Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The Bombay High Court recently in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP restricted third parties from exploiting Bollywood singer Arijit Singh's personality rights, including his voice, likeness, and signature, without his consent. This decision highlights the legal response to the growing issue of unauthorized use of celebrities' attributes by AI content creators, reflecting concerns about privacy and intellectual property in the digital age. 

What was the Background of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP? 

• The plaintiff, Arijit Singh, is a prominent Indian singer who has achieved celebrity status and developed significant goodwill and reputation over the course of his career. 
• Singh filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality rights and right of publicity against unauthorized commercial exploitation by various defendants. 
• The defendants are alleged to have engaged in activities including:  
  • Creating AI voice models mimicking Singh's voice without authorization 
  • Producing and sharing tutorials on how to replicate Singh's voice using AI 
  • Selling merchandise bearing Singh's name, image and likeness without permission 
  • Falsely representing an association with Singh for commercial events 
  • Creating and sharing GIFs and other content using Singh's image and persona 
  • Registering domain names incorporating Singh's full name 
• Singh argues these activities violate his personality rights, right of publicity, and moral rights as a performer under the Copyright Act. 
• The plaintiff contends the unauthorized use of his persona, especially through AI voice cloning, risks economic harm to his career and reputation. 
• The defendant argues that their use of AI technology to generate new audio or video content, including songs and videos, purportedly in the plaintiff's name, voice, photograph, image, likeness, and persona, does not constitute a breach of rights. 
  • The defendant asserts that such content is created and used in ways considered transformative or non-commercial in certain contexts.  
  • The defendants also contend that their activities are not aimed at jeopardizing the plaintiff's career or livelihood but rather at exploring technological advancements and creative expressions within the bounds of fair use. 
• Defendants' perspective, the creation and commercialization of AI-generated content featuring the plaintiff’s attributes are defended as innovative uses of technology that should be protected under the freedom of expression and creative freedom.  
  • They maintain that the legal framework governing intellectual property and personality rights should be interpreted to accommodate technological developments, potentially leading to a redefinition of permissible uses of AI-generated content. 
• Singh sought ex parte interim injunctions against the defendants to restrain further violations of his rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court prima facie found that the plaintiff, Arijit Singh, has established his celebrity status and acquired valuable personality rights and right of publicity. 
• The Court observed that unauthorized use of AI tools to convert any voice into that of a celebrity constitutes a violation of the celebrity's personality rights. 
• The Court held that such technological exploitation infringes upon an individual's right to control and protect their own likeness and voice and undermines their ability to prevent commercial and deceptive uses of their identity. 
• The Court expressed shock at the vulnerability of celebrities, particularly performers, to being targeted by unauthorized generative AI content. 
• The Court observed that the defendants were attracting visitors to their websites and AI platforms by capitalizing on the plaintiff's popularity and reputation, thereby subjecting his personality rights to potential abuse. 
• The Court found that creation of new audio or video content in the plaintiff's AI voice or likeness without consent could potentially jeopardize the plaintiff's career and livelihood. 
• The Court noted that allowing continued unauthorized use of the plaintiff's persona not only risks severe economic harm but also creates opportunities for misuse by unscrupulous individuals. 
• The Court held that even though freedom of speech allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant license to exploit a celebrity's persona for commercial gain. 
• The Court observed that the plaintiff had made a conscious personal choice to refrain from brand endorsements or gross commercialization of his personality traits in recent years. 
• The Court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff and that he would suffer irreparable injury without the requested relief. 
• The Court deemed it appropriate to grant a dynamic injunction to address potential future violations of the plaintiff's rights. 
• The Court held that for certain infringing videos, rather than complete takedown, removal of all references to the plaintiff's personality traits would suffice. 

Why is Freedom of Speech and Expression Not Absolute? 

• The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in constitutional frameworks, is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to voice their opinions and engage in open discourse.  
• The right is not absolute and is subject to limitations and restrictions as prescribed by law.  
• The principle of freedom of speech must be balanced against other compelling interests and rights, including privacy, intellectual property, and public order. 
• Legal jurisdictions universally recognize that the exercise of free speech must be tempered by harm and infringement on others' rights.  
• While individuals have the right to express their views, this right does not extend to actions that would constitute defamation, incitement to violence, or the unauthorized exploitation of personal attributes, including those of celebrities. 
• Intellectual property and personality rights, the law provides specific protections against unauthorized use or exploitation of an individual’s persona.  
  • This includes their name, likeness, voice, and other personal attributes. Courts have consistently upheld that the right to free expression cannot be invoked to justify such unauthorized exploitation, emphasizing that respect for personal rights and privacy is a legitimate and enforceable interest. 
• Judicial precedents affirm that freedom of speech and expression does not permit the infringement of intellectual property rights or the commercial exploitation of an individual's persona without consent. Such protections are integral to ensuring that the exercise of free speech does not encroach upon the rights of individuals to control and benefit from their own personal and professional identity. 
• In summary, while freedom of speech and expression is a vital and protected right, it is bounded by legal constraints designed to safeguard other rights and interests. This balance ensures that the exercise of free expression does not undermine or infringe upon the protected rights of individuals, including their personal and intellectual property rights. 

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?  

• In India, the right to freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.  
• The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression. 
• The following aspects are included in Article 19(1)(a): 
  • Freedom of Press 
  • Freedom of Commercial Speech 
  • Right to Broadcast 
  • Right to Information 
  • Right to Criticize 
  • Right to expression beyond national boundaries 
  • Right not to speak or right to silence 
• Essential Elements of Article 19(1)(a), COI 
  • This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals. 
  • It includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc. 
  • This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions. 
• Article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.  
• The judicial interpretation of these provisions has evolved over time, shaping the contours of free speech in India. 

Landmark Case  

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)  
  • Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized sending "offensive" messages through communication services.  
  • The court held that the provision was unconstitutionally vague and had a chilling effect on free speech. 
  • This judgment emphasized the importance of protecting online speech and set a high bar for restrictions on freedom of expression. 
  • However, the courts have consistently held that freedom of speech is not absolute.  
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)  
  • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws, noting that the right to free speech does not mean freedom to hurt another's reputation, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The concept of personality rights, which includes the right to publicity, has been recognized by Indian courts as an extension of the right to privacy under Article 21.  
• ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) 
  • The Delhi High Court acknowledged the commercial value of a celebrity's identity and the need to protect it from unauthorized exploitation.