Bombay High Court: Plaintiff was seeking protection of his personality rights viz. his own name, voice, signatures, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona, and various other attributes of his personality against unauthorized/unlicensed commercial exploitation, misuse of all hues thereof. The present suit also pertained to the violation of his moral rights in his performances conferred upon him by virtue of Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘1957 Act’).
A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., opined that creation of new audio or video content/songs/videos in plaintiff’s AI name/voice, photograph, image, likeness, and persona without his consent and commercially using the same could potentially jeopardize plaintiff’s career/livelihood. The Court held that plaintiff made a strong case for the grant of ad-interim injunction, which might also operate as a dynamic injunction and thus, restrained Defendants 1 to 25, 37 and 38 from violating the personality rights and/or publicity rights of plaintiff by using his (i) name “Arijit Singh”, (ii) voice/vocal style and technique/vocal arrangements and interpretations, (iii) mannerism/manner of singing, (iv) photograph, image or its likeness, (v) signature, persona, and/or any other attributes of his personality in any form, for any commercial and/or personal gain and/or otherwise by exploiting them in any manner whatsoever, without plaintiff’s consent and/or authorization.
Background
Plaintiff stated he was one of the world’s most celebrated, acclaimed, and successful singers/artists. He further stated that the protectable facets of his personality right and publicity rights, include (a) his name; (b) his voice/vocal style and technique/vocal arrangements and interpretations; (c) his mannerism/manner of singing; (d) his image/photograph/caricature and his likeness; and (e) his signature.
Plaintiff submitted that as a well-known singer and celebrity, he holds the right to command and control the use of his personality traits since the same form part of his exclusive personality rights and publicity rights. It was stated that the misappropriation of any attribute of his personality traits without his express permission for a commercial purpose was liable to be restrained not only based on the publicity rights namely the exclusive right to commercially exploit one’s personality but also based on the tort of dilution, more particularly, tarnishment. He also stated that any unauthorized distortion, mutilation, or other modification, or dissemination of his performances/voice or video recordings causing prejudice/harm to his reputation, would amount to a violation of his moral rights in his performances under Sections 38-B of the 1957 Act.
Plaintiff submitted that the infringing activities of defendants that necessitated the filing of the present suit were (1) using Artificial Intelligence (AI) models/tools to synthesize artificial sound recordings of his voice; (2) falsely representing an association with him; (3) sale of merchandise bearing his name, image, likeness, and caricature; (4) platforms to create, store, search for and share Graphic Interchange Format files (GIFs) in respect of him; (5) infringing domain names. Thus, plaintiff stated that permitting defendants to continue exploit/violate his personality/publicity rights, without his consent also jeopardizes his career as a performer/singer and his status of a celebrity.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that prima facie, it was convinced that plaintiff was a notable singer/performer in India, who had gained immense goodwill and reputation and had acquired a celebrity status in India.
The Court opined that celebrities were entitled to protection of the facets of their personality such as their name, images, likeness, voice, signature, etc. against unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties. The Court relied on Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Order dated 13-06-2024 in Interim Application (L) No.17865 of 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) No.17863 of 2024, wherein it was held that personality/publicity rights were vested in celebrities and the unauthorized use of the name or other persona attributes of celebrities would amount to violation of their valuable personality rights and right to publicity.
The Court also relied on Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 and opined that plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including his name, voice, photograph/caricature, image, likeness, persona, and other attributes of his personality were protectable elements of his personality rights and right to publicity.
The Court noted that Defendants 1 to 9, 11 to 25, 37 and 38 were unauthorizedly using plaintiff’s personality traits such as name, image, likeness, etc. and it also appeared that such illegal exploitation of plaintiff’s personality rights and right to publicity by Defendants 1 to 9, 11 to 25, 37 and 38 was for commercial and personal gain.
The Court opined that making AI tools available that enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without his/her permission constituted a violation of the celebrity’s personality rights. Such tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice, which was a key component of their personal identity and public persona. This form of technological exploitation not only infringed upon the individual’s right to control and protect their own likeness and voice but also undermined their ability to prevent commercial and deceptive uses of their identity.
The Court opined that creation of new audio or video content/songs/videos in plaintiff’s AI name/voice, photograph, image, likeness, and persona without his consent and commercially using the same could potentially jeopardize plaintiff’s career/livelihood. Allowing defendants to continue using plaintiff’s name, voice, likeness, etc. in the form of an AI content, without consent of plaintiff, not only risks severe economic harm to plaintiff’s life/career, but also leaves room for opportunities for misutilization of such tools by unscrupulous individuals for nefarious purposes.
The Court stated that the advertisement, promotion and sale of merchandise such as posters, caricatures, portraits, t-shirts/clothing, framed photographs, guitar tabs, face-masks, etc. bearing/exploiting plaintiff’s personality traits as done by Defendants 11 to 23, without any permission from plaintiff, was in violation of his personality rights and right of publicity.
The Court further agreed with the submission of counsel for plaintiff that even though freedom of speech and expression allows for critique and commentary, it did not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain.
The Court held that plaintiff made a strong case for the grant of ad-interim injunction, which might also operate as a dynamic injunction. The Court restrained Defendants 1 to 25, 37 and 38 from violating the Personality Rights and/or Publicity Rights of plaintiff by utilizing and/or in any manner, directly or indirectly, using or exploiting or misappropriating plaintiff’s Personality Rights and/or Publicity Rights using his (i) name “Arijit Singh”, (ii) voice/vocal style and technique/vocal arrangements and interpretations, (iii) mannerism/manner of singing, (iv) photograph, image, or its likeness, (v) signature, persona, and/or any other attributes of his personality in any form, for any commercial and/or personal gain and/or otherwise by exploiting them in any manner whatsoever, without plaintiff’s consent and/or authorization.
The Court directed Defendants 26, 27 and 30 to only lock/suspend the domain names ‘arijitsingh.com’ and ‘arijitsingh.in’ and not to permit any transfer to third parties until the next date of hearing. The Court also directed Defendants 1, 2, and 7 to edit/delete/remove all references to plaintiff’s personality traits, including his name, voice, image, likeness, etc. from the videos available on various links.
The present order would continue till 03-09-2024 and the matter would next be listed on 02-09-2024.
[Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445, decided on 26-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Hiren Kamod, Prem Khullar, Neha Iyer, Vaibhav Keni, and Priyanka Joshi i/b. Legasis Partners.
