Abstract
This research paper explores the dynamics of law dealing with personality rights in India vis-a-vis copyright law within the ambit of new technology like AI. The Copyright Act of 1957 exclusively recognizes the existence of economic and moral rights, but “personality rights” goes unrecognized. The paper tries to outline the relationship between an author’s personality and his work from the perspective of Personality Theory of Hegel and Kant. The moral rights of paternity and integrity, granted by the Indian law and assumed to be the dominant law of the land, do provide some recognition of personality rights, which is assumed to be prevalent in the case of entertainers and public personalities. A number of precedents that highlight judicial recognition of the unauthorized exploitation of one’s identity and demonstrates the Court’s readiness to grant jurisdiction over such rights from a wider view of privacy and intellectual property have also been discussed. With the increasing dependence on generative AI tools and the uprising of deepfake technologies, the paper recognizes important issues impacting individual identity and creativity. It establishes how AI can imitate voices, likenesses and images, that raises ethical and legal questions regarding what we have often been loosely referring to as AI. It further captures how two newsworthy recent cases in India, involving Arijit Singh and Amitabh Bachchan, where courts recognized protection against unauthorized AI-generated content that infringed on their personality rights. Ultimately, the paper concludes with a call to action for comprehensive legislative reform to amend the copyright law to underscore personality rights in its definition and provide remedies for violations where AI involved.
List Of Cases
- Asianet Communications (P) Ltd. v. Surya T.V., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 10366
- Mahalingam v. Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd. ,2013 (55) PTC 178 (Mad)
- Holy Faith International and Others v. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar , AIR 2006 AP 198
- Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99
- Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd., (1937) 3 All ER 503
- G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118
- Humans Of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. v. Poi Social Media Pvt. Ltd. &Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 947
- Holy Faith International and Others v. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar , AIR 2006 AP 198
- Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellelrs CS(OS) No.2662/2011
- Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. M/s. Varsha Productions 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158
- ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. ArveeEnterprises 2003 (26) PTC 245
- Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America [971 F.2d 1395 (1992)].
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 857
- Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1111
- Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664
- Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 209
- Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. , AIR 1987 Del 13 [LNIND 1986 DEL 270].
- Naruto v. David Slater 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018)
- Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445
Introduction
The law of copyright is considered to be a bundle of rights, with it consisting of a plethora of rights like that of reproduction, communication to public, translation, adaptation etc[1]. Apart from these rights, the person who is bestowed upon the authorship of the work, is also granted the rights of paternity and the right to integrity over that particular work.[2] This has also been affirmed by the Madras High Court in Asianet Communications (P) Ltd. v. Surya T.V.,[3], where the court observed;
“Copyright is a bundle of rights given by the law to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and the producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. The rights provided under Copyright law include the rights of reproduction of the work, communication of the work to the public, adaptation of the work and translation of the work. The scope and duration of protection provided under copyright law varies with the nature of the protected work.”
However, at least as per the statute, there is complete silence upon the express inclusion of the term, “personality rights”, in the wide umbrella of copyright.
Thus, in order to determine the reasons for the exclusion of the expression, “personality rights”, under the Copyright Act, 1957, it becomes important to understand the very nature and the objective that the law of copyright intends to meet. The Madras HC in S. Mahalingam v. Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd.[4]explained the purpose of law of copyright as to protect the work from the possible fraudulent reproduction of the work without his permission. The Court further added that since the author is the creator of the work, by using his talents, skill and knowledge, he must be in a position to enjoy the benefits of such creation.
A similar stance was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Holy Faith International and Others v. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar [5] held that the primary function of a copyright law is to protect the fruits of a man’s work, labour, skill or test from being taken away by other people.
Thus, it is clear that the very basis of the law of copyright is aimed at the attribution of the results and outcomes of the labour and hard work as put in by a person in the creation of the work, that is being granted intellectual protection.
Another basic concept under copyright jurisprudence, that is crucial to decipher the relationship between copyright law and personality rights, is that of idea expression dichotomy. This doctrine, which was first established in US in the landmark case of ,Baker v. Selden[6], where it was observed that there exists no copyright on an idea, but only the expression of that idea. The English courts accepted this doctrine, and propounded it further, in the case of Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd.[7], where Farwell j, observed
“If the idea, however brilliant and however clever it may be, is nothing more than an idea, and is not put into any form of words, or any form of expression such as a picture or a play, then there is no such thing as copyright at all. It is not, until it is reduced into writing, or into some tangible form, that you get any right to copyright at all, and the copyright exists in the particular form of language in which, or, in the case of a picture, in the particular form of the picture by which, the information or the idea is conveyed to those who are intended to read it or to look at it.”
It was the landmark R.G. Anand v. Delux Films[8], in which the concept of idea expression dichotomy was finally adopted in India. Recently, the Delhi High Cour has also affirmed the same, and laid down that under copyright law, it is only the expressions that attract protection and any abstract idea shall be denied copyright.[9]
Therefore, in order to interpret personality rights, to be included in the realm of copyright, first and foremost, it is important that a case for the personality of the claimant to be an expression and not a mere abstract and vague notion, needs to be established.
According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, personality of a person can be defined as various aspects of a person’s character that combine to make them different from other people[10] Reiterating the position taken up by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Holy Faith International and Others v. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar [11] , copyright is granted to an author to allow him to protect the outcomes of his labour and intellectual skill, it is actually the inherent traits of a person that are reflected in his or her intellectual creations and be considered an expression and thus capable of attracting copyright.
Another definition of personality, not as a verb but a noun, explains it to be a famous person, especially one who works in entertainment or sports[12]. It was the Delhi High court in Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellelrs[13], that observed, “A celebrity is defined as a famous or a well-known person…..is merely a person who many people talk about or know about.”
The court further laid emphasis on the violation of the rights of celebrities, if their name or photographs are misused, in the following words, “When the identity of a famous personality is used in advertising without their permission, the complaint is not that no one should not commercialize their identity but that the right to control when, where and how their identity is used should vest with the famous personality. The right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity”
Hence, in colloquial terms, the expression “personality rights”, is often used in synonymous tones with “ celebrity rights” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the domestic copyright legislation, personality rights can be found under the heads of moral rights[14] and that of performer’s rights[15].
Also, the fact that in the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the advent of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, it has become exceptionally easy to infringe someone’s copyright, and imitate someone’s personality, poses a serious challenge to the enforceability of copyright laws and thus, there exists a dire need to bring about a legislative amendment to the statute.
[1] The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), s. 14
[2] The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), s. 57
[3]Asianet Communications (P) Ltd. v. Surya T.V., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 10366
[4]S. Mahalingam v. Vasan Publications Pvt. Ltd. ,2013 (55) PTC 178 (Mad)
[5]Holy Faith International and Others v. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar, AIR 2006 AP 198
[6]Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99
[7]Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd., (1937) 3 All ER 503.
[8]R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118.
[9]Humans Of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. v. Poi Social Media Pvt. Ltd. &Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 947.
[10] Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, “Personality,” available at
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/personality (last visited on Nov. 15, 2024).
[11]Holy Faith International and Others v. Dr. Shiv K. Kumar, AIR 2006 AP 198.
[12] Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, “Personality,” available at
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/personality (last visited on Nov. 15, 2024).
[13]Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellers, CS(OS) No.2662/2011.
[14] The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), s. 57.
[15] The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), s. 14.