The growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought with it a new threat to personal identity, with a person’s face, voice, mannerisms and even signature expressions increasingly capable of being replicated, manipulated and commercially exploited without their knowledge or consent. Courts, for some time now, have been called upon to draw boundaries around what constitutes legitimate use of a person’s identity and what amounts to its unlawful appropriation. The Delhi High Court’s decision granting veteran actor Amitabh Bachchan permanent
The growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought with it a new threat to personal identity, with a person’s face, voice, mannerisms and even signature expressions increasingly capable of being replicated, manipulated and commercially exploited without their knowledge or consent. Courts, for some time now, have been called upon to draw boundaries around what constitutes legitimate use of a person’s identity and what amounts to its unlawful appropriation. The Delhi High Court’s decision granting veteran actor Amitabh Bachchan permanent protection against the unauthorised use of his name, image, voice and other attributes of his persona is part of this emerging judicial response. What began as a 2022 lawsuit against websites, mobile apps, posters and merchandise has acquired greater significance in an age where technology can recreate a person’s likeness and voice with startling accuracy.
The courts have intervened in cases involving several other actors, who sought protections against the AI-mediated commercial exploitation of their likeness. The concern straddles the financial harm of copyright violations and new risks of reputational damage. Yet, the legal boundaries are still evolving. In an order protecting actor Kriti Sanon, the Delhi HC made an important distinction between the commercial right to exploit one’s identity and the personal rights to privacy, dignity and reputation. It cautioned that mere use of someone’s identity is not necessarily unlawful, while protecting legitimate news, criticism, satire and parody. This distinction will become increasingly important. Personality rights cannot become a means of controlling public discourse any more than copyright can legitimise every claim over creative material. The challenge for courts is to protect individuals from technological exploitation without placing legitimate creativity and freedom of expression under a cloud.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website