Arijit Singh Case: Bombay High Court Sets Precedent In Protecting Singers’ Rights Against AI

Introduction

Recently, the Bombay High Court granted Arijit Singh, an interim ex-parte injunction against multiple Defendants accused of misusing his name, voice, and likeness. The present case, highlights the growing concern over the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence (AI) to replicate celebrity personas. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting an individual’s personality rights in the digital age.

Plaintiff’s Submissions and Averments

The Plaintiff’s Background and Rights

• The Plaintiff, a celebrated playback singer, sued to protect his personality rights including his name, voice, image, and other attributes from unauthorized commercial use.
• The Plaintiff details his journey from a small town to becoming a global music icon with a diverse repertoire of hit songs. Evidence of his success includes awards, mentions on Forbes’ Celebrity 100 list, topping music charts, extensive tours, and a dedicated fanbase.
• He claims specific aspects of his personality are protectable, including his name, unique vocal style, singing mannerisms, image, and signature. The Plaintiff argues he has the exclusive right to control the use of these personality traits for commercial purposes.
• Any unauthorized use of these attributes, especially if it tarnishes his reputation, is a violation of his publicity rights and the tort of dilution. Additionally, unauthorized distortion or modification of his performances or recordings would violate his moral rights under the Copyright Act.
• Exhibits include a list of songs, screenshots from streaming platforms, a pen drive with recordings, social media screenshots, news articles, concert archives, an awards list, and details of his charitable foundation.

Infringing Activities of the Defendants

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools for Fake Voice

• Defendants used to create AI models mimicking the Plaintiff’s voice, name, mannerisms, image, and likeness.
• Defendant 3 allowed users to convert audio into the Plaintiff’s voice using his unauthorized recordings.
• Defendants 2 & 7 promoted converting text/speech to the Plaintiff’s voice using Defendant 3’s platform.
• Defendant 4 created AI voice models with the Plaintiff’s name and photo for unauthorized song creation.
• Defendant 6 websites offered text/speech to Plaintiff’s AI voice conversion and link to other AI platforms.

Falsely Representing Association with Plaintiff

• Defendant 9 (restaurant/pub) used Plaintiff’s name and image for a commercial event without permission.
• Defendant 37 advertised a virtual reality music event falsely suggesting that Plaintiff would perform.

Selling Merchandise with Plaintiff’s Image

• Defendants 11-23 sold merchandise (clothing, mugs, phone cases, etc.) with the Plaintiff’s image on various e-commerce platforms.

Platforms Sharing GIFs of Plaintiff

• Defendants 24 & 25 allowed users to create, store, search, and share GIFs containing the Plaintiff’s performances.

Infringing Domain Names

• Defendants 26/27 & 30 were the registrars of domain names arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in containing the Plaintiff’s name (websites not operational).

The Court’s Decision

Court’s Findings

• Arijit Singh is a well-known celebrity entitled to the protection of his personality traits.
• Celebrities have the right to control unauthorized commercial use of their persona. This right is protected under:
• Right to Privacy: Protects against using a person’s name/likeness for commercial purposes without consent.
• Personality/Publicity Rights: Recognized by this court in Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
• The unauthorized use of AI tools to replicate a celebrity’s voice violates their personality rights as it allows unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a core aspect of their identity. Furthermore, it undermines their ability to control the commercial use of their voice.
• Selling merchandise with a celebrity’s image/likeness without consent violates their rights.

Interim Order Issued

• Defendants prohibited from using Plaintiff’s personality traits for commercial/personal gain without consent (creating AI models, using voice/image in content, etc.).
• Website registrars (26, 27, 30) to suspend arijitsingh.com & arijitsingh.in (not transfer).
• Cloud storage providers (32) are not required to take down entire videos but must remove references to Plaintiff.
• E-commerce platforms (33-36) to disclose details of sellers listing infringing merchandise (11-23).
• All defendants except No. 10 must disclose registrant details for their websites.

Cases Cited and Reasoning

• Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.: Established personality/publicity rights for celebrities and that unauthorized use of these attributes is a violation.[1]
• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India: Highlighted that celebrities’ right to endorsement can be harmed by the unauthorized sale of merchandise with their image. It further emphasized the right to control the use of one’s persona.[2]
• R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.: Recognized the right to privacy as a shield against unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name/likeness.[3]

Additional Reasoning

• The court expressed concern about the potential misuse of AI tools for creating unauthorized and potentially damaging content featuring celebrities.
• The court acknowledged the singer’s conscious decision to avoid commercialization of his image, and that unauthorized use could harm his career.
• Freedom of speech and expression does not justify exploiting a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain.

Analysis and Conclusion

This case highlights the evolving legal landscape of celebrity rights in the digital age. Arijit Singh successfully argued for the protection of his personality traits, including voice and image, against unauthorized commercial use. The court recognized both privacy and publicity rights, establishing a precedent for celebrities to control the exploitation of their persona. The inclusion of AI-generated voice models as a violation is particularly significant. It acknowledges the potential for manipulation and protects celebrities from having their voice used in unauthorized or damaging ways. The case also emphasizes the importance of controlling commercial endorsements through merchandise sales.

[1] Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Order dated 13th June 2024 in Interim Application (L) No. 17865 of 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 17863 of 2024.

[2] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.

[3] R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632.