AUTHOR: PIYALI CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE, DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALIPORE, WEST BENGAL
Court: In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Quorum: Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice R.I Chagla.
Year of decision: 2024
Official citation of the case: COM IPR SUIT (L) NO. 23443 of 2024
Cases referred: The following cases were referred by the Court in arriving at its decision-
1. Karan Johar (Also known as Rahul Kumar 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 (hereby referred to as “Karan Johar’s case”)
2. Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 (hereby referred to as “Anil Kapoor’s case”)
3. Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641 (hereby referred to as “Amitabh Bachchan’s case”)
4. D.M Entertainment (P) Ltd v Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790, and
5. Applause Entertainment Private Limited v Meta Platforms Inc and others, Order dated 13th June 2024 in Interim Application (L) No. 17865 of 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 17863 of 2024
Parties Involved: The plaintiff in the instant case is Arijit Singh, a notable singer and an acclaimed celebrity in the world, and the defendant in the instant case is Codibe Ventures LLP & Ors, a group of entities who were involved in the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s persona.
Facts of the case
The plaintiff hails from a humble family in the small town of Murishadabad district of West Bengal. Since his childhood, he had a keen interest in music. He started his musical journey by participating as a contestant in a musical reality show called “Fame Gurukul” and today he is one of the sought-after singers in the music industry. He has received numerous accolades over the years and has achieved massive fandom throughout the world with a fan base spreading across the world. With time, the plaintiff has acquired celebrity status in India. However, the persona and the attributes of a celebrity can be misused for monetary and other benefits. The defendants in the instant case are among those people and entities who through technological tools have used the plaintiff’s attributes in an unauthorized way. The plaintiff approached the Court to seek appropriate relief for protecting his personality and publicity rights from getting exploited in an unlawful manner.
Relevant Facts: The plaintiff filed the instant case for two reasons-
To seek relief for protecting the moral rights as vested upon the plaintiff under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.
To restrain all those people and entities engaged in exploiting his personality and publicity rights illegally.
The plaintiff through the instant suit avers the following:
That Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms were used to mimic the plaintiff’s attributes such as the plaintiff’s voice, likeness, manner of singing, images etc. in a manner that jeopardized the plaintiff’s reputation amongst his audience.
That website were created for using the plaintiff’s name in an unauthorized way, creating clone voices of the plaintiff using AI, merchandising products in e-commerce platforms using the plaintiff’s attributes
That YouTube channels were created for teaching methods of using AI in converting the voice of a third person into the voice of the plaintiff
That deep fakes, morphing technology, and Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) Files were used to mimic the plaintiff’s attributes
That plaintiff was once called in a restaurant for performing there for commercial gain by using the plaintiff’s name and image
Legal Issues
The issues raised before the Court are-
a) Can a third party use a celebrity’s attributes for commercial purposes?
b) Can persons/entities engaged in AI and allied platforms claim that the use of a celebrity’s attributes without seeking the celebrity’s permission is justifiable as such an act is part of the right to freedom of speech and expression?
Judgment- The case was heard ex-parte at the time of pronouncing the judgment. The Court passed a restrained order against some of the defendant and ordered the following-
Restrain from usage of the plaintiff’s personality rights and attributes such as name, voice, image, manner of singing by Defendant 1 to 25, 37 and 38
Restrain of deepfakes, AI tools, morphing technology, GIF format for mimicking the plaintiff’s attributes
Remove or cancel or suspend domain names created in the name of plaintiff
Removing or deleting or blocking websites containing content regarding the plaintiff
The order is not applicable on Defendant no. 10 in the instant case.
Summary of the Judgment
Although the Court referred to the above cases, the court majorly relied on Anil Kapoor’s case. The Court opined that plaintiff has right to protect their right to publicity and personality rights once an artist acquires celebrity status. The Court was of the opinion that such protection can only be granted when it can be convinced to the court- (i) that the celebrity, here in the instant case, the plaintiff can be distinguishable from the defendant, and (ii) that there has been unauthorized use of plaintiff’s persona for commercial gain.
Rationale: The Court used the following legal principles in arriving at its decision-
The Court recognized the fact that right to endorsement is a major source of livelihood for celebrities and that right cannot be curtailed in unauthorised manner for commercial gain.
The right to privacy is an implicit part of Article 21 of Constitution and it applies to celebrities as well.
Conclusion
Freedom of Speech and Expression as granted under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution has been considered as one of the core pillars for a strong democracy. Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to express one’s opinion, viewpoint, criticism, and comment. However, to keep a check and ensure that freedom is not over-utilized in a manner that is detrimental to the life and liberty of the person, restrictions are put under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The instant case showcases the need for drawing boundaries as the defendants have misused the technology under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression. After going through the necessary documents and evidences that was adduced before the court, it was clear that the acts of the defendant not only jeopardized the plaintiff’s moral rights and but also attempted to create an ill-will amongst the people regarding the artist who over time acquired celebrity status. The case is an eye-opener for people that showcases how technology can be used to manipulate and bring down a person in the eyes of people who would otherwise perceive a person in high regards.
Related Posts
