In a landmark case before the Bombay High Court, celebrated playback singer Arijit Singh took a stand to defend his personal brand and artistic work against unauthorised commercial exploitation. Arijit Singh filed the case under Interim Application (L) No. 23560 of 2024 against Codible Ventures LLP and other entities, marking a significant moment in the legal protection of celebrity personas in the digital age.
This case centred on Arijit Singh’s rights to protect his traits, including his name, voice, and image, from unauthorised commercial use. The case also referenced Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957, regarding moral rights in performances, strengthening Arijit Singh’s control over his persona.
Background of the Case
Arijit Singh, a globally renowned singer known for his dynamic performances, initiated the lawsuit to address multiple misuses involving his persona. The case involved several key issues:
- AI Voice Replication: Defendants 1-8 were accused of using advanced AI technologies to replicate Plaintiff’s voice and personal traits without consent. These AI platforms generated synthetic versions of the Plaintiff’s voice for commercial purposes, infringing his legal rights and jeopardising his established reputation.
- Falsely Representing an Association with the Plaintiff: Defendant No. 9, a Bengaluru restaurant/pub, used the Plaintiff’s name and image without permission to promote an event. Additionally, Defendant No. 37 misleadingly advertised a virtual music event on www.maicity.io, suggesting Plaintiff’s involvement or endorsement, which was not authorised.
- Unauthorized Merchandising: Plaintiff stated that Defendants 11-23 were selling merchandise featuring his name, image, and likeness without authorisation. This included t-shirts and posters that exploited his public persona for financial gain, violating his personality and publicity rights.
- Unauthorized Use of GIFs Featuring the Plaintiff: Defendants Nos. 24 and 25 allowed users to create, store, and share GIFs of the Plaintiff’s performances, exploiting his image and likeness without permission. This unauthorized use has commercialized the Plaintiff’s persona, causing reputational harm and undue embarrassment.
- Misrepresentation and Domain Issues: The lawsuit also addressed the misrepresentation of the Plaintiff’s association with certain events and the registration of domain names using his name. Such actions misled the public and exploited his image and brand for commercial profit.
Legal Precedents and Context
The Plaintiff relied on established legal principles to protect his rights from unauthorised commercial exploitation. Key precedents included:
- Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd.: Affirmed that unauthorised use of a celebrity’s persona violated their personality and publicity rights.
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India: Emphasised the harm caused to a celebrity’s livelihood through unauthorised image use.
- R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.: The Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy, including protection against unauthorised commercial use of one’s persona.
Court’s Findings and Interim Orders
The Court, recognising the urgency and importance of the allegations, permitted an ex-parte motion to advance the Plaintiff’s claims without notifying the defendants beforehand.
The Court stated that it is now well-settled that celebrities are entitled to protect the facets of their personality, such as their name, images, likeness, voice, signature, etc., against unauthorised commercial exploitation by third parties.
Hence, the Court’s prima facie view is that the Plaintiff has made a strong case for granting an ad-interim injunction, which may also operate as a dynamic injunction. The Court noted that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Unless the reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated in terms of money.
Thus, the Court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s personality traits commercially. This injunction covered various forms of misuse, including unauthorised merchandise, domain names, and AI-generated content.
Specific Directions:
- Defendants 1-25, 37 and 38 were restrained from using Singh’s name, image and other personal traits without his consent.
- Defendants 26, 27 and 30 were ordered to lock or suspend the domain names “arijitsingh.com” and “arijitsingh.in,” with no transfer of these domains to third parties until further court review.
- Defendants 1, 2 and 7 were directed to remove all references to Singh’s name, image, voice, personality traits, etc., from specific online videos.
- Defendants 26-36 were required to disclose details of other involved Defendants and cooperate with Singh in implementing the Court’s orders.
The Court instructed the Defendants to comply with the interim orders and provide necessary details within two weeks. The Court listed the interim application for September 2, 2024, to consider additional reliefs, and the interim orders remain effective until September 3, 2024.
Conclusion
The advancement of AI technologies capable of creating unauthorized voice models and digital likenesses has introduced a modern challenge to the legal framework. This case highlights how technological advancements can infringe on personal rights and underscores the necessity for strong legal protections to safeguard creative professionals.
Arijit Singh’s legal action represented a pivotal moment in the defence of celebrity personas in the digital age. The case addressed urgent concerns about the misuse of personal attributes and set a precedent for how the law would adapt to emerging forms of digital infringement. Arijit Singh’s battle underscores the ongoing and pressing need for legal mechanisms to protect individuals from unauthorised exploitation, ensuring celebrities can maintain control over their brand and creative legacy.
