• Reputational and dignity harm: Deepfakes create defamatory, obscene, or misleading content (e.g., fake endorsements or explicit videos) that spreads virally, causing irreparable damage beyond what traditional misuse could achieve.?
• Economic exploitation: AI commodifies identity by cloning personas for ads, merchandise, or synthetic performances without consent, stripping individuals—especially celebrities—of endorsement value and control.?
• Deception and misinformation: Indistinguishable fakes blur reality, fueling fraud, extortion, political manipulation, and eroded public trust, extending risks from elites to ordinary users.

• Article 21 forms the bedrock, with the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirming privacy as a fundamental right intrinsic to dignity and autonomy, extending to control over one's name, image, voice, and likeness against unauthorised exploitation.
• This evolved from earlier cases like R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), which balanced privacy against public interest and free speech under Article 19(1)(a).?

• Indian courts have progressively recognised publicity rights as distinct yet linked to privacy, applicable mainly to identifiable personas but not inheritable posthumously (Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, 2021).
• Landmark rulings include Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023, Delhi HC), protecting voice, gestures, and mannerisms via injunctions against deepfakes; and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (Rajinikanth) v. Varsha Productions (2015, Madras HC), safeguarding catchphrases and persona from commercial misuse.?

• Copyright Act, 1957: Offers tangential protection via moral rights (Section 57) and performers' rights against distortion harming reputation.?
• Trademarks Act, 1999: Prevents deceptive use of name or likeness as trademarks.?
• IT Act, 2000: Addresses digital impersonation (Sections 66A, 66D repealed but relevant via 43A/79).?
• Limits include fair use for parody, news, or public interest, preventing overprotection of fame at expression's expense.?

Aspect	Legal Basis	Key Features/Challenges
Privacy Aspect	Article 21, Puttaswamy (2017)?	Protects dignity; balanced vs. speech?
Publicity Aspect	Passing off, IP laws?	Commercial control; no standalone statute?
Remedies	Injunctions, damages, takedowns?	Civil focus; gaps in AI/deepfakes?
Scope	Natural persons, not inheritable?	Celebrities primary, extending to all

• United States: Relies on state-level right of publicity laws treating identity (name, voice, likeness) as transferable property; Tennessee's ELVIS Act (2024) explicitly bans unauthorized AI voice cloning and deepfakes of performers; ongoing litigation (e.g., against Character.AI) tests limits against First Amendment free speech protections.?
• European Union: EU AI Act (2024) classifies deepfakes as high-risk, mandating labeling of AI-generated/manipulated content (Article 50) and transparency; GDPR treats biometrics (faces, voices) as sensitive data requiring explicit consent, prioritizing dignity and risk mitigation over commercial rights.?
• China: Provisions on Deep Synthesis (2023) require clear marking of AI-altered media to prevent deception; protects image/voice rights via Civil Code, with court rulings holding deepfake apps liable for infringement; emphasizes consumer protection and alignment with societal values, including consent for biometrics under PIPL.?
• United Kingdom: No specific AI personality rights law yet; relies on GDPR-equivalent UK GDPR for biometric data consent; emerging calls for deepfake labeling align with Online Safety Act, focusing on harm prevention without dedicated publicity statutes.?
• Other Regions (e.g., Singapore): Personal Data Protection Act mandates consent for biometric use in deepfakes; mirrors global trends in privacy safeguards but lacks comprehensive AI-specific personality protections.?
• International Frameworks: Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (2024) promotes transparency, risk management, and human rights protections for high-impact AI like deepfakes; UNESCO AI Ethics Recommendation urges consent-based use of likeness; no binding global treaty, leading to patchwork enforcement.

• Enact Dedicated Legislation: Codify personality rights as a distinct statutory right covering name, image, voice, likeness, gestures, and mannerisms, with explicit AI/deepfake provisions, limited posthumous protection, and clear definitions to replace fragmented judicial reliance.?
• Mandate Technical Safeguards: Require watermarking, labeling, and provenance tracking for all AI-generated or synthetic content to enable traceability and prevent deception.?
• Impose Platform Liability: Hold intermediaries accountable for hosting/removing deepfakes promptly, with obligations for AI developers to obtain consent before training models on personal data.?
• Strengthen Remedies: Provide swift injunctions, damages, account of profits, and criminal penalties for willful impersonation, especially non-consensual explicit content.?
• Foster Global Harmonization: Collaborate via UNESCO ethics, EU AI Act models, and cross-border treaties for enforcement, adapting US state laws like ELVIS Act.?
• Balance with Free Speech: Include safe harbors for parody, news, satire, and public interest to avoid overprotecting fame at expression's expense.?

• Urgent Gap in Fragmented Framework: India's Article 21 and judicial precedents (e.g., Puttaswamy, Anil Kapoor) offer reactive protection but fail against AI's scale, demanding proactive statutory reform.?
• AI Threatens Core Dignity: Deepfakes erode autonomy, trust, and identity for all, not just celebrities, amplifying misinformation, fraud, and exploitation risks.?
• Path to Balanced Innovation: A consent-centric, tech-adaptive law can secure human rights while enabling ethical AI, positioning India as a global leader in digital integrity.?
• Ethical Imperative: Aligning reforms with constitutional values ensures personality rights evolve as fundamental to personhood in the algorithmic age.

Download Pdf