The corridors of the Delhi High Court are once again witnessing a landmark legal battle that sits at the volatile intersection of celebrity rights and emerging technology. In a significant development, the court has issued a notice to Bollywood superstar Salman Khan following a plea by a China-based Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform. The platform is challenging an earlier injunction that restrained it from using the actor’s personality traits\u2014specifically his voice and likeness\u2014within its generative AI models. As a Senior Advocate observing the rapid evolution of Indian jurisprudence, this case represents more than just a dispute between a celebrity and a tech firm; it is a crucible for defining how “personality rights” will survive in the age of synthetic media.<\/p>\n
The core of the dispute revolves around the unauthorized creation of AI-generated voice models. For a public figure of Salman Khan\u2019s stature, his voice, face, and “style” are not merely personal attributes but multi-million dollar assets. The Chinese platform, however, argues that the broad injunction granted on December 11, 2023, stifles its legitimate business activities and technological innovation. This clash brings to the fore the urgent need for a regulatory and judicial framework that balances the proprietary rights of individuals with the burgeoning AI industry.<\/p>\n
The genesis of this legal conflict lies in a suit filed by Salman Khan seeking protection against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of his “personality rights.” In December 2023, the Delhi High Court granted an omnibus interim injunction. This order was designed to prevent various entities, including tech platforms and social media accounts, from using the actor’s name, image, voice, or any other characteristic associated with his persona for commercial purposes without his express consent.<\/p>\n
Such “John Doe” (or Ashok Kumar) orders have become a standard shield for Indian celebrities. From Amitabh Bachchan to Anil Kapoor, the Indian judiciary has increasingly recognized that a celebrity’s identity is their brand. When an AI app uses a voice model that mimics Salman Khan to generate content\u2014whether for entertainment, advertisement, or parody\u2014it capitalizes on the goodwill and “pull” of the actor without compensating him or seeking his permission. The initial injunction was a recognition of this potential for irreparable harm to the actor’s commercial value.<\/p>\n
The December order was comprehensive. It didn’t just target specific videos or images; it addressed the underlying technology that enables the misappropriation of a persona. By restraining the use of AI-generated voice models, the court effectively shut down a segment of the Chinese platform’s operations in India. The court\u2019s rationale at that stage was rooted in the “prima facie” evidence that the unauthorized use of the actor\u2019s persona constituted a violation of his right to publicity and could mislead the public into believing the actor endorsed the platform or the content it generated.<\/p>\n
The recent notice issued by the Delhi High Court comes in response to an application filed by the China-based platform seeking to vacate or modify the December 11 stay order. The platform\u2019s counsel argued that the injunction is overly broad and impacts “legitimate business activities.” Their primary contention is that the platform provides a technological tool\u2014a generative AI framework\u2014and that the blanket ban on specific voice models hampers the development and utility of their software.<\/p>\n
The platform asserts that AI voice cloning is a transformative technology. They argue that the creation of a voice model is a technical achievement that should not be simplified into a mere act of “theft.” Furthermore, the defense likely hinges on the argument that the platform itself does not generate the content, but rather the users do, invoking the “safe harbor” protections usually granted to intermediaries. However, the specific targeting of a celebrity\u2019s unique vocal cadence for a commercial product makes this “intermediary” defense significantly weaker in the context of Intellectual Property (IP) infringement.<\/p>\n
When the platform claims that its “legitimate business” is being affected, it is raising a fundamental question about the future of the AI industry. If every AI model requires a license for every scrap of data\u2014be it a voice, a face, or a style\u2014the cost of innovation could become prohibitive. However, from a legal standpoint, a business activity cannot be deemed “legitimate” if its primary value proposition is built upon the unauthorized exploitation of another person\u2019s intellectual property. In the case of Salman Khan, the “value” the app provides is directly derived from the actor’s fame, not just the underlying code.<\/p>\n
In India, personality rights (often referred to as publicity rights) are not explicitly codified in a single statute. Instead, they have evolved through judicial precedents, drawing from the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Law of Torts (specifically passing off), and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Indian courts have consistently held that a celebrity has the exclusive right to control the commercial use of their identity.<\/p>\n
The landmark judgment in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi<\/i> set the stage for this modern interpretation. The court noted that celebrities have a right to protect their “personality” from being diluted by unauthorized use. This includes their voice, which is a unique identifier. In the Salman Khan case, the court is applying these established principles to a new medium: Generative AI. The challenge for the court now is to determine whether the AI platform’s use of a voice model constitutes a “transformative use” (which might be protected) or a “commercial misappropriation” (which is actionable).<\/p>\nConstitutional and Tortious Foundations<\/h3>\n
Personality rights in India rest on two pillars. The first is the “Right to Privacy,” which allows an individual to be left alone and protects them from unauthorized portraits of their life. The second is the “Right to Publicity,” which is a proprietary right. This right allows a celebrity to monetize their fame. When a Chinese AI app creates a voice model of Salman Khan, it isn’t necessarily violating his privacy in the traditional sense, but it is certainly infringing on his right to publicity by diverting potential licensing revenue and controlling the “narrative” of his vocal identity.<\/p>\n
The technology at the heart of this dispute is “Voice Cloning” or “AI Voice Synthesis.” These models are trained on thousands of hours of audio data\u2014in this case, Salman Khan\u2019s films, interviews, and public speeches. The AI learns the nuances, pitch, and rhythm of the voice, allowing users to make the “AI Salman” say anything. This poses a dual threat: economic loss and the risk of “Deepfakes.”<\/p>\n
From a legal perspective, the creation of the model itself might be seen as an act of copyright infringement if the training data was used without permission. Furthermore, the output\u2014the synthetic voice\u2014is a direct imitation of a protected personality trait. The Delhi High Court’s decision to issue a notice indicates that the court is willing to hear the technical side of the argument, but the threshold for the AI platform to prove that its use is “fair” or “legitimate” will be exceptionally high given the commercial nature of the app.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court has been a pioneer in protecting celebrity rights. Recent cases involving Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff have seen the court granting wide-ranging protections against “Deepfakes” and unauthorized AI usage. In the Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India<\/i> case, the court observed that while technology is welcome, it cannot be used to “eviscerate” the rights of individuals. The court protected not just the actor’s image, but also his iconic catchphrases and mannerisms.<\/p>\n
In the present case, Salman Khan is seeking similar protections. The precedent suggests that the Indian judiciary is leaning towards a “Pro-Celebrity” stance when it comes to commercial exploitation. The court views the celebrity’s persona as a result of years of hard work and investment, which cannot be hijacked by an algorithm for a quick profit. The Chinese platform will have to navigate these strong precedents, perhaps by arguing that their technology is a “tool for creativity” rather than a “product for exploitation.”<\/p>\n
As this case progresses, several critical questions will demand judicial clarity:<\/p>\n
1. Does AI Training Constitute Infringement?<\/b> The court must decide if using a celebrity’s voice data to “train” an AI model, without distributing the original audio, is a violation of personality rights.<\/p>\n
2. The “Fair Use” Doctrine in AI:<\/b> Is there a “fair use” or “transformative use” defense for AI apps in India? If the app allows users to create parody or satire, does that protect the platform from a personality rights claim?<\/p>\n
3. Jurisdictional Challenges:<\/b> With the platform being based in China, the court faces the challenge of enforcing its orders across borders. This case highlights the need for international cooperation in AI regulation.<\/p>\n
4. Intermediary Liability:<\/b> Can the platform claim it is just a conduit for user-generated content, or is the act of providing the specific “Salman Khan Voice Model” a proactive step that invites liability?<\/p>\n
5. Economic Impact vs. Moral Rights:<\/b> The court will need to weigh the platform\u2019s right to do business against the actor\u2019s moral right to not have his voice used in contexts he might find objectionable.<\/p>\nThe Global Context: AI vs. Celebrity Rights<\/h2>\n
India is not alone in this struggle. In the United States, the “NO FAKES Act” is being proposed to protect individuals from unauthorized AI recreations of their voices and likenesses. Hollywood recently saw massive strikes by SAG-AFTRA, where AI protection was a central demand. The Salman Khan case puts India at the forefront of this global debate. If the Delhi High Court maintains the injunction, it sends a strong message to tech companies globally that the Indian market requires strict adherence to personality and IP rights. Conversely, any relaxation of the order might be seen as a nod toward technological freedom at the cost of individual identity protection.<\/p>\n
As a Senior Advocate, I believe the Delhi High Court\u2019s decision to issue a notice to Salman Khan is a necessary step in the due process of law. It allows for a technical and legal interrogation of the AI platform\u2019s claims. However, the protection of personality rights must remain paramount. A celebrity\u2019s identity is not public property; it is a hard-earned asset that deserves the highest level of legal protection against the predatory use of emerging technologies.<\/p>\n
The outcome of this case will likely set a definitive precedent for the “AI versus Persona” battle in India. It will determine whether “legitimate business activity” can ever be built on the back of unauthorized synthetic replicas of human beings. For Salman Khan, and indeed for all public figures, the stakes are nothing less than the ownership of their own identity in a digital world where the line between the real and the synthetic is increasingly blurred. The legal fraternity and the tech industry alike will be watching closely as the Delhi High Court navigates this complex terrain, seeking a balance that fosters innovation without sacrificing the fundamental rights of the individual.<\/p>\n
In the final analysis, the law must evolve faster than the algorithms it seeks to regulate. This case is a clarion call for the Indian legislature to consider a dedicated “Right to Publicity” Act that can address the nuances of AI, deepfakes, and digital avatars, ensuring that while India remains a hub for technological growth, it also remains a bastion for the protection of personal and intellectual property.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction: The Intersection of Stardom and Synthetic Intelligence The corridors of the Delhi High Court are once again witnessing a landmark legal battle that sits at the volatile intersection of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bookmyvakil.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}