The Celebrity vs. The Machine: Navigating Personality Rights In A Deepfake World

1. Introduction: Identity as Currency in the Digital Age

In the digital economy, identity is no longer just personal, it is an asset, a brand and increasingly, a target. A face, voice or catchphrase that once belonged to a person's private sphere now travels across borders in seconds, replicated endlessly across platforms, formats and devices. An actor's voice can be cloned for an AI-generated commercial, a singer's style can be copied by an algorithm, a creator's likeness can become the front of a scam they know nothing about.

Against this backdrop, Indian courts have been asked to police the use and misuse of "personality rights": the right of an individual to control the commercial exploitation of their persona, including their name, image, likeness, voice, signature style, mannerisms and other distinctive attributes.

Traditionally, these disputes were rare and largely confined to film stars and sports icons. Over the past two years, however, personality rights have moved to the centre of Indian legal debate, alongside artificial intelligence. A surge of high profile litigation before the Delhi High Court and other forums by celebrities such as Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Asha Bhosle, Arijit Singh, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Karan Johar and others has triggered a rapid and sometimes uneven expansion of this doctrine.

What began as necessary judicial efforts to curb AI-driven deepfakes, fake endorsements and fraudulent schemes now raises deeper questions: a. How far should personality rights extend? b. When do they collide with free speech, artistic creativity and fan culture? c. How should courts distinguish between harmful misappropriation and transformative engagement with public figures? And d. what role should legislation play in recalibrating this expanding field?

This article examines these questions in three broad movements. First, it traces the legal foundation of personality rights in India and the recent litigation that has expanded their scope. Second, it analyses the constitutional and policy tensions between personality rights, free speech and competing livelihoods. Third, it argues for a legislative framework that codifies clear, proportionate and future proof rules for the AI era, while preventing the doctrine from hardening into an instrument for overprotecting fame.

2. The Legal Foundation of Personality Rights in India

India does not yet have a dedicated statute on personality rights. The doctrine is a judicial construct emerging from the intersection of constitutional privacy, intellectual property and tort law.

2.1 Constitutional roots: dignity, privacy and autonomy

The Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) placed privacy firmly within Article 21 guarantee of life and personal liberty. Privacy, as articulated in Puttaswamy case, includes decisional autonomy, informational control and protection against unwanted intrusion into personal life. The ability to decide when, how and by whom one's identity like name, image, likeness or voice is used is logically rooted in this conception of autonomy and dignity.

Earlier, in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Court recognised that individuals have a right to safeguard the privacy of their life story and personal matters. At the same time, it created a crucial public-record exception: material that has entered the public domain through court records or public documentation may be reported without consent, subject to defamation and other applicable laws. This tension between privacy and public interest continues to shape personality rights discourse.

2.2 Personality rights at the intersection of IP and tort

Indian courts have treated personality rights as a hybrid of moral and economic interests:

1. Copyright and performer's rights protect creative works and performances, allowing authors and performers to object to distortion or derogatory treatment of their work and to control its reproduction and communication.
2. Trademark law particularly Sections 2(m) and 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognises that names and likenesses may function as marks and prohibits their use without consent in certain commercial contexts.
3. The tort of passing off prevents false endorsement and misrepresentation that a product or service is associated with a particular person, brand or event.

Together, these strands have allowed courts to recognise a "right of publicity" or "personality rights" as a bundle of interests enabling individuals, especially those with significant drawing power to control the commercial exploitation of their persona.

2.3 Key judicial milestones: Several decisions illustrate this evolution:

1. ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises (2003): The Delhi High Court recognised the economic value in the identity of sporting events and refused unauthorised commercial association with the ICC Cricket World Cup, laying groundwork for protection against parasitic advertising.
2. Rajinikanth v. Producers of Main Hoon Rajnikanth (Madras HC): The Court restrained the use of the actor's name, likeness and mannerisms in a film not authorised by him, emphasising that unauthorised commercial exploitation of a celebrity's persona, even without proof of confusion, can violate personality rights.
3. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012): While focused on advertising that used the image of well-known actors, the Delhi High Court acknowledged that publicity rights have commercial elements similar to intellectual property and hinted at posthumous protection.
4. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. (2022): The Delhi High Court granted a broad injunction against entities using Mr. Bachchan's name, image, and voice for lotteries, GIFs and apps, reaffirming that identity cannot be commercially exploited without authorisation.

Recent cases involving Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Arijit Singh and Asha Bhosle have extended these principles to AI-generated deepfakes, voice cloning and digital replicas, making clear that digital manipulation can constitute actionable misappropriation of persona.

3. The Recent Litigation Wave - Necessary Protection or Overreach?

Over the last two years, more than twenty personality rights suits have been filed by prominent celebrities before Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court. The underlying concerns are serious:

1. AI-generated deepfakes and morphed videos
2. Voice cloning and synthetic songs
3. Fraudulent investment schemes using celebrity images
4. Obscene or defamatory depictions
5. Fake merchandise and impersonation scams

Courts have responded with strong interim relief, often via John Doe orders against unnamed defendants and platforms, recognising that delay can cause irreparable harm to reputation and mislead consumers.

Yet, alongside this legitimate protective impulse, the relief sought (and sometimes granted) has begun to stretch the doctrine's traditional boundaries.

3.1 Protection of catchphrases and mannerisms

In the Anil Kapoor litigation, the actor sought protection not only for his name, image and likeness but also for his iconic catchphrase "Jhakaas", gestures, and "speech delivery style." Similar claims have been raised around expressions such as "Bhidu."

While there is logic in protecting distinctive, commercially exploited attributes of a persona, there is also a risk: when courts grant broad monopolies over words and gestures that have migrated into everyday cultural vocabulary, they come close to privatising language itself. When a Marathi expression like "Jhakaas" is used widely to mean "fantastic", independent of its association with any actor, exclusive control raises serious public domain concerns.

3.2 Restraining subscribers and anonymous viewers

In one case involving Mohan Babu, the relief sought extended to restraining "subscribers" of certain YouTube channels. This raises practical and conceptual difficulties: subscribers are often passive viewers, many anonymous, who do not create or upload content. What exactly are they prohibited from doing like watching, sharing or commenting? Enforcing such orders risks turning personality rights claims into tools to control audience behaviour, not just content creation.

3.3 Blanket prohibitions on merchandise, fan art and fan pages

Several suits have targeted t-shirts, posters and caricatures using celebrity images or catchphrases, often with limited analysis of whether they actually cause consumer confusion about endorsement. Unofficial fan merchandise has long coexisted with official channels, most consumers instinctively recognise the difference.

Similarly, takedown requests against fan pages and tribute accounts risk attacking the very ecosystems that sustain celebrity culture. Fans who create edits, compilations and art contribute to the celebrity's cultural and economic value; treating all such activity as infringing fails to distinguish between exploitative commerce and fandom.

3.4 Deepfakes vs transformative use: the Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff examples

The Anil Kapoor suit is particularly instructive. The court had no difficulty in restraining deepfakes that portrayed the actor in obscene or defamatory ways or falsely suggested endorsement. However, the inclusion of a t-shirt bearing a caricature and the word "Jhakaas" sits much closer to parody, fan culture and commentary.

By contrast, in Jaikishan Saraf v. Peppy Store (the Jackie Shroff case), the Delhi High Court took a more calibrated approach. While recognising Mr. Shroff's proprietary interest in his persona, it declined to grant a blanket injunction against all defendants. For a YouTuber who had made a "Thug Life" edit compiling existing clips, the Court merely issued notice, noting that the portrayal reflected the actor's already known public image and did not introduce falsehoods. The Court explicitly acknowledged the need to balance artistic and economic expression against personality and publicity rights.

This differentiated analysis, distinguishing between deepfakes and compilations, fraud and fandom, should become standard. Unfortunately, not all orders demonstrate this nuance, some broad John Doe injunctions risk sweeping in legitimate expression alongside fraudulent misuse.

4. Personality Rights, Free Speech and Competing Livelihoods

Personality rights do not exist in a vacuum. They interact with and sometimes conflict with, other constitutional rights and economic interests.

4.1 The constitutional balance

Courts have rightly emphasised that endorsements form a significant part of a celebrity's livelihood. The right to livelihood is part of Article 21 guarantee of life with dignity, preventing fraudulent misappropriation of identity is a legitimate constitutional goal.

But this analysis cannot stop at the celebrity's income. A complete constitutional picture must consider other livelihoods and rights:

1. Small vendors who sell unofficial t-shirts, posters or caricatures rely on engagement with popular culture for survival.
2. Digital creators who produce compilations, commentary videos, mash-ups and memes build their livelihoods around engaging with public figures.
3. Comedians and impersonators depend on mimicry and satire of public figures; their art is both speech and occupation.
4. Fan communities create tribute pages, fan fiction and art that amplify the very popularity celebrities monetise.
5. Journalists and commentators exercise their Article 19(1)(a) rights to report on and critique public figures.

The South African Constitutional Court's Laugh It Off v. SAB decision is instructive. There, a parody t-shirt that transformed the "Carling Black Label" logo into "Black Labour" as social commentary was held protected. The Court insisted that anti-dilution and publicity claims must be read through the lens of free expression and that large corporations cannot use IP law to silence critical speech absent substantial economic harm.

Indian courts have echoed similar sentiments. In DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010), involving merchandise related to singer Daler Mehndi, the Delhi High Court warned that over emphasis on publicity rights could chill free speech and "wipe out an entire genre of expression" such as caricature, lampooning and parody. In Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware (2023), the same Court reiterated that use of celebrity names and images for satire, art, scholarship, news and similar purposes is generally permissible.

These principles must now be consistently applied in the personality rights context, especially as AI makes reproduction of identity trivially easy and litigation more tempting.

4.2 The problem of vague standards and chilling effects

Much of the current jurisprudence speaks in broad, undefined terms: uses that cast celebrities in a "negative light," cross an unspecified "line" or "tarnish" reputations. Without concrete standards, these phrases create legal uncertainty.

Uncertainty is not an abstract problem. It translates directly into a chilling effect, small businesses and creators, unable to bear the cost of litigation, pre-emptively censor themselves. A YouTuber may avoid making a compilation or meme not because it is unlawful, but because a takedown notice or injunction could end their channel. A local vendor might stop selling a caricature t-shirt, not out of legal obligation, but out of fear.

When legal boundaries are vague and enforcement is asymmetric (powerful celebrities vs. resource constrained defendants), personality rights risk becoming a tool of intimidation rather than a shield against genuine harm.

4.3 Livelihood claims and the public's intuitive understanding

Some celebrities have argued that unofficial merchandise or memes threaten their livelihood. This is conceptually weak. For decades, the public has coexisted with posters, mugs and t-shirts bearing celebrity images without serious harm to the stars earnings, if anything, such items reinforce fandom and marketability.

Courts should demand concrete evidence of diversion of trade or confusion about endorsement before accepting livelihood based arguments. The public is generally sophisticated enough to differentiate between official brand collaborations and generic fan merchandise, particularly in the absence of misleading labelling.

5. Trademarks, Catchphrases and the Risk of Over-Monopolisation

The Trade Marks Registry has played an under examined role in enabling the expansion of personality rights. By granting registrations over catchphrases and expressions popularised by films or songs, it risks conferring private monopolies over elements of everyday speech. Three issues arise:

5.1 Genericide and cultural vocabulary

Trademark law recognises that marks can become generic, "aspirin", "escalator", "Xerox" and lose protection. When a film dialogue or catchphrase originates from common parlance (as "Jhakaas" does in Marathi) and is adopted widely to describe a quality or emotion, any exclusive control should be carefully scrutinised. At a minimum, courts should consider:

1. Whether the term is used by the public independently of its association with the celebrity
2. Whether it functions primarily as an indicator of source or as a generic descriptive word
3. Whether monopoly would unreasonably restrict cultural expression

5.2 Narrow construction of trademarks in personality cases

Even where a celebrity has legitimately registered a mark, courts should construe the scope narrowly, tied to the specific goods or services registered. A trademark for "Jhakaas" t-shirts should prevent others from selling clothing under the "Jhakaas" brand in a way that confuses consumers about source. It should not automatically outlaw an artist painting a scene with the word "Jhakaas" as part of larger commentary, or a satirical graphic that uses the phrase in a transformative context.

5.3 Keeping trademarks and personality rights conceptually distinct

There is a growing temptation for celebrities to use trademark registrations to reinforce and extend personality claims. Courts must resist conflating the two. Personality rights protect against unauthorised exploitation of persona; trademarks prevent confusion in trade. While they may overlap, each has different thresholds, defences and public interest limitations. Treating them as interchangeable risks over-protection and doctrinal confusion.

6. AI, Deepfakes and Digital Replicas - The New Frontier

In the past, misappropriation largely meant unauthorised posters, fabricated quotations or misleading commercial endorsements, but the advent of AI has introduced risks that are significantly more complex and invasive. Today, deepfake videos can insert celebrities into obscene, offensive or reputationally damaging situations with alarming realism. AI-generated voice clones can be programmed to "speak" any script, enabling fraud, impersonation and deceptive endorsements. Virtual influencers, often designed to mimic the appearance, style or persona of real individuals, can blur the line between inspiration and unauthorised appropriation. Even generative images, which replicate distinctive facial features or identifiable traits without copying any single photograph, can create a near perfect likeness that trades on the commercial and personal value of a person's identity.

Indian courts have begun responding. In suits by singers and actors, courts have restrained AI firms, platforms and unknown defendants from creating or disseminating synthetic content that misleads the public, dilutes persona or causes reputational harm.

These interventions are warranted in situations where a deepfake or cloned likeness falsely implies that an individual has endorsed a product, service or political message, thereby distorting their public persona without consent. They are equally justified when the content is obscene, defamatory or humiliating, causing direct harm to dignity and reputation. Courts also intervene when consumers are misled into scams or fraudulent schemes that rely on fabricated endorsements, placing both the public and the individual at risk. Further, where a performer's distinctive creative style is replicated through AI in a manner that substitutes their labour or exploits their artistic expression, legal protection becomes essential to prevent unjust commercial appropriation.

However, AI also enables legitimate creativity: parody, satire, experimental art, critical commentary and even academic research. A legal regime that treats all AI manipulation as suspect would suffocate innovation.

The key is again transformative use and consumer harm. If an AI-generated caricature adds new meaning, message or commentary and does not mislead consumers about endorsement, it should ordinarily fall within free speech protection, even if monetised. Conversely, realistic deepfakes used in scams or pornographic contexts clearly cross the line.

7. Who Can Claim Personality Rights - Celebrities, Creators and Ordinary Individuals

While most litigation involves superstars, the conceptual foundation of personality rights is not limited to them.

1. Actors and performers have an obvious stake in controlling the commercial exploitation of their image and performance.
2. Influencers and digital creators derive substantial value from their online personas; misappropriation can directly harm their monetisation models.
3. Sports persons and public figures often see their images used in unauthorised gambling promotions, events and merchandise.
4. Ordinary individuals, too, may be entitled to protection if their identifiable persona is exploited commercially without consent, though establishing recognisability and damage is more difficult.

The right is not created by fame, rather fame amplifies its commercial value and the likelihood of harm.

8. Posthumous rights

Indian law remains unclear on whether personality rights survive death and if so, for how long. Courts have hinted that heirs, estates or contractual assignees may restrain misuse of a deceased celebrity's persona, drawing analogies from copyright's post-mortem protection and from foreign practice.

Given the rise of holographic performances, resurrected film roles and AI-generated "young" versions of deceased stars, ignoring posthumous interests is no longer tenable. However, any such protection must be time-bound and subject to robust free-speech exceptions, particularly for biographical, historical and journalistic use.

9. Conclusion: Protecting Identity Without Overprotecting Fame

Personality rights in India are at an inflection point. On one side lies the very real threat of AI-enabled fraud, impersonation and reputation destruction, on the other lies the equally real risk that expansive, ill-defined personality claims will chill free speech, stifle creativity and criminalise everyday cultural engagement.

Courts have done important work in recognising that individuals, especially performers and public figures have protectable interests in their persona. They have stepped in to restrain deepfakes, scams and degrading uses that clearly cross the line. But some orders and some prayers for relief reveal a drift toward overprotection, attempts to control catchphrases embedded in common speech, to restrain fan art and parody, to treat all unofficial merchandise as theft, and to equate loss of control with loss of livelihood.

The way forward is not to dilute or roll back personality rights, but to recalibrate them in a manner that preserves their core purpose while preventing overreach. Such recalibration must be anchored in principles of proportionality and free speech, ensuring that protections against misuse do not morph into unjustified censorship. It also requires a clear doctrinal distinction between harmful misappropriation, which causes reputational, commercial or dignitary injury and transformative, critical or artistic uses that legitimately contribute to public discourse. Any framework must further acknowledge that a celebrity's economic and cultural value stems from public attention, fandom and social participation, making it essential that the law does not unduly restrict expressive engagement. Ultimately, a modernised legislative architecture should be consent centric, technologically informed and calibrated to balance competing livelihoods and creative ecosystems in the AI era.

When personality rights are too weak, celebrities are exposed to exploitation and consumers to deception. When they are too strong, the law ends up overprotecting fame, turning natural public interest into a legal minefield for creators, fans and critics.

A mature, modern India must aim for equilibrium: a regime that treats human identity as both a constitutional entitlement and an economic asset, but one that never forgets that democracy depends on our ability to talk about, laugh at, criticise and celebrate those who occupy the public stage.

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.