Author: Yash Kishor Mohite, Mumbai University
Introduction
Did you know that AI-generated content will likely constitute over 30% of digital media consumption worldwide by 2025? As the wave arrives, it brings in legal details that were previously in science fiction. One such subtlety arose in the Indian legal system when one singer, Arijit Singh, fought Codible Ventures LLP. The company allegedly copied his voice and likeness with artificial intelligence without his permission, and the question here is
Where do we draw the line between imitation and innovation?
This case underscores the intersection of IPR, privacy rights, and AI ethics. In this blog, we’ll break down the factual matrix, legal issues, the court’s reasoning, and wider case suggestions that might shape future legislation and IP protection.
Background of the Case
India's well-known playback singer, Arijit Singh, has sued Codible Ventures LLP. The firm was renowned for experimenting with AI-based entertainment devices. The motivation behind the suit? Codible allegedly created and shared AI-based content copying Arijit Singh's voice and identity to make profits without authorization.
The material was reportedly distributed through social media and music streaming sites, confusing audiences and generating a lot of money. Arijit Singh contended that the unauthorized use of his voice and likeness violated his Personality rights, relevant to his intellectual property, and damaged his artistic reputation.
Legal Issues Raised
The case raised several pressing legal issues:
1. Do artists have enforceable personality rights under Indian law?
2. Is voice and likeness included in the ambit of intellectual property?
3. Would courts deal with illegal AI-generated duplicates with any generosity?
4. What is their commercial use?
Even as Indian law falls behind in making personality rights explicit in codification under a special law, it has invariably maintained the existence of personality rights under the widened umbrella of right to privacy, Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court's Analysis and Decision
The Bombay High Court, which was arbitrating the case in 2024, ordered an interim relief in favor of Arijit Singh. The court acknowledged due to technological advancements, as groundbreaking as they are, cannot trespass on an individual's autonomy and personality rights.
Referencing prior decisions like Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/S Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) 50 PTC 486 (Del), and drawing inspiration from international jurisprudence, the court stated that an artist's voice forms part of his or her very being and cannot be duplicated or edited for profit without consent.
The court granted an interim injunction against Codible Ventures from continuing to utilize Arijit Singh's AI-voice or likeness. The court also directed streaming platforms to take down the unauthorized material immediately. The case has now been listed for final hearing, and experts believe that it is likely to result in significant jurisprudential growth in the domain of IPR and AI.
Broader Implications of IP Law and AI
This case has opened up a couple of cans of worms, most of which Indian law has not adequately addressed. Some of the important implications are:
Legislative Reform: Current IP laws, such as the Copyright Act of 1957 and Trade Marks Act of 1999, don't address AI-generated impersonations. Future laws may need to encompass protection for digital likeness and voice.
Personality Rights Enforceability: The case highlights the enforceability and recognition of voice, appearance, and other intangible characteristics-related rights
Platform Responsibility: The required takedowns, in essence, command a duty on platforms to verify the authenticity of content regarding celebrities.
Effect on Creative Freedom: In protecting artists, courts must also weigh against fair use, satire, and work transformation, especially in digital art.
India's move in the case of Arijit Singh is following these international steps, so it is a step ahead in safeguarding personal rights in the digital era.
Conclusion
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP is a landmark case in India's intellectual property arena. It posits significant issues around AI, consent, and celebrity rights that will only strengthen as technology grows. By valuing the moral use of artificial intelligence and the sanctity of one's voice and persona, the court has issued a forceful message- one that says, innovation cannot come at the cost of dignity.
As we move ahead in a more AI-oriented world, legal structures need to evolve to safeguard creators, performers, and the public at large from possible misuse of technology. The future expansion of intellectual property rights in India will heavily rely on the success of solving these initial issues.
