HC restrains AI platforms from using Arijit Singh’s name, voice, images without consent, protects his personality rights

The bench said the manner in which the said platforms are attracting visitors by capitalising on Singh’s popularity “shocked its conscience”.

The bench said, “While freedom of expression allows critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain and therefore it was inclined to protect ‘wrongful exploitation’ of Singh’s personality rights.”

The defendant AI platforms included those converging any text, speech, voice recording or audio file to Singh’s AI voice version.

As per Singh, such platforms use sophisticated algorithms to create audio and visual content for mimicking/reproducing the features, including his personality traits.

Singh claimed that such platforms also allow conversion of any speech or voice recording or audio file into his voice by using Real Voice Cloning (RVC) method.

A single-judge bench of Justice Riyaz I Chagla on July 26 passed an order in an interim application filed by Singh in a commercial intellectual property rights infringement suit, copy of which was made available Wednesday.

Arjit Singh sought protection of his personality rights, including his own name, voice, signatures, photograph,
image, caricature, likeness, persona, and various other attributes of his personality against their unauthorised / unlicensed commercial exploitation, misuse of all hues thereof along with his rights under Copyright Act, 1957.

Singh’s lawyers submitted that the singer 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 and their misappropriation for commercial purpose without his permission be restrained.

Granting interim relief to the singer till September 3, Justice Chagla noted, “What shocks the conscience of this Court is the manner in which celebrities, particularly performers such as the present Plaintiff are vulnerable to being targeted by unauthorized generative AI content such as that of some of the defendants. These defendants are attracting visitors / drawing traffic to their websites and/or AI platforms by capitalizing on the Plaintiff’s popularity and reputation, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff personality rights to potential abuse. These Defendants are emboldening internet users to create counterfeit sound recordings and videos that misuse the Plaintiff’s character and identity.”

“In my view, creation of new audio or video content / songs / videos in the Plaintiff’s AI name / voice, photograph, image, likeness and persona without his consent and commercially using the same could potentially jeopardize the Plaintiff’s career / livelihood,” the judge added.

The court, while posting further hearing to September 2, held that allowing defendants to continue Singh’s personality traits through AI content without his consent “not only risks severe economic harm to the Plaintiff’s life/career, but also leaves room for opportunities for misutilization of such tools by unscrupulous individuals for nefarious purposes.”