The Hindu Editorial Analysis
26 November 2025
Decoding personality rights in the age of AI
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS 2 – International Institutions
Context
India must adopt legislation that formalises personality rights while enforcing AI watermarking, platform liability, and collaboration with global partners.
Introduction
Recently, actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan approached the Delhi High Court with a lawsuit against Google and YouTube, arguing that AI-generated videos depicting them in fabricated, often explicit situations violate their personality rights. They stated that such content has caused significant reputational and financial harm, and requested not only compensation but also protections to ensure these materials are not used to train future AI models.
AI, Identity, and the Erosion of Authenticity
- This case underscores how AI blurs the boundary between what is real and what is fabricated, forcing a reassessment of the legal and ethical frameworks around personality rights.
- Personality rights covering control over one’s name, image, likeness, voice, and other identity markers and have traditionally protected individuals from unauthorised exploitation.
- Rooted in privacy, dignity, and economic autonomy, these rights emerged from common law to address issues of commercial misuse.
- The rise of AI, especially generative tools like deepfakes, has intensified risks by creating highly realistic but false depictions.
- Deepfakes can spread misinformation, enable extortion, and weaken public trust, showcasing how vulnerable identity has become in the digital age.
- While AI drives innovation, its unregulated use risks commodifying human identity, making stronger legal safeguards urgently necessary.
The legal mosaic
- Globally, personality rights differ: Europe follows a dignity-based model, the U.S. treats them as a property right, and India adopts a hybrid approach.
- In India, personality rights are not codified and stem from Article 21, reaffirmed in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment recognising privacy as a fundamental right.
- Indian courts increasingly classify AI misuse as violations of privacy, intellectual property, or both.
- Important cases include:
- Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022) — recognised personality rights.
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023) — prohibited AI use of Mr. Kapoor’s image and catchphrase “Jhakaas” for brand dilution.
- Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (2024) — protected the singer’s voice from AI cloning.
- India’s legal response remains reactive, and although the IT Act (2000) and 2024 Intermediary Guidelinesaddress deepfakes and impersonation, implementation is weakened by anonymity and cross-border data flows.
- In the U.S., personality rights are known as the right of publicity, a transferable property interest varying by state.
- Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum (1953) established this as distinct from privacy.
- Recent AI-era laws include Tennessee’s ELVIS Act (2024), banning unauthorised AI use of voice or likeness.
- Lawsuits against Character.AI claim bots encouraged self-harm and impersonated a therapist, with courts rejecting First Amendment defences.
- In the EU, personality rights follow a dignity-based framework under the GDPR (2016), requiring consent for handling personal and biometric data.
- The EU AI Act (2024) classifies deepfakes as high-risk and mandates transparency and labelling.
- In China, a 2024 Beijing Internet Court ruling stated that AI-generated voices must not mislead consumers.
- A separate case awarded damages to a voice actor whose AI-cloned voice was sold without consent, reinforcing voice as a protected identity attribute.
- This fragmented global landscape shows how AI’s borderless nature outpaces national laws.
- Scholars such as Guido Westkamp et al. (SSRN, 2025) advocate expanding personality rights to include style, persona, and other creative traits to counter AI’s exploitative data practices.
The human-AI nexus
- Scholarly debates on personality rights in AI focus on ethics, dignity, and autonomy, highlighting how technology can both support and undermine these values.
- UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021) offers a rights-based framework, emphasising that AI systems must not exploit individuals.
- In “Safeguarding Identity” (Aldrich & Smith, 2024), the authors criticise India’s fragmented legal approach, urging clearer statutory definitions of AI and high-risk classifications for deepfakes used in disinformation.
- They also highlight ethical concerns such as AI recreations of deceased artists, noting that Indian courts consider personality rights non-heritable.
- Broader scholarship, including Forrest’s “The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI” (2023), warns that granting AI legal personhood could undermine human rights.
- These discussions reveal AI’s dual nature: tools like ChatGPT can enhance creativity, yet they also enable misuse and harm.
- At the same time, scholars caution that over-regulation may stifle innovation, calling for for a balanced, ethical governance approach.
Conclusion
A balanced and ethical governance approach is essential as these controversies reveal deep systemic gaps. India urgently requires legislation that clearly defines personality rights while mandating AI watermarking, platform liability, and stronger cross-border cooperation. The government’s 2024 deepfake advisory is only an initial step, and far more robust measures are needed. Aligning with UNESCO’s ethical principles may help prevent further erosion of digital trust and human dignity.