Who Owns Your Digital Face? Deepfakes, Deepfakes, Personality Rights and Indian Law

This Blog is Written by Ramita Chaudhary, BA L.L.B Graduate, Delhi Metropolitan Education affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.

Blog 08 | Edition VIII

Introduction

Imagine seeing yourself on an online video endorsing a product you have never used or saying something you have never said. The whole video is artificially created but your voice, face and facial emotions look real. Deepfakes (DFs) are an emerging phenomenon, synthetic audio-visual content generated or manipulated via artificial intelligence (AI) that convincingly mimics a person or event. Deepfake technology has legitimate uses in creative expression, education and entertainment. However, its improper use raises serious legal issues in terms of identification, consent, privacy, reputation and commercial exploitation. It gets particularly tricky when someone’s voice or face is copied without their consent. In these cases, the fundamental question becomes who has control of your digital identity.

Constitutional Foundation: Privacy and Expression

The right to privacy which is the basic constitutional foundation for the protection of one's personality has been read into Article 21 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, identified privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution and associated it with individual autonomy and dignity. This is relevant to deepfakes because of the intimate relationship between personal autonomy and identity control. An objection to the use of an individual’s visage or voice might be made not only on the basis of economic value, but also on the basis that the individual did not consent to be represented in certain ways. At the same time, personality rights cannot be viewed in isolation from Article 19(1)(a) which guaranties freedom of speech and expression. It may be satire and parody, critique, art and genuine comment. It can contain references to public figures. Therefore, any legal regime that addresses deepfakes must be capable of distinguishing between legitimate expression and illegal impersonation. The problem is all the more difficult when synthetic content is presented as real, not as parody or fiction. The effects of intentionally misrepresenting a person as having made a statement in a fabricated video may be very different from the effects of a clearly satirical misrepresentation.

Existing Statutory Protection

There is no single personality-rights statute, but the character of the deepfake may make several existing laws relevant. Where an application for a trade mark falsely suggests a connection with a living person or with a person who has died within the last twenty years the Registrar shall, if so required, accept consent under section 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The provision makes it evident that Indian trademark law already considers the concerns that arise from an unauthorized association with a person’s identity. Copyright Act, 1957 may also be applicable in case of copyrighted photographs, performances or other protected work. Section 38B: performers’ rights 38B. Section 38B provides a further layer of protection in some cases. Another key legal framework is provided by the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 66C relates to identity theft and section 66D relates to cheating by personation using a computer resource or a communication device. Section 66E concerns certain privacy violations relating to private-area images. Although these provisions do not create a general personality-rights regime, they may apply in cases where a deepfake includes conduct satisfying the relevant statutory requirements. Thus, the legal response to a deepfake may depend on whether the deepfake actually occurred, which may include unauthorized commercial use, impersonation, invasion of privacy, defamation, copyright infringement, or other forms of unlawful conduct.

The Problem of Consent

The Indian courts are more and more confronted with the problem of personality rights and new tools. The Delhi High Court has before it a very important case. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India. The plaintiff sought to prevent people from using his name, picture, likeness, voice and other aspects of his persona without his permission. The Court looked at technological methods such as AI, deepfakes and face morphing in relation to the alleged personality rights. This case is important because it shows how traditional personality-right principles are being applied to new technologies that can reproduce a person’s identity in multiple ways. The concerns are not just about copying a picture, but computer-made images that look like real people, in ways that can be recognized. There is also the very important case of Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures LLP in Bombay High Court. At an early stage the Court held that traits of personality, such as a person’s name, voice, photograph, image, likeness and persona, may be protected parts of their personality rights and right to publicity if certain conditions are satisfied. Also during the events, AI tools were used that could transform voices into ones that sounded like celebrities. There isn’t a single legal framework, but personality rights are increasingly being extended to digital and AI-generated forms of identity. These cases are a significant change in the law.

Why Deepfakes Create a Legal Gap

One of the most significant issues is that deepfake technology can turn a single piece of content into more than one illegal thing. One altered video can be used for impersonation, image damage, privacy violation, and illegal commercial use at the same time. Therefore, the existing laws do not use one framework but different legal groups. This can make it hard for victims to get justice, especially if the content was made anonymously, hosted outside India or shared across multiple platforms. The other thing is technology spreads information very fast. The victim may be able to have the original content removed, but copies may already have been saved, shared or passed around. Therefore, solutions require more than legal recognition to be effective. They also want quick ways to detect, remove and prevent the problem.

Conclusion

India requires a more comprehensive and clear framework to address the misuse of digital identities. Subsequent laws could easily protect an individual’s name, image, likeness, voice and AI-generated copies, and provide fast remedies for harmful or illegal deepfakes. It should also hold platforms and AI developers accountable for detecting, tagging and removing illegal synthetic material. This rule must also protect legal parody, satire, criticism and artistic speech protected by Article 19(1)(a). The aim should be to control dishonest and harmful impersonation, without unduly limiting genuine AI progress or freedom of speech. Personality rights used to be largely commercial, but deepfakes have made them about privacy, identity, liberty and respect. Indian courts have begun to extend existing laws to covers and sounds created by AI, but there are major gaps as the country does not have a law specific to personality rights. Because digital identities are easier to copy, Indian law needs to ensure that new technology doesn’t strip people of their control over their own identities.

(Write to the author at ramita112003@gmail.com.)