GS Paper II
News Excerpt:
Scarlette Johnson, a Hollywood actor, accused OpenAI for using her voice named ‘Sky’, despite rejecting the licensing requests from the company CEO Sam Altman.
More about the news: Legal cases have been brought against OpenAI earlier over its use of copyrighted creative works. It also raises the question of infringing celebrities’ personality rights.
Background:
- OpenAI launched its latest AI model called GPT-4o (“o” for “omni”) which introduced voice mode, letting the users have voice conversation with the AI chatbot. It includes choosing voices from five different kinds.
- Scarlette Johnson, a Hollywood actor, accused OpenAI for using her voice named ‘Sky’, despite rejecting the licensing requests from the company CEO Sam Altman.
What is personality rights:
- Personality rights or publicity rights are a subset of “celebrity rights” claimed by celebrities.
- The name, voice, signature, images, or any other feature easily identified by the public as markers of a celebrity’s personality lie at the heart of personality rights. These could include poses, mannerisms, or any other distinct aspect of their public persona.
- Celebrities sometimes register aspects of their personalities as trademarks to use them commercially. For example: Footballer Gareth Bale has trademarked the heart sign he makes with his hands while celebrating a goal.
- The idea behind such rights is that only the creator or owner of the unique features can gain commercial benefit from them.
Cases of Personality rights in India:
- The Delhi High Court, while relying on its judgment D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, protected the personality and publicity rights of Jackie Shroff while restraining various e-commerce stores, AI chatbots, etc. from misusing the actor’s name, image, voice, and likeness without his consent.
- Further, the court held that attributes “over which the plaintiff exercises exclusive control constitute his ‘personality rights’ and ‘publicity rights’. The unauthorized use of these characteristics for commercial purposes not only infringes upon these rights but also dilutes the brand equity painstakingly built by the plaintiff over the years”.
- In a case involving Anil Kapoor, the Delhi HC granted an ex parte, omnibus injunction restraining 16 entities from using the actor’s name, likeness, and image using technological tools like AI, face morphing, and GIFs for commercial purposes.
- An omnibus injunction is granted against any unauthorized use, including against persons not mentioned in the plea.
|
D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House:
|
Protection under the law:
- Personality rights or their protection are not defined in Indian law, and are usually seen under the rights to privacy and property.
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which concerns the Right to Privacy of individuals, bears the closest resemblance to the protection of personality rights in India.
- Concepts in intellectual property rights cases, such as ‘passing off’ and ‘deception’, are usually applied in such cases while ascertaining if protection is warranted. For example, under copyright, the performance of personality is protected, under trademark, name, and signature are protected.
- Thus, it is clear that in India limited aspects of personality are covered under existing IP laws; yet, protection of other attributes of personality are not dealt with under any existing laws.
Way forward:
- Enact Specific Legislation: India should develop dedicated legislation that explicitly addresses personality rights, covering aspects such as name, voice, image, and likeness.
- Regular Review and Updates: The legislation should be subject to regular review and updates to ensure it remains effective and relevant in the face of evolving technologies and societal changes.
- Enforcement Mechanisms: Implement effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new legislation and provide recourse for individuals whose personality rights have been violated.
Conclusion
As India marches forward into the digital age, it must not only safeguard the commercial interests of celebrities but also uphold their dignity and autonomy. Failure to do so risks leaving our cultural icons vulnerable to exploitation and dilution in the rapidly evolving landscape of technology.
