Deep-Fake: Copyright on Face and Voice - International Laws. WIPO. Indian IPR Organisation. Analysis the Amitabh bachans high court plea on his voice.

Key Legal Concepts: Face, Voice, Deepfakes, Personality / Publicity Rights

Before diving into the case, it helps to clarify the legal landscape globally and in India.

International / WIPO / Comparative Perspective

1. Personality Rights / Right of Publicity / Likeness Rights
   • Many jurisdictions recognize that a person (especially a celebrity) has a right to control commercial exploitation of their identity — name, image, voice, likeness, signature, persona, etc. These are generically called “personality rights” or “right of publicity.”
   • These are often distinct (though overlapping) from copyright, trademark, privacy, defamation, etc.
   • In some places (not all), these rights survive death (post-mortem publicity rights).
   • The WIPO/IP community increasingly views misuse of persona in AI / deepfake settings as a frontier issue in intellectual property and personality rights (though WIPO doesn’t yet prescribe a uniform global standard).
2. Deepfakes & Voice Cloning as a Challenge
   • Deepfakes (image/video) and voice cloning (audio) allow impersonation or generation of synthetic yet realistic content that simulates a person.
   • Such technology can be used for fraud, misrepresentation, endorsement without consent, or reputational harm.
   • The core legal questions: Is the synthetic face or voice itself protected? If not, can we still restrain its use via other rights (persona, privacy, unfair competition, passing off, defamation)?
   • In some countries, there is discussion of drafting specific “anti-deepfake” laws or digital replication rights to regulate use of voice/likeness.
3. Limitations & Gaps
   • Copyright typically protects creative expressions (e.g. a photo, a performance), but not a person’s identity as such. Merely replicating someone’s face or voice (if not tied to a copyrighted work) may not be directly caught by copyright.
   • Moral rights (where available) protect distortion of works but may not help if the content is newly generated.
   • Freedom of speech / expression often acts as a counterbalance reserve (e.g. parody, critique).
   • Enforcement and traceability are practical challenges: attribution, detecting synthetic content, identifying anonymous infringers.

WIPO has published commentary on these challenges, and some WIPO-affiliated magazines have noted Indian cases as early precedents. (WIPO)

Legal Framework in India

In India, there is no statute explicitly devoted to “personality rights” or deepfake regulation yet. The courts have instead derived protection through a mix of:

• Constitutional rights (Article 21 — right to privacy / life)
• Common law torts (misappropriation, passing off, defamation)
• Copyright / moral rights (for works)
• IT Act / Information Technology rules
• Domain / trademark mechanisms
• Equitable remedies (injunctions, takedown orders)

Relevant statutory and legal touchpoints include:

• Information Technology Act, 2000
    - Section 66E (for capturing, publishing images violating privacy)
    - Section 66D (cheating by personation using computer resource)
    - Sections 67/67A/67B (obscenity, explicit content)
    - Under the IT Rules (Intermediary Guidelines), content impersonating another may be required to be taken down by platforms to maintain “safe harbour” protection. (The Hindu)
• Copyright Act, 1957
    - If a deepfake uses a copyrighted material (photo, video, original performance), that use may infringe.
    - Moral rights (Section 57) allow objection to distortion/derogatory treatment, but only for works to which a person is an author. (ijls.co.in)
• Equity, Passing Off, Torts
    - Courts in India have been evolving the concept of “publicity rights” or persona rights, treating unauthorized use of a person’s identity for commercial gain as unfair or injurious.
• Interim / Judicial Orders
    - Courts have used broad injunctions, takedown orders, “John Doe” actions (suits against unknown parties) to preempt misuse.

Because the legal regime is evolving, the rulings India is making now are key reference points.

The Amitabh Bachchan High Court Plea: Facts & Ruling

Here is what is known from media reports and court statements:

Facts / Allegations by Bachchan

• Many unscrupulous parties were using his name, image, voice, likeness, and characteristic style without permission to promote goods, services, or bogus lotteries. (Firstpost)
• Some mobile apps were offering “Amitabh Bachchan Video Call” or prank-call services claiming to use his voice. (Firstpost)
• Domain names such as amitabhbachchan.com were registered by third parties. (Firstpost)
• T-shirts, posters, merchandise bearing his face or name were being sold without his authorization. (The Week)
• The plea was framed “against the world at large,” intending to cover unknown future infringers (John Doe action). (The Times of India)

The Delhi High Court’s Order (Interim / Ex-parte)

• The court granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining persons from using Bachchan’s name, voice, image, or other attributes without his permission. (The Indian Express)
• The court recognized that Bachchan was a well-known personality, and unauthorized use could lead to irreparable harm or disrepute. (The Indian Express)
• It directed the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology and telecom providers to take down flagged content (websites, apps) and block certain phone numbers. (The Indian Express)
• Balance of convenience was held to tilt in favor of Bachchan, given prima facie merit in his plea. (The Indian Express)
• The court’s language suggests that the unauthorized use of his personality traits for commercial exploitation was akin to infringement of personality or publicity rights. (Firstpost)

Legal Significance and Limitations

• This is among India’s early high-profile cases recognizing a celebrity’s right over voice/image/attributes in the context of impersonation / misuse.
• However, it is an interim remedy, not a final determination.
• The ruling does not rely on a statutory “personality rights” law (because none yet exists) — it uses equitable and injunctive powers and derives principles from existing rights.
• The order is broad (“against the world”) but enforcement and follow-up will be critical (identifying infringers, damages, scope).

Bachchan’s case helps crystallize and push forward the doctrine of personality rights in India, particularly in digital / impersonation contexts.

Analysis: Strengths, Gaps, Challenges & Future Directions

Below is a critical assessment of how well the legal reasoning works, and what challenges remain.

Strengths & Positive Aspects

1. Judicial Recognition of Persona as Commercial Asset
   • The court’s willingness to treat voice, image, name, attributes as protectable under the broad umbrella of personality / publicity rights is significant.
   • It sends a signal to tech intermediaries, app developers, domain registrars, content platforms that misuse of identity traits can be restrained.
2. Preventive / Preemptive Scope
   • The John Doe / omnibus order approach helps address anonymous or future infringers.
   • Takedown / blocking orders provide practical bite (though enforcement is key).
3. Bridging Technology and Law
   • The order anticipates misuse via digital media and apps, not just traditional merchandizing.
   • It implicitly covers evolving technologies (e.g. synthetic voices) even though not spelled out, by relying on the broader concept of “attributes that identify him.”
4. Complementarity with Future AI / Deepfake Jurisprudence
   • As subsequent cases (e.g. Anil Kapoor, Arijit Singh) show, this precedent may feed into more robust doctrines for AI-era identity protection in India. (Asia IP)

Gaps, Risks, and Practical Challenges

1. Absence of a Statutory Personality / Deepfake Law
   • Because India lacks a dedicated statute defining personality rights or digital replication rights, the protection is piecemeal and reactive.
   • Reliance on courts’ equitable jurisdiction, private law, and suits may lead to inconsistency or fragmentation.
2. Proof & Attribution Issues
   • Identifying anonymous infringers (in the digital realm) is difficult.
   • Proving that a synthetic voice is identical enough to his voice or that an image is derived from him can be technically challenging.
3. Distinguishing Acceptable Use (Parody, Commentary, Criticism)
   • Courts will have to delineate boundaries: e.g. fair use, parody, satire, reporting, academic use vs. commercial endorsement.
   • The risk is overbroad injunctions suppressing legitimate expression.
4. Remedies and Damages
   • Interim injunctions are one thing; awarding damages, accounting, or penal deterrence is harder.
   • Injunctions work only if defendants are traceable and subject to jurisdiction.
5. Posthumous Rights & Legacy Use
   • Indian courts generally have held that personality rights do not persist after death (i.e. they derive from privacy, not property). (Esya Centre)
   • That means for deceased persons, protection is weaker.
6. Intermediary Liability & Platforms
   • Platforms (social media, app stores) are often in a grey zone. They may claim “safe harbour” unless they fail to act on notices.
   • Effective enforcement across jurisdictions when content is hosted abroad is a challenge.
7. Global / Cross-Border Deepfakes
   • Deepfake content can originate from foreign jurisdictions. Enforcing Indian orders globally is limited unless cooperation / treaties exist.
   • Differing standards across countries may lead to conflicting judgments.

Comparative / Later Cases & Trends in India

Since the Bachchan case, India has seen further developments in this space:

• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023)
    Delhi High Court restrained use of his name, image, voice (and AI / morphing / GIF misuse) without permission. (Business Today)
• Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (Bombay High Court, 2024 / 2025)
    This is a high-profile case involving AI voice cloning, domain names, merchandise, etc. The court held that making AI tools available to convert any text or voice recording into a celebrity’s voice (without permission) amounted to violation of personality rights. (WIPO)
    The court emphasized that voice is a core identity trait and found that unauthorized exploitation of persona via AI is injurious.

These cases show the trajectory: personality / publicity rights are being fleshed out case by case to encompass AI, synthetic voice, and digital impersonation.

Also, the Delhi High Court in a more recent case (Ankur Warikoo) issued orders restraining misuse of persona via deepfakes, referencing use of AI in impugned content. (WIPO)

Thus, Bachchan’s case is an early landmark, and subsequent jurisprudence is building more specificity around voice cloning, AI tools, etc.

Does “Copyright” Apply to Face / Voice?

One of your terms is “copyright on face and voice” — strictly speaking, copyright does not body the abstract person’s face or voice alone. Here’s a nuanced view:

• Copyright protects works (e.g. photographs, movies, sound recordings). So a video or audio recording featuring a person may be protected, and unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, or distribution of that recording can infringe copyright.
• But the identity of a person is not in itself a copyrightable subject. You cannot copyright your own face, your “voice” as a concept, etc.
• However, features of performance (unique vocal style, signature dialogue, performance of a song) might be protected in their expressive form, not the identity per se.
• In AI/voice cloning cases, the complaint is often not a pure copyright violation, but misappropriation of persona / unfair competition / impersonation.

So in Bachchan’s case, the court is not treating his face or voice as “copyrighted” works, but rather protecting his personality rights (name, image, voice) from unauthorized commercial exploitation.

Overall Assessment & Outlook

• The Amitabh Bachchan case is pioneering in India’s journey to legally recognize that a person’s voice, image, name, and identifiable attributes are not open for third-party commercial use without consent.
• It does not provide perfect, final law (only interim), but sets a precedent and jurisprudential anchor.
• The biggest challenge ahead is creating a cohesive statutory framework (or a robust doctrine) that can respond to rapidly evolving AI, deepfakes, and cross-border misuse.
• Technology—detection, watermarking, provenance tagging—must complement legal protections.
• Globally, as countries debate digital replication rights or anti-deepfake statutes, India’s evolving doctrine could become influential or need harmonization.