Introduction
In a recent landmark judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of renowned singer Arijit Singh. Arijit Singh had approached the Hon'ble Court to seek protection of his personality and publicity rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Facts:
Arijit Singh is a prominent playback singer in the Indian music industry. He initiated an intellectual property suit1 against multiple defendants, including one Codible Ventures LLP alleging the exploitation of his personality traits through various mediums like Youtube, including AI-generated content like voice modulation, deepfake videos, etc., printing and selling of merchandise on various third party apps, etc.
Arijit Singh claimed that his name, image, voice, mannerism, signature and other personality attributes were being used for commercial purposes without his consent. This was done by hosting websites which directed its user to use AI platforms where any text/ speech could be converted into the Arijit Singh's AI voice, create music in his voice, convert user's own voice and / or any sound recording and / or song of their choice to the voice of their desired celebrity including Arijit Singh's voice.
It was contended that some of the Defendants were exploiting the Plaintiff's publicity rights, goodwill and reputation by advertising, promoting and offering for sale various merchandise such as clothing, guitar, phone cases, sweatshirts, greeting cards, mugs, magnets, spiral notebook, etc. on e-commerce website. Whereas, some of the Defendants were providing its users to create, store, search and share GIFs comprising of short video recordings of the Arijit's performances.
In light of these infringements, Arijit Singh filed an interim application2 for seeking injunction against multiple Defendants who were causing harm to his personality and publicity rights.
Observation:
The Hon'ble Court observed that the exploitation of technology undermines the ability to prevent commercial and deceptive use of their identity whilst infringing upon the individual's right to control and protect their own likeness. By allowing Defendants to continue to allow using name, voice, likeness, etc. in the form of an AI content, without consent of the Plaintiff, would risks economic harm to the Plaintiff's life/career and additionally it shall provide opportunity to public at large to mis-utilize such tools for nefarious purposes.
The Hon'ble Court noted that Arijit Singh had intentionally refrained from brand endorsements and the commercialization of his persona for several years. The Hon'ble Court considered that due to the various activities of the Defendants as elaborated in the Plaint, irreparable harm was caused to Arijit Singh's reputation and career.
The Hon'ble Court relied on the judgment passed in case of Karan Johar vs Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.3 and Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India4 and observed that the personality / publicity rights are vested in the celebrities and it is in fact their livelihood. Unauthorised usage of their name, voice, or other persona amounts to violation of their personality and publicity rights.
On pleading for ex-parte reliefs, the Hon'ble Court was convinced that by issuing notice to the defendants would undermine the relief sought by Arijit Singh. The Hon'ble Court held that it is settled position of law that in case for protecting personality rights and right to publicity, the primary ingredient is establishing the status of the celebrity and that the defendant's unauthorised use is for commercial gains.
Decision:
The Hon'ble Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Arijit Singh by prohibiting the defendants from violating personality and publicity rights of Arijit Singh by using or exploiting his name, voice, mannerism, personality traits on virtual medium such as websites, metaverse, social media, etc. Further, the Hon'ble Court also locked/suspended the domain names which were created in the name of Arijit Singh. A direction was given to remove / delete all references to the Plaintiff's name, voice, personality traits in the videos which blatantly violated Plaintiff's personality and publicity rights.
Conclusion:
This judgment gives importance to protecting personality and publicity rights in an era of rapid technological advancements such as AI. It highlights the role of the judiciary in preventing the unauthorized exploitation of a celebrity's persona for commercial gains. This case sets a crucial precedent for future disputes involving the misuse of personal attributes and safeguards individual's rights in this digital age.
Footnotes
1. Com IRP Suit (L) No. 23443 of 2024
2. Interim Application (L) No. 23560 of 2024
3. Order dated June 13, 2024 in Interim Application (L) No. 17865 of 2024 in Comm. IPR Suit (L)No. 17863 of 2024
4. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.