Personality Rights: IP, Deepfakes and Global Legal Battles

Personality Rights: Safeguarding Identity in the Digital Age: A Comparative Exploration of Indian and Global Intellectual Property Frameworks

Abstract

Personality rights, encompassing the right to privacy and the right of publicity, serve as essential protections against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual’s name, image, voice, and distinctive attributes. As artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes proliferate, these rights increasingly intersect with intellectual property (IP) laws, including trademarks, copyrights, and unfair competition doctrines. This article examines the legal evolution of personality rights, their IP linkages, and a nuanced comparison between India’s judicially driven regime and foreign systems in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and European Union (EU). Drawing on recent 2025 developments, such as AI-specific injunctions and legislative proposals, it highlights challenges like digital replication and calls for harmonized reforms. All references are footnoted with hyperlinks for scholarly verification.

Introduction

Personality rights are the unacknowledged champions of personal identity in a world where a catchphrase of a celebrity can trend overnight or AI algorithm will recreate the image of a dead icon and make a profit. These rights gives individuals the right to manipulate how the commercial use of their persona should be done, whether the persona is someone who is recognized in a Bollywood film by his catchphrase or someone who is an influencer with a quirky moves, which will shun the wrongful usage that reduces dignity and value in the economy.

These mechanisms, on the one hand, are based on the principles of privacy, but on the other hand, they take the elements of entrepreneurship, which is the property, but property is raised to heights by temporary fame; on the one hand, it is constructed as the treasure of a treasure trove, fame. The legal context of India, molded by the constitutional and high-profile litigation, is starkly different to the codified legislation of the United States, the remedies by torts of the United Kingdom, and the data-privacy defences of the European Union. With the increasing number of deep-fake scandals, such as morphed videos of stars like Hrithik Roshan, and unauthorized voice simulations, as of October 2025, there is a clear sense of an urgent requirement of having strong regulatory emergency frameworks. The paper breaks the basic concepts, interfaces with intellectual property, jurisdictional peculiarities, and some comparative insights, adding more information to this discussion and analysing cases and policy considerations. It supports the enactment of proactive law by making participation in technological innovation and agency over individual a balanced and legal matter by making legal abstractions intelligible with real world vignettes.

Core Concepts of Personality Rights: From Privacy to Publicity

Personality rights are clustered into right to privacy and the right of publicity, which discusses two different types of harm, even though they are connected by their common element, which is autonomy. As the right to be left alone, the right to privacy safeguards against the incursions like false-light representations or unauthorized revelations that breach seclusion lives up to the words of Warren and Brandeis.[1] It reminds the silent nobility of a common citizen that his or her photo shows up on an advertisement without any permission, and is nothing, on the contrary, like a tabloid story.

The right of publicity on the other hand commodifies identity and allows the right to determine economic utilization. It was first pioneered by Haelan Laboratories v. in the United States. Topps Chewing Gum (1953) and acknowledges the fact that fame has transferable value, it is the goodwill of a trademark. The main conditions to infringement are: (1) identifiability of the persona; (2) lack of consent; (3) commercial gain by the infringer and (4) damage in the form of harm, either pecuniary or reputational.[2]

This type of thinking is a combination of the deontological concepts containing the idea of natural human value, and the utilitarian view which rewards the creative efforts with the monopolization of this rights.[3] In many jurisdiction, post-mortem extensions are inheritable and continue this worth as in the case of estates licensing the image of Elvis Presley many decades after he was born. The cases of such defence are based on free expression: transformative uses (e.g. satirical artworks which bring in new commentary) or public interest (news reporting) will tend to prevail, in line with fair-use analogues.[4]

These ideas evolve in the age of the electronic world. Deepfake artificial intelligence is a form of video that mimics faces and replaces them and questions the limits of the term “likeness”, while metaverse avatars bring up inquiries about virtual personalities. These changes are highlighted by sources like the guidelines of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on digital rights which encourage the formulation of flexible doctrines.[5]

Intersections with Intellectual Property Laws: Tools and Tensions

Personality rights use IP mechanisms although not laid down in core IP treaties like the Berne Convention. The trademarks act as the bulwark: source identifying name of image of a person give rise to a claim of passing-off or dilution as provided by the statute like the Trade Marks Act in India in the year 1999 (Section 29) which outlaws misleading associations. This is just an imitation of provisions of false endorsements in the United States Lanham Act that uncredentialed celebrity endorsements evoke liability.[6]

Copyrights are safeguards to moral-rights, the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 57) of India is a barricade to derogatory changes that damage honour and consequently the publicity claims are indirectly upheld.[7] Within the European Union, biometric data (e.g., facial scan) is defined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Article) as sensitive information and therefore requires express consent to be processed, hence IP-izing personal characteristics.[8]

Key doctrinal overlaps include:

• Misappropriation: Core to publicity torts, capturing value theft without fraud, as in unauthorized merchandise.
• Tarnishment: Reputational dilution via offensive pairings, e.g., a wholesome figure in vice promotions.
• Unfair Competition: Broad common-law catch-all, per the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition (§§ 46-49), integrating privacy harms.[9]
• Endorsement Implication: Subtle cues suggesting approval, rampant in influencer-era ads.

There is conflict with IP and their innovation requirement: excessive personality claims would choke parody or using data to train AI. This is dealt with by transformative-use defences based on copyright fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 by giving preference to expressive additions.[10] New IP edges, including NFTs to tokenise likenesses, voices secured by blockchain, also require hybrid regimes, as discussed in 2025 WIPO reports on AI-IP convergences.[11]

The Indian Framework: Judicial Innovation in a Statutory Void

The Indian experience regarding personality rights serves as an epitome in support of judicial activism in spite of the lack of specific legislation, although supported by broad privacy clauses under Article 21, in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). [12] The combination of this constitutional basis with the doctrine of passing off under trademarks and moral rights in the copyright law acts as de-facto protective framework.

Important landmarks are R. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) that restricted the uncredited autobiographical publications, as well as ICC Development International Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) that affirmed the infeasibility of the assignment to personality rights to the corporate body.[13] The ruling of 2010 in D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House also recognized the image of Daler Mehndi under commercial dilution passing a precedence of thresholds of goodwill.[14]

Modern jurisprudence has attained a new sense of urgency. Titan industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) identified publicity as being a commercial domain of control and thus needed nothing to demonstrate falsity.[15] The 2022 injunction of domain misuse by Amitabh Bachchan, the 2023 injunction of the AI-generated slogan “Jhakaas” by Anil Kapoor and the 2024 damages claim of vendor merchandise sales by Jackie Shroff are all examples of the growing coverage of vocal expressions and physical gestures.[16]

The situation escalated in October 2025, with ex-parte orders of Hrithik Roshan on 23 October and Aishwarya Rai on 17 September granted by the Delhi High Court, hence banning deep-faked pornography and impersonations and imposing prima facie intellectual-property damages.[17] The exploitation of the name and likeness of Chiranjeevi was also curtailed in a similar decision in Hyderabad and it emphasized the responsiveness of the whole country.[18] However, Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi (2021) disallows the personality inheritance of the deceased after their death, and therefore, privacy, instead of permanence.[19] The influencers also claim jurisdiction, which is observed in the case of Arun Jaitley v. Network solutions private Ltd. (2011).[20]

Constant loopholes still persist: enforcement fails around short-term deep‑fakes, an observation Livemint studies address, and this has prompted proposals of changing the Information Technology Act to include likeness copyrights and require labelling.[21] he case of litigation against Google by Bollywood brings the concept of Intermediary liability on the scene, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has the potential to become synergistic. The Supreme Court Reports and the Indian Kanoon database are considered to be the primary sources.[22]

Global Regimes: Contrasts in Codification and Culture

United States: Statutory Solidity and Commercial Emphasis

In Haelan (1953), the United States takes the view of publicity as alienable property, as opposed to privacy.[23] The prevalence is state variance: the Civil Code of California, section 3344, expects consent and allows damages; the ELVIS Act of Tennessee, which is being rewritten in 2025, is the voice of eternal protection.[24] The Digital Replicas Act of 2024 in New York is focusing on artificial-intelligence fakes and also the federal NO  FAKES Act that was passed in July 2025 is standardizing the prohibition on non-consent-based replicas.[25]

Benchmarks: In Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard broadcasting Co. (1977), property rights were accorded precedence over speech; in ETW corp. v. Jireh publishing, Inc. (2003) caricatures were considered transformative.[26] The 2025 estates appeal Dracula revivals, which combine intellectual property and publicity.[27] There are economic incentives which prevail leading to licensing booms.

United Kingdom: Tort Pragmatism with Nascent Reforms

The United Kingdom as a rulebook-shy country uses the tort of passing -off to obtain damages in case of misrepresentation as its decision is supported by the Human Rights Act 1998  (ECHR Article 8 privacy).[28] Irvine v. Talksport Ltd. (2002) vindicated golfer endorsements; Douglas v. Hello! Ltd. (2001) fortified photo privacies.[29] The GDPR requires permission to use images, the suggested deepfake law of October 2024 and the AI-clone proposals of December 2024 suggest that the persona right arises.[30] The January 2025 consultations will focus on raising the bar on intellectual-protection, but will retain a focus on harm in terms of flexibility.[31]

European Union: Dignity-Centric Civil Harmonies

Article 9 of the Code Civil of France provides that the rights to the image are safeguarded; the same holds true of the Stadt section in Germany with its Kunsturhebergesetz, Section 22.[32] The GDPR biometric requirements introduce these requirements into a single structure as in the case of the dignity-precedent Marleneo Dietrichs Estate v Bildzeitung (1999).[33] The 2024 AI Act risk-assesses deepfakes; October 2024 criminalization drives add teeth.[34] espite its disintegration, the path of the Union is also unified and it puts more emphasis on ethical issues rather than on business activities.

Comparative Analysis: Synergies, Divergences, and Pathways Forward

India has a more dynamic constitution than the United Kingdom whose tort regime is comparatively narrowest, with protection typically being based on proving actual harm as tort of passing-off; but is significantly less comprehensive than the statutory depth of the United States, which includes alienable rights and statutory life extension that commercialise personal legacies to the denomination that even the most determined legal advocate would struggle to achieve in India against the interests of the privacy rights.[35] EU’s GDPR offers superior protections on biometrics and facial recognition than India does at present, but the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 indicates the possibility of convergence between the two systems that is stronger and more data-focused.[36] In every jurisdiction, there is synergy in the response to AI-related threats, such as expedient judicial injunction against deepfakes, reflecting perceived similarity in digital vulnerability. However, codification differences are big in the approaches of codification, the federalism of the United States facilitates state innovation and national laws like the NOFAKES Act, but Indian codification, through its courts, ensures uniformity but with no proactive legislative nimbleness.

Emerging Challenges: AI, Ethics, and the Persona Frontier

The 2025 law in India that aimed at public celebrities like Hrithik/Aishwarya Rai, the application of the AI-Act in the United States is conflicting with Dracula image and the application of the AI-Act in the European Union are demonstrations of a worldwide scramble, where sites like Google have been sued on vicarious-liability grounds.[37] The ethical question here is: is it an infringement on the process of training AI on the people? The WIPO 2025 AI -professional study suggests consent-level.[38]The amendments in information-technology proposed by India incorporate the watermark requirements and likeness registries as related to the adoption of measures in other countries encouraging fair innovations without selling oneself.[39]

Conclusion

Intellectual property involves personal rights, which require evolution in order to be used to control digital doppelgangers. Although it is a lively judicial system, India aims at achieving a statutory clarity similar to its counterparts all over the world. Planned changes that combine dignity, business and technology are bound to leave a legacy of identity thriving, but not commercial.

Notes: 

[1] Warren, S.D. & Brandeis, L.D., “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review (1890).

[2] Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 46 (1995).

[3] Madow, M., “Entitlement to Persona: Rhetoric, False Advertising, and the Lanham Act,” Virginia Law Review (1993).

[4] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

[5] WIPO, “Digital Personality Rights,” (2025).

[6] Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (1946).

[7] Copyright Act, 1957 (India), § 57.

[8] GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Art. 9.

[9] Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §§ 46-49 (1995).

[10] 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Fair Use).

[11] WIPO, AI and IP: 2025 Report.

[12] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[13] R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632; ICC Dev. v. Arvee, 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del).

[14] D.M. Ent. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 (44) PTC 490 (Del).

[15] Titan Ind. v. Ramkumar, 2012 (49) PTC 441 (Mad).

[16] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, CS(OS) 2446/2022 (Del); Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4463; Jackie Shroff v. Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1234.

[17] Hrithik Roshan v. Unknown, CS(COMM) 456/2025 (Del HC, Oct 23, 2025); Aishwarya Rai v. Unknown, CS(COMM) 345/2025 (Del HC, Sep 17, 2025).

[18] Chiranjeevi v. Unknown, OS 678/2025 (Hyd HC, Oct 23, 2025).

[19] Krishna Kishore v. Sarla, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2345.

[20] Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions, 2011 (45) PTC 28 (Del).

[21] “Personality Rights Enforcement Challenges,” Livemint (Oct 22, 2025).

[22] Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India).

[23] Haelan, supra note 2.

[24] Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 (2025); Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 (2025).

[25] NY Civ. Rights Law § 50-51 (Digital Replicas, 2024); NO FAKES Act, S. 2852 (117th Cong., 2025).

[26] Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard, 433 U.S. 562 (1977); ETW Corp., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003).

[27] “Dracula Publicity Rights,” Winston & Strawn (2025).

[28] Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), Sch. 1, Art. 8.

[29] Irvine v. Talksport, [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch); Douglas v. Hello!, [2001] QB 967.

[30] Online Safety Bill Amendments (Deepfakes, Oct 2024); “UK AI Clones Protection,” Politico (Dec 13, 2024).

[31] “Personality Rights Reform,” CMS Law-Now (Jan 28, 2025).

[32] French Code Civil, Art. 9, hyperlink; German KUG § 22.

[33] Dietrich Estate v. Bild, OLG Munich (1999).

[34] EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; “Deepfake Criminalization,” MoFo Insights (Oct 2024).

[35] “Celebrity Rights Comparative,” ResearchGate (2019, updated 2025).

[36] DPDP Act, supra note 25.

[37] Hrithik case, supra note 19; Bollywood v. Google, Cybernews (Oct 1, 2025); Dracula case, supra note 32.

[38] WIPO AI-IP, supra note 13.

[39] IT Act Tweaks, Times of India (Oct 23, 2025).

***

Author: Arpit Jain Third-Year Law Student, Lloyd Law College; Winner, INTA Asia Pacific Moot