Bollywood vs Deepfakes: When Stars Take the Stand
By Dilip Bobb
The names learn like the solid for a blockbuster Hollywood film. Bollywood actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan and producer and well-liked tv host Karan Johar. Three of them might belong to Bollywood’s main household, however additionally they have one factor in widespread with Johar: they’ve all approached the courts for safeguarding their character rights.
The Delhi High Court’s intervention in Aishwarya’s case exhibits that judges are recognising the risks of identification theft in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Justice Tejas Karia’s observations that unauthorised use of an actor’s title, picture, or signature can dilute their goodwill was indeniable, but it surely was equally clear that in the age of AI, the battle to guard their rights comes up in opposition to modern actuality: that expertise is transferring a lot sooner than the authorized cures to defend such rights.
In Karan Johar’s case, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction defending his character rights in opposition to the unauthorized use of his title, picture, voice, and likeness for industrial functions. The order particularly prohibits the creation and dissemination of merchandise, movies, and different content material utilizing his persona by way of AI, deepfakes, and different applied sciences for financial achieve. The downside is that our legal guidelines should not sufficient sufficient to cope with AI-enabled deepfakes which might be being freely used to promote merchandise and merchandise, with Bollywood personalities showing to endorse them.
The Johar case was handled underneath Order 39 Rules 1 and a pair of of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. All that the single-judge bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora might do was to direct blocking and disabling of all infringing web sites, platforms and social media accounts disseminating content material that violate his character rights. There have been 13 events accused in Johar’s petition, however the harm had been finished. By the time he went to courtroom, hundreds of thousands would have already seen his pretend endorsements utilized in a number of and nefarious methods.
The plaintiff contended that Defendant 1, known as “John Doe”, in addition to Defendants 2 to 13 used AI to create morphed pictures, together with deepfake and audio-video clips which might be in unhealthy style and made the plaintiff a topic of humiliation, disparagement, obscenity and mock. He additional contended that as a result of such derogatory and illegal exploitation of his character rights, he has suffered a major lack of goodwill and status. Defendant 1 is the proprietor of the area title www.karanjohar.com, and it was contended that the adoption of such a website title was obtained with the intent to trip upon the goodwill and status of the plaintiff. Defendant 2 operates an internet site that permits the public to entry and obtain varied pictures and wallpapers of the plaintiff. Defendant 3 is the registrar of an internet site that permits the public to swap the voice of the plaintiff utilizing AI. Defendant 4 is the registrar of an internet site that comprises an AI chatbot which unauthorizedly makes use of the character rights of the plaintiff. Defendants 5 and 6 are on-line platforms that make and allow customers to make Graphical Interchange Format (GIFs) that inappropriately exploit the plaintiff’s title and picture. Defendants 8,9,11,12 and 13 are varied on-line marketplaces and e-commerce web sites which have enabled sale of merchandise that unauthorizedly makes use of the plaintiff’s persona.
Similarly, Abhishek moved the Delhi High Court looking for safety of his character rights, alleging that rogue web sites
have been utilizing his title and picture with out authorization. His plea was filed a day after his spouse, Aishwarya approached the Delhi High Court in an identical case. Her plea concentrating on the web site aishwaryaworld.com and different infringers. Aishwarya’s advocate Sandeep Sethi advised the Court that aishwaryaworld.com falsely claims to be her “only authorized and official website”, with out authorization. Sethi mentioned the platform printed private info, unauthorized pictures, and was even promoting merchandise reminiscent of T-shirts priced as much as Rs 3,100 and mugs that includes her likeness, making a deceptive impression of endorsement. Sethi referred to as it a “derogatory, defamatory, and a direct assault” on Aishwarya’s dignity.
Meanwhile, her husband, Abhishek, filed an enchantment in opposition to the web site Bollywood Tee Shop, which makes T-shirts of Bollywood celebrities. The petition, filed in opposition to the web site and different infringers, argued that the unauthorised use of his persona is a part of a wider development of on-line fraud exploiting celebrities’ identities. A bench led by Justice Tejas Karia posted the matter for January 15, 2026. Johar’s case was additionally posted for January 2026. The delay signifies that the judiciary as a complete continues to be struggling to return to grips with AI-enabled deepfakes utilizing celebrities with out their consent.
In November 2022, Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan had filed a petition with the Delhi High Court alleging that people have been utilizing his title, voice and picture with out his consent to promote their services and products, starting from T-shirts and posters to lotteries and video name purposes. In response to his petition, the Delhi High Court ordered the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications to take down any hyperlinks or web sites supplied in the plea that infringed Bachchan’s publicity rights.
The downside with taking part in catch-up with rising applied sciences is that copyright legal guidelines are missing in tooth and enforcement. Amitabh tried to acquire a copyright for his well-known voice in 2010 after it was claimed {that a} tobacco producer used his impersonated voice to promote its product. The case got here underneath Section 14 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which was compiled properly earlier than even computer systems got here into widespread use. Under Section 13 of the Act, all artistic works, together with books, music, performs, visible arts, sound recordings, and movement footage, are protected by copyright. That was of no use to Amitabh since underneath Section 13 of the Act, a star’s voice doesn’t match into any of those classes and isn’t particularly coated by copyright safety. Additionally, since voice is just not a mark as outlined by the Trademarks Act of 1999, it’s not attainable to register a trademark for it. Further, when a well-known particular person registers a trademark for his or her title, it merely signifies that they’ll cease different folks from utilizing the trademark with the classes of products and providers for which they’ve registered the trademark.
Earlier, Bollywood celebrities like Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff had additionally approached the courts to restrain unauthorised use of sure phrases which might be iconically associated to their personalities. Again, phrases or phrases utilized in films don’t come underneath any established authorized proper until they’re offensive or prone to create public dysfunction.
Celebrities at the moment are realising {that a} single manipulated video or unauthorised endorsement could cause irreparable reputational harm and financial loss. They have additionally realised that their character has a direct financial worth in endorsements and branding, and see it as a matter of dignity and mental property and industrial management. Back in 2022 when Bachchan senior moved the Court to guard his character rights, his lawyer had identified that not many individuals had enforced character rights. That underlines the challenges confronted by the judiciary in defending such rights in India.
There can also be some confusion relating to character rights and the proper to privateness. Though associated, they shield totally different facets of a person’s identification: character rights (also referred to as publicity rights) management the industrial exploitation of 1’s persona (title, picture, voice, likeness), whereas the proper to privateness protects one’s private info, dignity, and autonomy from unauthorized public disclosure or intrusion. Personality rights give attention to the financial worth of a public identification, whereas privateness rights (established in the landmark Supreme Court case Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, 2017) concerned the proper to privateness as a elementary proper.
That is the motive for inconsistency in High Court judgements on this regard, reminiscent of Super Cassettes vs Union of India, during which the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to acknowledge character rights as a subset of the proper to privateness. The courts have persistently failed to differentiate between privateness rights and character rights. In actuality, each have to be thought-about whereas deciding upon denial of those rights, particularly the place promoting usually relies on the use of celebrities to endorse merchandise. AI has made a mockery of this and the courts are struggling to deal with the technological problem.
The problem usually was acknowledged by none aside from Prime Minister Narendra Modi who mentioned, two years in the past: “A new crisis is emerging due to deepfakes produced by Artificial Intelligence. We have a big section of the population that does not have the wherewithal to verify their genuineness, and there lies the concern”.
That solely underlines the pressing want for brand new regulatory and authorized measures to stop unauthorised use of a person’s likeness for industrial achieve. India has no direct legal guidelines or laws on AI or deepfakes which is permitting the use of unauthorised superstar endorsements. AI has created a authorized conundrum for anybody to take advantage of.
The traditional instance was Olympic shooter Manu Bhaker. After her medal-winning efficiency in the Paris Olympics, a number of manufacturers, together with Bajaj Foods, LIC and FIITJEE, used her pictures with out her consent in congratulatory posts on social media. These posts have been strategically designed to align the manufacturers along with her success, thus selling their merchandise by way of a advertising method generally known as “moment marketing”. This apply capitalizes on trending occasions or achievements through the use of a star’s picture to achieve consideration and improve model visibility, usually with out acquiring the essential consent. In Bhaker’s case, her administration firm, IOS Sports & Entertainment, issued authorized notices to the manufacturers, arguing that the unauthorized use of her picture exploited her character rights.
While these rights are well-established in nations like the United States, Indian jurisprudence surrounding character rights has developed primarily by way of case legislation quite than statutory provisions. With the improvement of digital platforms and social platforms, the place content material is quickly shared and circulated, the boundaries between real and oblique advertising have develop into more and more blurred. Bhaker’s case, together with the Bachchans and Johar, emphasizes the pressing want for up to date legal guidelines to safeguard character rights in an more and more digitized world.
—The author is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal journal
