Context:
The rapid rise of AI-generated deepfakes has triggered fresh legal and ethical debates on personality rights in India. Recent lawsuits by Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan against Google and YouTube before the Delhi High Court underline concerns over unauthorised use of likeness, misuse of digital identities, and the absence of a clear statutory framework to regulate AI-driven exploitation.
Key Highlights:
Case Facts / Legal Developments:
-
Celebrities sued platforms over AI-generated videos that allegedly infringed their personality rights.
-
Petitioners sought monetary compensation and judicial safeguards to prevent such content from being used to train future AI models.
-
Indian courts have already recognised personality rights in cases such as:
-
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022)
-
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023)
-
Conceptual & Legal Framework:
-
Personality rights include control over name, image, likeness, voice, and identity attributes.
-
In India, these rights flow from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), reaffirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
-
However, India lacks explicit statutory codification, relying instead on judicial interpretation.
Technology & Ethical Concerns:
-
Deepfake technology blurs lines between authenticity and deception, enabling misinformation, extortion, and reputational harm.
-
AI systems often rely on mass data scraping, raising issues of consent, exploitation, and data dignity.
Global Approaches:
-
Europe: Dignity-based model prioritising human autonomy.
-
United States: Property-based model allowing commercial licensing of likeness.
-
India: Emerging hybrid approach, combining dignity and economic interests.
International Norms & Standards:
-
EU AI Act, 2024: Classifies deepfakes as high-risk AI, mandating transparency and labelling.
-
UNESCO Recommendation on Ethics of AI, 2021: Advocates a rights-based framework, prohibiting exploitative AI use.
Relevant Prelims Points:
-
Personality Rights: Control over identity markers such as name, image, voice, likeness.
-
Deepfakes: AI-generated synthetic media replacing faces or voices.
-
AI Watermarking: Technique to embed origin/authenticity markers in AI-generated content.
-
Article 21: Constitutional basis for privacy and personality rights.
Benefits, Challenges & Impact:
-
Benefits: Protects dignity, autonomy, and economic interests of individuals.
-
Challenges: Lack of clear legislation, cross-border enforcement issues, platform accountability.
-
Impact: Increased litigation and demand for regulatory clarity in the AI ecosystem.
Relevant Mains Points:
-
Constitutional & Legal Dimensions:
-
Article 21, privacy jurisprudence, evolving digital rights.
-
-
Ethical Issues: Consent, exploitation of identity, manipulation, misinformation.
-
Governance Challenge: Balancing innovation in AI with individual rights protection.
-
Comparative Perspective: Learning from EU’s precautionary regulatory model.
Way Forward:
-
Enact dedicated legislation explicitly defining and protecting personality rights.
-
Mandate AI watermarking and content labelling for deepfakes.
-
Establish platform liability frameworks for misuse of AI-generated content.
-
Promote global cooperation to address cross-border AI harms and standard-setting.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS 2: Polity – fundamental rights, judicial activism, digital governance
-
GS 3: Science & Technology – AI regulation, emerging technologies
-
GS 4: Ethics – consent, dignity, responsible innovation