Bollywood singer prevails in first AI voice-cloning infringement decision in India

In a first-of-its-kind ruling on AI-driven voice cloning in India, the Bombay High Court has restrained third parties from violating the personality rights of well-known Bollywood singer Arijit Singh (Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures and Ors, SCC OnLine Bom 2445, 26 July  2024). 

Case background

Arijit Singh is a renowned playback singer in the Indian film industry with a discography of more than 661 songs and 107 awards. He claimed that the legally protectable facets of his personality include: 

• his name; 
• his voice, vocal style and technique;
• his mannerisms and manner of singing; 
• images, photographs, caricatures and likeness; and 
• his signature. 

Singh claimed that misappropriation of any of these attributes for commercial purposes violate his personality and publicity rights.

In the infringement case brought against Codible Ventures, Singh alleged that:

• AI tools were being used to synthesise artificial recordings of his voice; 
• the defendants advertised Singh’s likeness to misrepresent and confuse prospective attendees about his endorsement of or performance at their virtual event; 
• merchandise bearing his name, image, caricature and likeness was created and sold on various websites, including Amazon and Flipkart; 
• platforms were developed to create, store, search for and share GIFs of Singh and his performances; and 
• website domains bearing his name – including ‘arijitsingh.com’ and ‘arijitsingh.in’ – were registered without authorisation. 

Court decision 

The court noted that the plaintiff must be established as a celebrity for personality rights protection, which includes the right of publicity, to apply. Further, the plaintiff must be identifiable from the defendant’s unauthorised use of their attributes and this use must be for commercial gain. 

The court recognised Singh’s widespread fame and reputation in India as marker of celebrity and that the defendants were leveraging his popularity for financial gain by attracting consumers and driving traffic to their websites and AI platforms. 

In previous cases, Indian courts have recognised celebrity status and identified unauthorised commercial use of certain traits as an attack on personality rights (eg, Karan Johar v Indian Pride Advisory, Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India, Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi, DM Entertainment v Baby Gift House and Applause Entertainment Private Limited v Meta Platforms and Ors). In Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India, it was held that: 

…the celebrity's right of endorsement would in fact be a major source of livelihood for the celebrity, which cannot be destroyed completely by permitting unlawful dissemination and sale of merchandise such as t-shirts, magnets, key chains, cups, stickers, masks, etc. bearing the face or attributes of their persona on it without their lawful authorisation.

In light of this, the Bombay High Court ruled that Singh’s personality attributes, including his name, voice, photograph and likeness were protectable elements and that the unauthorised creation of merchandise, domains and GIFs was illegal. Using AI tools to recreate his voice and likeness – apart from violating his exclusive right to commercially exploit his personality – could potentially jeopardise his career if used for defamatory or nefarious purposes. 

The court thus granted an interim injunction, prohibiting third parties from using Singh’s name, voice, vocal style and techniques, mannerisms, photographs, images, signature, persona or any other aspect of his personality for any commercial or personal purposes without his explicit consent. 

Significantly, the injunction extended across all forms of media, including physical, digital and the metaverse to cover online platforms, publications, advertisements, merchandise and domain names, as well as gen AI, voice conversion technologies, digital avatars, deepfakes and GIFs. Further, this injunction was dynamic, which means it is continual to ensure that the original injunction operates effectively. This aims to tackle repeat infringement, particularly in the online space (eg, mirror websites).

Key takeaways

The Bombay High Court’s judgment highlights the growing need to reconcile IP rights with the evolving capabilities of technology, especially AI tools. Looking ahead, disputes of this nature are likely to increase, which makes this verdict a critical reference point for the future protection of personality rights in India.