Artificial Intelligence and personal right
About
AI poses significant risks to personal rights, particularly privacy, dignity, and equality, through deepfakes, biased algorithms, and unauthorized data use, while debates on AI legal personhood remain unresolved.​
What are personality rights?
- Personality rights give an individual exclusive control over the commercial use of their identity: name, image, likeness, voice, signature, behaviour, and other unique attributes.​
In India, these rights are not codified in a single law; they are protected through:
- Article 21 (Right to Privacy) of the Constitution, as affirmed in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017).​
- Common law (passing off, defamation).​
- IP laws: Copyright Act, 1957 (performers’ rights over their image/voice) and Trade Marks Act, 1999 (celebrities can register names, catchphrases as trademarks).​
- Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2024 IT Intermediary Guidelines address impersonation and deepfakes.
- Delhi HC’s proactive role: The court has been assertive in ordering swift takedowns of deepfake content and disclosure of infringing parties’ details.
- IT Act & Intermediary Guidelines (2024): These address impersonation and deepfakes, but enforcement remains weak due to anonymity and cross‑border issues.​
- DPDP Act, 2023: While it regulates personal data, it exempts “publicly available” data, raising concerns that AI scraping of public images/voices may still be allowed without consent.​
- Proposed AI content rules (Oct 2025): The Indian government is considering rules that would require AI‑generated content to be clearly labelled with visible watermarks, treating identity misuse as a public safety issue.​
- USA (ELVIS Act, Tennessee 2024): A new law protects musicians’ voices from unauthorised AI “soundalikes,” treating voice as a property right.​
- EU AI Act (2024): Classifies deepfakes as high‑risk AI, mandating disclosure, transparency, and labelling of synthetic content.​
- China: Beijing Internet Court (2024) ruled that synthetic voices must not deceive consumers, reflecting a strict state control model.​
- UNESCO Ethics of AI (2021): Advocates a human‑rights‑based approach, warning against granting AI legal personhood, which could dilute human rights protections.​
- Fragmented Indian law: No dedicated AI or personality rights statute; courts rely on Article 21, IP laws, and IT rules, leaving gaps.​
- Non‑heritable rights: Indian law treats personality rights as non‑heritable, raising questions about posthumous AI recreations of artists.​
- Platform liability: Intermediaries like YouTube, Amazon, Flipkart are being sued for hosting AI‑generated infringing content, but clear liability rules are still evolving.
- A codified personality rights law defining scope and remedies.​
- Mandatory watermarking and labelling of AI‑generated content.​
- Stronger platform liability for deepfakes and synthetic media.​
- Cross‑border cooperation to enforce orders against foreign AI firms and platforms.​
