a strong boundary between what is considered free speech and creative output in comparison to what harms and hinders an individual’s life and growth. The tarnishment of someone’s personality was defined as ‘where speech crosses the realm of free speech, since it infringes upon another’s rights, and causes harm’.
The bounds of such generated content call for potential large-scale damages, moving into murky waters. One such misuse flagged by Kapoor was the usage of his ‘autographs’ thus highlighting the production of his signature for commercial purposes. The repercussions of something like this could be financially and contractually, if not in many other ways, monumentally damaging.
Usage of AI to generate ‘deep fakes’ and the creation of pornographic content becomes a new age weapon that can be used against vulnerable groups, specifically minors and women who use social media and other online platforms. Often becoming victims of child sexual abuse under POCSO or the growth of crimes such as ‘revenge pornography’, regulating and proactively tackling AI generation and usage becomes even more important especially given the ease and rapid rate with which such content can be published and shared online.
The Anil Kapoor case gives us an important intersection of a ruling by the Delhi High Court.
between celebrities rights and technological advancements. The judgment weaves together these two seemingly different aspects: that of traditional personality protections that individuals enjoy and emerging digital threats in the new age of instant content creation.
The Court relied on Indian constitutional principles and international precedents, such as connecting Article 21’s privacy guarantees with personality rights, thus creating a rather robust framework for protection in the digital age. Primarily, the R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632 and Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America 971 F.2d 1395 (1992) were cases used to substantiate the various fundamental rights and replication of likeness aspects of this case respectively. However, the court had to confront a rather modern dilemma: how to protect personality rights against technologies that can perfectly mimic anyone’s likeness, voice, or mannerisms. This poses the challenge of crossing the boundaries where parody ends and violation begins.
As the dawn of the Artificial age begins, the ease of generating, producing, reproducing and replicating content in the open source has become alarming, with cases such as this becoming habitual. This case throws a spotlight on certain immediate, or rather, interim solutions that are worth reviewing, lest issues like this spread further. Yet, the need for AI Regulation becomes much more imperative. While the judgment gives direct relief to celebrities who are suffering from digital exploitation, it also rings a warning bell. Our legal systems, which were traditionally reactive, must become proactive in guarding against technological threats to personality rights.
Conclusion
The Anil Kapoor case is of crucial relevance where personality rights converge with new technologies. It makes the creation of a likeness an issue with regards to privacy, consent, and the ethics of its use with increasing AI technological developments. Such courts must then step forward proactively to ensure such misuse in likenesses creates harm in various aspects, namely monetary, emotional, and reputation damage. Comprehensive AI regulation is necessary to prevent exploitation and encourage responsible use of technology, protecting both public figures and vulnerable groups from digital threats such as deepfakes and the unauthorized distribution of their content. This case serves as a wake-up call to update legal systems to respond to modern challenges, ensuring strong protection for the rights of personality in a more virtual world.
Author: Diya Anand Vinekar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
References
- https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1459&context=jatip
- https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/r-rajajgopal-ors-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors
- https://www.theippress.com/2023/10/09/delhi-high-courts-landmark-order-protecting-anil-kapoors-persona-in-the-age-of-ai-an-indian-legal-perspective/
- https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/sep/21/indian-actor-anil-kapoor-wins-court-battle-over-ai-use-of-his-likeness