AI, Identity and Law: Personality Rights in the Digital Age of AI and Data Privacy Comparative Study of India and US
AI, Identity and Law: Personality Rights in the Digital Age of AI and Data Privacy Comparative Study of India and US
AI, Identity and Law: Personality Rights in the Digital Age of AI and Data Privacy Comparative Study of India and US
Across both jurisdictions, AI has forced the legal system to confront the limits of consent, the scope of personality rights and the importance of safeguarding public interest in the digital age
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer just a technological tool, it has become a creative force capable of synthesizing voices, faces, mannerisms, and entire digital identities. With a few seconds of audio or a handful of photographs, AI can now produce uncanny replicas of celebrities, performers, athletes, politicians, and everyday individuals.
But while the machines generate, the law must interpret and courts worldwide are being asked questions that did not exist even a decade ago.
In India, where personality rights have long rested on judicial interpretation rather than statute, the rise of AI has accelerated the need for jurisprudence and precedents. In the United States, where publicity rights are more firmly established, courts are wrestling with the balance between innovation and identity theft.
Across both jurisdictions ie: India and US, one truth is clear: AI has forced the legal system to confront the limits of consent, the scope of personality rights and the importance of safeguarding public interest in the digital age.
1. Fair Dealing vs. Personality Rights: Can AI Rely on Copyright Defenses When Using Celebrity Voices or Likenesses?
As AI models increasingly scrape public videos and audio clips for training, developers frequently invoke copyright exceptions particularly Section 52 of the Copyright Act. Courts, however, are taking the view that copyright and personality rights occupy distinct legal realms.
In India, judges have emphasized that a person’s voice, name, likeness, gestures, and expressions are not just creative expressions, they are extensions of identity, dignity, and autonomy. Even if the underlying media is publicly available, the right to control one’s own persona remains intact.
US courts echo this position through the “right of publicity,” which prohibits unauthorized commercial use of a person’s identity.
Key Cases:
Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India (Delhi High Court, 2023)
Fact: An AI based platform reproduced Kapoor’s voice, gestures, and famous phrase “Jhakaas” without consent.
Order: Court issued a broad injunction protecting his voice, likeness, and persona from AI misuse.
ICC Development vs Arvee Enterprises (Delhi High Court, 2003)
Fact: Defendant used ICC tournament imagery and the persona of cricketers for advertising.
Order: Court held personality rights exist independently of copyright and banned unauthorized exploitation.
White vs Samsung Electronics (US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, California)
Fact: Samsung used a robot resembling Vanna White (television host).
Order: Court ruled it violated her publicity rights.
Midler vs Ford Motor Co. (US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, California)
Fact: Ford imitated Bette Midler’s (singer/actress) voice after she refused to participate.
Order: Court held that voice imitation itself constitutes misappropriation.
Summary: Personality rights supersede fair dealing when AI uses identity based attributes. Public availability does not translate into permission for AI training. US precedent reinforces that likeness and voice cloning fall squarely under publicity rights violations.
As AI models become increasingly capable of forging realistic identities, the legal system must evolve from being reactive to anticipatory
2. Drawing the Line: Is AI Training Legitimate or Is It Misappropriation of Voice, Gesture, or Persona?
AI developers often argue that ingesting data for model training is permissible and non-commercial. Courts have consistently rejected this position when the outcome produces an imitation or suggests endorsement.
In India, Article 21 of the Constitution of India anchors personality rights in privacy and dignity. Courts view AI-generated mimicry of gestures, mannerisms, or voice as a violation of this right—especially when monetized.
In the United States, courts have adopted strong protection for performers, athletes, and public figures, particularly in the context of video games, digital avatars, and televised performances.
Key Cases:
Abhishek Bachchan vs Multiple Websites (Delhi High Court, 2025)
Fact: Websites published AI-generated videos falsely depicting endorsements by Bachchan.
Order: Court ordered full takedown and granted expansive persona protection.
Sourav Ganguly vs Tata Tea Ltd. (Calcutta High Court, 2000)
Fact: Ganguly’s name was used in promotions without permission.
Order: Court prohibited unauthorized use of his persona.
Zacchini vs Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (US Supreme Court)
Fact: A TV station broadcast the entire act of Hugo Zacchini (human cannonball performer).
Order: Supreme Court ruled it violated his right of publicity.
Hart vs Electronic Arts (US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pennsylvania)
Fact: Video game avatars replicated Ryan Hart (college quarterback) without consent.
Order: Court held EA’s use unlawful and denied First Amendment protection.
Summary: AI imitation becomes misappropriation when it reproduces identity attributes for commercial gain. Privacy and unfair trade practice doctrines in India align with US publicity-rights rulings. Consent is now the defining boundary for AI training involving personal attributes.
Understanding the Road Ahead: Why the Law Must Evolve with AI:
As AI models become increasingly capable of forging realistic identities, the legal system must evolve from being reactive to anticipatory. India needs codified personality rights to complement its copyright and privacy laws. The United States, while stronger in statutory publicity rights, still faces interpretative challenges in AI contexts.
The lesson across jurisdictions is clear: identity is not a public resource, and AI must respect the autonomy, dignity and consent of individuals and there should some safeguards to balance innovation and accountability especially AI-generated content affect personality rights without consent or are malicious or obscene.
In this emerging era of digital humans, the enforcement of personality rights will become the cornerstone of AI, IP and consensus use, where Courts have delivered the opening chapters, and the next steps belong to policymakers to provide legal protection against misuse of personality rights by using new technologies such as artificial intelligence and inter alia deepfakes etc., while also permitting the new technologies to create AI generated content with consent of the personality, celebrity etc. for enhancing the creativity and value provided by new age technologies such as AI.
Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and are purely informative in nature.
