6 months ago
2
Recently, actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filed a suit against Google and YouTube successful the Delhi High Court. They alleged that AI-generated videos portraying them successful fictitious and often explicit scenarios infringe upon their property rights, resulting successful reputational and fiscal damage. They sought compensation, but besides safeguards to forestall specified contented from being utilized to bid aboriginal AI models.
This lawsuit highlights however AI blurs the lines betwixt authenticity and deception, prompting america to reassess the ineligible and ethical frameworks governing property rights. Personality rights, which see the close to power one’s name, image, likeness, voice, and different identifiers of identity, person agelong been a bulwark against unauthorised exploitation. Rooted successful concepts of privacy, dignity, and economical autonomy, these rights evolved from communal instrumentality principles to code commercialized exploitation. However, the emergence of AI, peculiarly successful the signifier of generative technologies specified arsenic deepfakes, has amplified these vulnerabilities. Deepfakes, AI-generated contented that swap faces oregon voices, propagate misinformation, alteration extortion, and erode trust. While AI fosters innovation, its unchecked usage risks commodifying quality identity, demanding ineligible safeguards.
The ineligible mosaic
Globally, property rights differ: Europe adopts a dignity-based model, the U.S. a property-based one, and India a hybrid approach. In India, these rights deficiency codification and stem from Article 21 of the Constitution, affirmed successful Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Courts person since classified AI infringements arsenic privateness oregon intelligence spot breaches. Landmark cases see Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022), which recognised property rights; Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023), wherever AI reproductions of Mr. Kapoor’s individuality and his catchphrase “Jhakaas” were banned for diluting marque value; and Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (2024), wherever the Bombay High Court protected Mr. Singh’s dependable from AI replication. These bespeak a judicial displacement towards a privacy-property hybrid. Yet, India’s model remains reactive. While the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2024 Intermediary Guidelines code impersonation and deepfakes, enforcement is hindered by anonymity and cross-border information sharing.
In the U.S., property rights are often referred to arsenic the ‘right of publicity’, a transferable spot involvement that varies by state. Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum (1953) recognised this close arsenic chiseled from privacy, allowing celebrities to monetise their identity. AI-related reforms see Tennessee’s ELVIS Act, 2024, banning unauthorised AI usage of voices oregon likenesses successful effect to deepfakes. Lawsuits against Character.AI alleged that its chat bots encouraged self-harm, starring to teen suicides. A 2024 Florida lawsuit claims the bot posed arsenic a therapist, fostering detachment from reality. A national justice dismissed Character.AI’s First Amendment defence.
In the EU, property rights travel a dignity-based exemplary nether the General Data Protection Regulation, 2016, which requires consent for processing idiosyncratic and biometric data. The EU AI Act, 2024, designates deepfake technologies arsenic high-risk, mandating transparency and labelling.
In China, a 2024 Beijing Internet Court ruling held that synthetic voices indispensable not deceive consumers, indicating stricter regulation. In a related case, a dependable histrion won damages aft an AI replica was sold without consent, affirming dependable arsenic portion of property rights.
This fragmented planetary model exposes however AI’s transnational quality surpasses nationalist laws. In ‘AI Ethics and Creators’ Feelings: Extended Personality Rights arsenic (Property) Rights to Object’, published successful the Social Science Research Network (2025), Guido Westkamp et al advocator expanding rights to encompass benignant and persona appropriations to support creators from AI’s exploitative information use.
The human-AI nexus
Scholarly discussions connected property rights successful AI centre connected ethics, dignity, and autonomy. UNESCO’s Recommendation connected the Ethics of AI, 2021, provides a rights-based framework. Its principles accent that AI indispensable not exploit individuals. In ‘Safeguarding identity: A broad survey of anonymization strategies for behavioural data,’ Aldrich, S.T., and Smith, K.R. (2024) critique India’s fragmented laws, calling for statutory AI definitions and high-risk classifications for deepfakes utilized successful disinformation. They rise ethical issues specified arsenic AI recreations of deceased artists, noting that Indian courts deem property rights non-heritable. Broader scholarship, including ‘The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI’ by Forrest, K. B. (2023), successful The Yale Law Journal, warns that granting AI ineligible presumption whitethorn erode quality rights. AI’s duality is clear: technologies similar ChatGPT grow creativity but besides alteration harm. However, excessive regularisation could stifle innovation.
These controversies exposure systemic gaps. India needs authorities that explicitly defines property rights and enforces AI watermarking, level liability, and planetary collaboration. The government’s 2024 deepfake advisory is simply a preliminary step, but stronger measures are essential. International harmonisation done UNESCO principles could avert ethical deterioration.
Madhavi Ravikumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad
