A Legal Analysis in the Entertainment Industry and liability in AI generated Content.

1.SambhabiPatnaik , Assistant Professor, KIIT School of Law, KIIT DU,

sambhabi.patnaik@kls.ac.in, 8895080820

2.Arya Shankar Mahaprashasta, 4th Year Student, KIIT School of Law, KIIT DU,
2082120@kls.ac.in, 8456965335

Abstract:

This research delves into the intricate legal landscape surrounding liability and accountability
in the context of AI-generated content within the Entertainment and Media sector. As AI
technologies increasingly contribute to content creation, questions arise regarding the
allocation of responsibility for intellectual property violations, copyright infringements, and
potential legal repercussions. The study will explore existing legal frameworks, assess the
adequacy of current liability standards, and propose recommendations for adapting legal
structures to accommodate the evolving role of AI in content production. Additionally, the
research will investigate the potential establishment of industry-specific guidelines to clarify
the responsibilities of AI developers, content creators, and platform operators. By addressing
these legal nuances, the research aims to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse
on AI in the Entertainment and Media sector.

This paper looks at the ethical standards and legal frameworks that currently regulate content
created by AI, emphasizing the difficulties in assigning accountability when there is little to
no human input in the content generation process. Liability distribution is questionable
because traditional legal concepts find it difficult to reconcile established notions of guilt
with the action of AI systems. The situation is further complicated by moral issues pertaining
to justice, openness, and the defense of individual rights. This abstract suggests approaches
for addressing the ethical and legal ramifications of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated
content through an examination of academic literature and recent case studies. Regulatory
changes to bring current laws into compliance with the digital era, the adoption of moral
standards to control the production of AI content, and the application of technological
advancements. .
KEY WORDS :Artificial Intelligence, AI Generated Work , Copyright infringements, Content
Creators, Information Technology Act 2000 , Copyright Act 1957, Trademark Act 1999.

Introduction

The term "AI-generated content" refers to a broad range of applications, including deepfake
movies, virtual influencers, and automated news articles and targeted ads. These AI systems
examine enormous databases and produce material that imitates human creativity and thought
processes by utilizing complex algorithms and machine learning approaches. Even though
this technical advancement presents unmatched chances for effectiveness and scalability, it
also poses important concerns regarding who should bear accountability when AI-generated
content has unfavourable effects.

The present introduction provides an overview of the complex field of liability and
accountability in artificial intelligence-generated content. It provides a framework for
discussing the difficulties in figuring out who should be held accountable when AI systems
create content that spreads false information, reinforces prejudices, or violates intellectual
property rights. In light of this, the study's objectives are to analyze the ethical and legal
frameworks regulating AI-generated content, examine the difficulties in assigning blame in
situations involving autonomous AI systems, and suggest methods for boosting
accountability while encouraging the responsible use of AI technologies in content creation.
We may better comprehend the effects of AI-generated content on society, culture, and the
legal system by exploring these nuances; this will open the door for ethical policies, cutting-
edge technology, and ethical practices in this rapidly developing field. The media and
entertainment industry encompasses various sectors such as music, cinema, television,
fashion, and more, making it a vast and ever-changing domain. Within this industry, the
protection of intellectual property (IP) is crucial to safeguard the rights of inventors, artists,
and producers.

By 2030, it is projected that the media and entertainment sector in India will generate $100
billion in revenue. With the industry experiencing exponential growth, it becomes
increasingly crucial to recognize the significance of intellectual property rights in this field.
Copyright and trademark are particularly vital in this industry, as trademarks protect movie
titles, important characters, and other film components, while copyright safeguards content
from infringement and acknowledges the rights of authors.
 However, as the sector continues to expand, the issue of intellectual property rights
infringement, cyber crimes, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement also grows.
The law and the courts strive to encourage innovation by ensuring its unrestricted flow while
simultaneously working to prevent abuse.The media and entertainment industry in India is
experiencing rapid growth, encompassing various sectors like film, television, digital media,
print media, music, and gaming. The legal landscape governing this industry is a blend of
different laws and regulations, covering intellectual property, contracts, censorship, and
labour. The Information Technology Act of 2000, along with its associated rules and
regulations, has been revised to oversee online content, social media platforms, and e-
commerce platforms. Moreover, the government has introduced fresh guidelines for digital
media, particularly OTT platforms, mandating compliance with a code of conduct and self-
regulation mechanism.

CONCEPT OF AUTHORSHIP AND EVALUATION OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT

WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT

The Thaler v. Perlmutter case is without a doubt the most current and well-known
disagreement about whether or not content produced by AI qualifies as a work. Dr. Stephen
Thaler submit an application for formal registration to the United States Copyright Office
("USCO") for a work titled "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," which was produced by the AI
system known as the "Creativity Machine." Thaler contended that the denial of this
application was illegal. The USCO rejected the objection, citing the lack of creative input
from a human actor as the reason the work could not possess the intellectual property traits of
a human author. After the claim was eventually made, the district court upheld the USCO's
ruling in August 2023.Another crucial aspect of the case is that Thaler sought to have the
work classified as a "work-made-for-hire", leading to an examination of whether the author
must be a human being even in works commissioned by others.

Conversely, during the same time-frame, Thaler filed a patent application for an AI-
generated invention with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO"),
claiming ownership of any output from the AI system due to his ownership of the AI system
itself in order to bypass application requirements. The court viewed this as an unprecedented
doctrine where a machine creates intellectual property, suggesting that AI users would not be
recognized as intellectual property rights holders under Anglo-Saxon law.

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content and Copyright Creativity And Authorship Issues
https://kilinclaw.com.tr/en/artificial-intelligence-generated-content-and-copyright-creativity-and-authorship-issues/
on – 5.3.2024 at – 4.30 pm
According to Turkish law, intellectual property encompasses rights and control over literary
and artistic works, as well as patents, utility models, and designs. As defined in Article 1/B of
Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“LIAW”), a work is described as “all types
of intellectual and artistic creations that bear the characteristics of their creator and fall under
the categories of science and literature, music, fine arts, or cinema.” The law stipulates that
for something to be considered a work, it must exhibit the characteristics of its author. It is
contended in doctrinal circles that an intellectual work displaying creative qualities and
reflecting the characteristics, creativity, and style of the author's idea can be attributed to real
individuals. Therefore, according to the LIAW, works can only be produced by actual
persons. In a decision dated 04.02.2015, numbered 2014/16277E., 2015/1285K., the 11th
Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld a similar perspective to this doctrinal view.

COPYRIGHT IN AI-GENERATED WORKS AND LIABILITY IN CASE OF COPYRIGHT

INFRINGEMENT

Copyright encompasses legal rights in products produced by human intellectual activity.

These rights are protected under the liability waiver and do not need to be registered under
Turkish law in order to acquire ownership. Intellectual and artistic rights are created when
such works are produced, and copyright arises because they fall within the sphere of human
rights. Copyright is also protected under Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

When examining the relationship between AI and copyright under Turkish law, it is
important to note that autonomous AI products are not protected by copyright under Turkish
law. AI creates new content on the basis of existing data, but whether or not that content is
completely original is in itself a matter of dispute. Furthermore, who would be held
responsible in the event of a legal dispute that might arise. Because AI algorithms are based
on large datasets, the content they create by processing those datasets may also lead to
infringement of 3rd party copyright. Since AI does not have legal personality, there is
uncertainty as to who would be liable in the event of an infringement.Determining liability
for AI-generated works is a complex task that involves understanding the roles of AI
developers, users, and the AI system itself. Both creators and users of AI-generated content
have a responsibility to ensure compliance with copyright laws. However, when an AI system
creates work without human intervention, determining the rightful copyright owner becomes
complicated. The lack of legal personality attributed to AI creates issues when it comes to

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content and Copyright Creativity And Authorship Issues
https://kilinclaw.com.tr/en/artificial-intelligence-generated-content-and-copyright-creativity-and-authorship-issues/
on – 5.3.2024 at – 4.30 pm
copyright infringement caused by AI. The Copyright Act typically holds individuals liable for
infringement, but AI is not recognized as a legal entity. To address these liability concerns, it
is necessary to establish clear frameworks that attribute responsibility to AI creators, owners,
or operators. In some countries, such as India, Ireland, and New Zealand, copyright
ownership is granted to the programmer of the AI system. This approach acknowledges that
the existence of AI is a result of the programmer's intellectual creativity. India, for example,
has adopted a lenient approach by granting co-ownership of the work created by the AI
system called Suryast to both the AI RAGHAV and its creator.

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content and Copyright Creativity And Authorship Issues
https://kilinclaw.com.tr/en/artificial-intelligence-generated-content-and-copyright-creativity-and-authorship-issues/
on – 5.3.2024 at – 4.30 pm
AI - GENERATED WORK -INTELLECTUAL PROTECTION IN INDIA

The subject matter of creative works in India is governed by the copyright act of 1957. India
is not inclusive for AI generated works. In section 2(d), the author is defined as the person
who creates the work, which may be a human or a legal person. AI systems are not allowed to
own authorship. The Indian courts have repeated this in several judgments. In the United
States, the legal doctrine of fair use permits limited use of copyrighted materials without
permission under certain conditions. Whether an AI-created work is considered fair use
depends on factors such as the purpose of the work, its nature, the amount of use, and its
effect. Trans formative uses, which add new meanings or expression to the copyrighted work,
are often a decisive factor in the analysis of fair use.

To tackle the legal implications of AI-generated creative works in India, there are several
measures that can be implemented:

1. Revise Intellectual Property Laws: It is crucial to update intellectual property laws in order
to keep up with the advancements in AI technology. This entails acknowledging and
addressing the distinct challenges presented by AI-generated content, copyright ownership,
and fair use in the digital age.

2. Establish Separate Criteria for AI-Generated Works: Even if AI is not granted legal status,
its creations can be acknowledged under a separate criterion from traditional copyrights. This
approach can help bridge any gaps in the existing legislations and principles without
compromising their integrity.

3. Enforce Data Usage and Governance Policies: AI projects should adhere to well-defined
policies regarding the usage and governance of data. These policies should include
mechanisms for oversight and compliance to ensure the responsible and ethical use of
copyrighted material during AI training.

4. Mandate Compliance Officers: It is essential for AI firms to appoint compliance officers

who are responsible for copyright protection, conducting audits, and assessments. These
officers would ensure that AI-generated content complies with copyright laws and identify
any potential infringements. The current Copyright Act of 1957 in India does not specifically
address AI-generated works or recognize AI as an author. Therefore, considering
amendments to copyright laws is necessary to effectively address the unique challenges posed

Legal implications of AI Created work in India

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india#:~:text=The
%20Copyright%20Act%20typically%20holds,creators%2C%20owners%2C%20or%20operators
on 02.03.2024 at 1.37pm
by AI technology. These amendments could involve recognizing AI as a separate entity or
creating a new category of works specifically related to AI-generated content.

However, there are arguments that if an AI system independently generates a completely

original work, it should be considered the author and hold sole copyright ownership. Japan,
for instance, allowed a short novel written by a computer program to participate in the
selection rounds for a national literary prize in 2016. Nevertheless, this perspective may face
challenges as AI machines are not recognized as legal personalities in most jurisdictions.
Copyright laws typically require human creativity and intellect for authorship. Countries like
the United States, Spain, and Germany explicitly state that copyright is only granted to works
created by human beings. In the landmark decision of Infopaq International A/S v Danske
DagbaldesForening, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared that
copyright only applies to original works.

AI And The Doctrine Of Fair Use:

The doctrine of fair use is a fundamental legal principle in copyright law that allows for the
limited use of copyrighted material without the need for permission or payment to the
copyright holder under specific circumstances. It is designed to strike a balance between
protecting the exclusive rights of copyright owners and fostering essential elements of a free
and creative society, including freedom of expression, education, critique, and knowledge
dissemination.

Several factors guide the determination of fair use, such as the purpose of use, the nature of
the copyrighted work, the quantity of the material used, and the potential impact on the
market for the original work.

If a use is for purposes like criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
research, or parody, it is more likely to qualify as fair use. While fair use is a critical element
of copyright law, it is a complex, case-specific doctrine, and courts examine each situation
individually to determine whether a particular use meets the fair use criteria. This doctrine is
pivotal in promoting creativity and free expression while still respecting the rights of
copyright holders.

Legal implications of AI Created work in India

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india#:~:text=The
%20Copyright%20Act%20typically%20holds,creators%2C%20owners%2C%20or%20operators
on 02.03.2024 at 1.37pm
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, does not explicitly mention the "fair use" doctrine as a
distinct legal concept, as the U.S. copyright law does. Instead, the Act uses the term "fair
dealing," and it outlines specific exceptions and limitations to copyright infringement in
various sections.

These exceptions allow for certain uses of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's
permission under specific conditions. For instance, Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act.

Legal implications of AI Created work in India

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india#:~:text=The
%20Copyright%20Act%20typically%20holds,creators%2C%20owners%2C%20or%20operators
on 02.03.2024 at 1.37pm
includes several exceptions that are akin to the fair use concept.

These include provisions for fair dealing for purposes such as research, private study,
criticism, review, news reporting, and education. These exceptions permit the use of
copyrighted material without authorization, provided that the use falls within the limits
prescribed by the Act and is consistent with fair dealing principles.

. When courts decide fair use cases, they must take into account several factors that hold
equal importance. These factors include the purpose and nature of the use, whether it is
commercial or transformative, the type of copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to
the whole work, and the impact on the market value of the copyrighted work. However, when
determining whether a work falls under fair use, the court evaluates each case individually
rather than relying on a set precedent, as this approach would be ineffective.

If the copying and output generation are deemed to fall within the scope of "fair use," then
the copyright owners would not have a valid claim for copyright infringement. Fair use
allows certain uses that would otherwise be prohibited under copyright law.

Therefore, when evaluating the work generated by an AI program, the court must assess it
based on the aforementioned factors. For instance, if the AI program is engaged in
commercial activities or produces transformative works, it may not qualify for protection
under fair use.

Media and Entertainment

The media and entertainment industry in India is governed by a variety of laws and
regulations that are designed to promote and protect the interests of various stakeholders. In
this legal analysis, we will provide an overview of the key laws and regulations governing the
media and entertainment industry in India.

 Right to freedom of speech and expression: The Constitution of India provides for the
freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right. This right has been
interpreted by the courts to include the right to freedom of the press and media.
However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the

Legal implications of AI Created work in India

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india#:~:text=The
%20Copyright%20Act%20typically%20holds,creators%2C%20owners%2C%20or%20operators
on 02.03.2024 at 1.37pm
 interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order, decency, and morality.

 The Cinematograph Act, 1952: The Cinematograph Act, 1952 regulates the exhibition
of films in India. It provides for the certification of films by the Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC) and empowers the Central Government to suspend or revoke a
film’s certificate if it is found to be against the public interest.

 The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: The Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regulates the operation of cable television networks
in India. It provides for the registration of cable television networks, the regulation of
content, and the establishment of a complaint’s redressal mechanism.

 The Copyright Act, 1957: The Copyright Act, 1957 provides for the protection of
literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, including films and sound recordings. It
provides for the registration of copyrights, the assignment and licensing of copyrights,
and the remedies available to copyright owners in case of infringement.

 The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics

Code) Rules, 2021: The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 regulate the operation of digital media in
India. It provides for the registration of digital media platforms, the regulation of
content, and the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism.

 The Press Council of India Act, 1978: The Press Council of India Act, 1978 provides
for the establishment of the Press Council of India, which is a statutory body that
regulates the conduct of the print media in India. It provides for the registration of
newspapers and news agencies, the regulation of content, and the establishment of a
complaint’s redressal mechanism.

 The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI): The Advertising Standards

Council of India (ASCI) is a self-regulatory body that regulates advertising in India. It
provides for the regulation of the content of advertisements and the establishment of a
complaint’s redressal mechanism.

Copyright and Entertainment

Legal implications of AI Created work in India

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india#:~:text=The
%20Copyright%20Act%20typically%20holds,creators%2C%20owners%2C%20or%20operators
on 02.03.2024 at 1.37pm
To provide a brief introduction, Copyright is a type of intellectual property that grants legal
protection to original works of authorship once the author expresses the creative work in a
tangible form. These "creative works" encompass books, music, paintings, sculptures, and
films. For a work to be eligible for copyright, it must be original, have an author, and be fixed
in a tangible form of expression.

In India, the Copyright Act of 1957 (Act) and the Copyright Rules of 2013 govern the laws
and regulations pertaining to copyright protection. The Copyright Act grants rights to authors
and owners, and certain provisions within the Act, such as section 52, allow for fair use.
Copyright encompasses a range of rights, which are divided into two categories: economic
rights and moral rights. Economic rights enable right owners to receive financial rewards
from the use of their works by others. These rights include the ability to assign, authorize,
publish, adapt, translate, and license the works. Moral rights, on the other hand, safeguard
and uphold the integrity of the creator or author of the work.

Copyright protection applies to various classes of works, which are categorized as follows: 1.
Literary works and 2. Dramatic works - where the creator or writer is considered the author
of a literary or dramatic work, 3. Musical works - the composer is the author of a musical
work, 4. Sound Recordings - the person recording the sound, whether it be speech, audio, or a
podcast, is the author of the sound recording. If the sound recording includes music,
permission from the author of the musical work is required for copyright protection. 5.
Artistic works - an artist is the author of an artistic work, excluding photographs, while the
person taking photographs is the author of the photograph itself. Cinematograph Films - the
producer is considered the author of the cinematograph film and sound, while the individuals
involved in the creation of the film hold certain rights.

Copyright protection lasts for the lifetime of the author/creator and an additional 60 years
from the start of the calendar year after the author's death. Works by posthumous,
anonymous, or pseudonymous authors are safeguarded for 60 years from the beginning of the
calendar year after the first publication. Once this duration expires, the work enters the public
domain, available for use by anyone

Legal implications of AI Created work in India

https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348418/legal-implications-of-ai-created-works-in-india#:~:text=The
%20Copyright%20Act%20typically%20holds,creators%2C%20owners%2C%20or%20operators
on 02.03.2024 at 1.37pm
Trends in the Media and Entertainment industry and the role of Copyright Law

The Media and Entertainment industry is regulated by different legal and regulatory
frameworks, specifically for Film, Television, and Digital platforms. In India, the
certification and exhibition of films are governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The
television industry is regulated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997, while online
curated content platforms are subject to provisions under the IT Act, 2000 and IT Rules,
2021. Additionally, other policies such as the telecom policy, national IPR policy, cyber
security, and data protection policy also have an impact on the industry. It is important to
note that all of these policies have a significant influence on The Copyright Act, 1957.

One of the major challenges faced by the industry is piracy, which involves the unlawful
duplication and sale of copyrighted work at significantly lower prices. The Indian media and
entertainment industry suffers a loss of $2.8 billion in annual revenue due to piracy. With the
widespread availability of the internet, piracy has become even more rampant, with movies,
shows, and music being illegally accessed through various computer and mobile applications,
as well as torrents. During the pandemic, piracy has witnessed a staggering increase of 62%.

To address this issue, the recently passed Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023 has
introduced two new sections, namely 6AA and 6AB. These sections specifically deal with the
prohibition of unauthorized recording and exhibition of films, respectively. The bill also
makes attempts and abetment of these acts punishable. Furthermore, it strengthens copyright
protection and imposes penalties for piracy. The introduction of these amendments is seen as
a positive step towards addressing long-standing issues that have plagued the film industry.

Overall, the legal and regulatory framework, along with the recent amendments, play a
crucial role in safeguarding the interests of the Media and Entertainment industry and
combating piracy.

Trademarks in Entertainment industry

Section 2 (1) (zb) of the trademark act of 1999 provides a definition for trademarks. A
trademark is a distinctive symbol or sign that is placed on commercial products by an
individual or organization to differentiate their goods from those of others.

Trademark Law for Entertainment Brands Protecting a brand Identity

https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2023/08/24/trademark-law-for-entertainment-brands-
protecting-a-brand-identity/ on 03.03.24 at 2.36pm
Trademarks have gained significant value in the music and film industries. Music and film
are two of the fastest-growing sectors globally, generating substantial revenue for the
entertainment business. The changing landscape of intellectual property rights plays a crucial
role in various trademark disputes, including cases involving misleadingly similar music and
film titles, unauthorized use of film titles that infringe on trademarks, and the remedy of
passing off.

Under specific circumstances, titles of albums, films, songs, and other creative works can be
protected under trademark law. However, these titles must be distinct and unique. Titles that
are common or descriptive in nature are unlikely to receive protection. Additionally, they
must have acquired secondary meaning. For instance, a single film title cannot be
trademarked as it is a standalone and limited work, but a series title like "Money Heist" can
be eligible for trademark registration. These titles fall under Trademark Class 41, which
covers "Entertainment," and Trademark Class 9, which includes "Apparatus for recording,
reproduction, or transmission of images or sounds."

Trademark Registration In Entertainment Industry

1. Trademark registration serves as tangible proof of the value and significance of your
product or service. Customers associate a trademark with the quality of a product or
service. Acquiring an exclusive trademark registration for your brand helps attract
customers, differentiate yourself from competitors, and establish a sense of prestige.
Due to the rising instances of trademark infringement, the entertainment industry has
recognized the need for trademark protection. This protection offers peace of mind to
authors as it plays a vital role in safeguarding intangible assets such as song titles,
movie names, motion pictures, and brand names. The importance of trademarks in the
entertainment sector cannot be overstated. The most valuable aspect is the band or

Trademark Law for Entertainment Brands Protecting a brand Identity

https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2023/08/24/trademark-law-for-entertainment-brands-
protecting-a-brand-identity/ on 03.03.24 at 2.36pm
 2. Artist name, which provides the original creator with a unique identity. The artist's
name serves as a distinctive medium of recognition and is the sole association the
audience has with the artist.

3. Motion picture titles fall under Trademark Class 41 in the fourth schedule of the
Trademark Rule, 2001, which covers services that are inherently categorized as
entertainment.

4. The association of a song with a particular brand name or any song title confers
originality on that artist or band.

5. Different organizations, like a television program and film association or any Indian
film producer's alliance, offer adequate safeguard for movie titles from infringement
under the Registration Act.

JUDICIARY APPROACH:

Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India &Ors on 20 September, 2023

Anil Kapoor's primary concern, as presented in the case before the Delhi High Court,
revolved around the unauthorized exploitation of his image, voice, and persona for
commercial purposes using AI technology. Kapoor's plea was firmly rooted in multiple facets
of Indian legislation that tackle matters pertaining to intellectual property rights, privacy, and
safeguarding an individual's name and reputation.

Anil Kapoor took legal action to prevent unauthorized individuals from using his name,
voice, image, and iconic dialogues without his explicit permission, in accordance with Indian
trademark and copyright regulations. This situation raises questions about the effectiveness of
intellectual property rights in the digital era. How can legislation evolve to keep up with the
constantly changing ways in which AI can create and distribute content? Copyright laws may
not be adequate to handle cases where AI-generated content reproduces a person's voice or
likeness without their authorization. In the case of Anil Kapoor, although he aimed to restrict
the unauthorized use of his personal elements, it is evident that copyright laws do not
specifically address the replication of an individual's identity through AI. Kapoor's concerns,
similar to those of the musicians mentioned in the text, extend beyond the traditional

Delhi High Court’s landmark Order Protecting Anil Kappor’s Persona in the Age of AI
https://www.theippress.com/2023/10/09/delhi-high-courts-landmark-order-protecting-anil-kapoors-persona-in-t on
05.03.2024 at 1.15 pm
Anil kappor vs Simply life India & Ors 2023 Live Law (Del) 857
 boundaries of copyright protection, highlighting the necessity for a more comprehensive
legal framework.

Courts verdict

Justice Prathiba M Singh’s decision in favor of Anil Kapoor is firmly grounded in the legal
principles of India. The court's ruling has put a stop to the unauthorized use of Kapoor's
name, likeness, voice, and any other aspect of his persona for the creation of merchandise,
ringtones, and other commercial purposes. This judgment effectively safeguards Kapoor's
personality rights and aligns with the protection of intellectual property as defined by Indian
law.

The court's order to suspend and block domains that have misused Kapoor's identity
highlights the authority of Indian authorities in enforcing such protection in the digital
domain. Furthermore, the directive to MEITY (Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology) to issue blocking orders against pornographic content featuring manipulated
images of the actor demonstrates the court's dedication to upholding Kapoor's reputation and
privacy.

AI’s Role in the Tarnishing of Kapoor’s Image: Indian Perspective – A Critical Lens

Advocate PravinAnand, who is representing Anil Kapoor, emphasized the exploitation of AI

technology in distorting the actor's image and identity. He drew attention to the deceptive and
potentially harmful content that AI is being used to create. This misuse of AI technology
raises significant concerns within the Indian legal framework, as it can result in defamation
and the infringement of an individual's privacy. This matter highlights the urgency for
comprehensive regulations that address the implications of AI-generated content,
encompassing both its positive and negative outcomes.

The Complex Issue of “Jhakaas”: An Indian Legal Dilemma – A Balanced Perspective

The deliberations of the court regarding the extension of protection to the usage of the term
"Jhakaas" demonstrate the intricate nature of Indian law. Although the court initially had
concerns, it eventually recognized the possibility of other public figures encountering similar

Delhi High Court’s landmark Order Protecting Anil Kappor’s Persona in the Age of AI
https://www.theippress.com/2023/10/09/delhi-high-courts-landmark-order-protecting-anil-kapoors-persona-in-t on
05.03.2024 at 1.15 pm
Anil kappor vs Simply life India & Ors 2023 Live Law (Del) 857
problems if their identities were damaged or taken advantage of. This acknowledgment
emphasizes the flexibility of Indian law in dealing with the changing challenges brought
about by AI and digital media. However, it also emphasizes the importance of evaluating the
safeguarding of unique expressions on a case-by-case basis, as finding the right balance
between freedom of speech and individual rights can be a sensitive matter.

The Broader Implications: Indian Legal Precedent and Beyond

The landmark ruling in the Anil Kapoor case by the Delhi High Court has established a legal
precedent in India for safeguarding the rights of celebrities in the digital era. It emphasizes
the importance of shielding a celebrity's identity from unauthorized commercial exploitation
and the misuse of artificial intelligence. This judgment serves as a timely reminder that
Indian law needs to evolve in order to protect individuals and their priceless personas as
technology advances.

Nevertheless, the wider ramifications reach further than just within Indian territory. Given
that technology transcends geographical boundaries, decisions such as this are expected to
have an impact on international dialogues. Across the globe, there is a shared struggle with
dilemmas related to AI in generating content, deepfakes, and safeguarding personal rights.
Kapoor's case serves as a noteworthy precedent for other legal systems to take into account
when addressing these intricate matters.

The Delhi High Court's comprehensive ruling in the case involving Anil Kapoor delivers a
clear message regarding the safeguarding of celebrity rights under Indian law in the digital
era. It emphasizes the importance of protecting public figures' identities from unauthorized
commercial exploitation and the misuse of AI technology. Nevertheless, it also raises
significant inquiries about the ever-changing landscape of AI, privacy, and freedom of
expression. As technology continues to advance, legal precedents such as this will play a
pivotal role in establishing the boundaries of individual rights and the obligations of those
involved in creating and disseminating digital content. This judgment, situated within the
Indian legal framework, serves as a testament to the law's adaptability and its dedication to
safeguarding the rights and reputations of individuals, even in the age of A

Delhi High Court’s landmark Order Protecting Anil Kappor’s Persona in the Age of AI
https://www.theippress.com/2023/10/09/delhi-high-courts-landmark-order-protecting-anil-kapoors-persona-in-t on
05.03.2024 at 1.15 pm
Anil kappor vs Simply life India & Ors 2023 Live Law (Del) 857
Amitabh Bachchan vs RajatNagi&Ors on 25 November, 2022

Amitabh Bachchan, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against nine identified defendants and
unidentified infringers (referred to as John Does/Ashok Kumars) for infringing upon his
personality rights as a renowned celebrity. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were
extensively misusing elements of his personality, including his photographs and voice, to
entice the public into using and/or downloading their mobile apps, websites, and products.
For example, one defendant utilized the plaintiff's celebrity status to operate a KBC Lotteries
scam, while another defendant sold t-shirts featuring the plaintiff's photograph on their
website.

The court determined that the plaintiff successfully established a strong prima facie case in
their favor. Additionally, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff
and was against the defendants. As a result, the court granted a temporary ex parte injunction
against both the named and unnamed defendants, acknowledging that the plaintiff is likely to
suffer significant and irreparable harm to their reputation due to unauthorized use.
Furthermore, the court issued directives to the Department of Telecommunication and Union
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, instructing Internet Service Providers to
remove the list of links and websites that violate the plaintiff's personality rights.
Additionally, telecom service providers were ordered to block all contact numbers used to
circulate messages through WhatsApp that infringed upon the plaintiff's rights.

The Impact of the Amitabh Bachchan v. RajatNagi and Ors. Case

Granting a comprehensive restriction on the commercial exploitation of a celebrity's status

undoubtedly strengthens the right to publicity. If this relief is consistently provided by the
courts in future cases, it will relieve plaintiffs from the burden of identifying all infringing
defendants in order to seek legal action. This is particularly beneficial in situations where
there is widespread unauthorized use of a person's photograph, voice, etc.

However, the issuance of a John Doe injunction order also raises concerns regarding the
interaction between publicity rights and Article 19(1)(a). The Delhi High Court, in the case of
DM. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, acknowledged that an excessive focus on a
famous person's publicity rights can potentially hinder the exercise of the fundamental right

Position of Personality Right’s in India The Amitabh Bachchan vs RajatNegi case

https://www.jusip.in/position-of-personality-rights-india-amitabh-bachchan-v-rajat-nagi-case/#:~:text=Rajat%20Nagi
%20and%20Ors.,and%20images%20fo on 05.03.2024 at 1.45pm
Amitabh Bachchan vs RajatNegi&Ors [CS(COMM)819/2022] Delhi High Court
to free speech in a free and democratic society. The court made an exception for caricature,
lampooning, parodies, and similar forms of expression. It remains unclear whether the John
Doe injunction order in the Amitabh Bachchan Case applies to these categories of expression.

Furthermore, there may be conflicts between publicity rights and the right to livelihood in the
future. Many small local shops and businesses in the country use celebrity photographs to
attract customers or sell products, but it is unlikely that the general public would be deceived
into thinking that these shops are endorsed by the celebrities themselves. There is uncertainty
regarding the applicability of such injunctions on small-scale shops and businesses.

Resolving these complex issues requires the courts to carefully balance the aforementioned
challenges. They must determine whether publicity rights should be considered a
fundamental right due to their association with the right to privacy, or if they can be found in
existing statutes or fall within the realm of tort law.

Hence, although a temporary in rem injunction proves advantageous for the plaintiff, a lasting
John Doe injunction can have adverse effects due to the conflicting nature of publicity rights
laws.

Position of Personality Right’s in India The Amitabh Bachchan vs RajatNegi case

https://www.jusip.in/position-of-personality-rights-india-amitabh-bachchan-v-rajat-nagi-case/#:~:text=Rajat%20Nagi
%20and%20Ors.,and%20images%20fo on 05.03.2024 at 1.45pm
Amitabh Bachchan vs RajatNegi&Ors [CS(COMM)819/2022] Delhi High Court
Conclusion

This study emphasizes the significance of having a detailed comprehension of entertainment

law principles when dealing with AI-generated content complexities. Through proactive
management of legal responsibilities and promoting cooperation among legal professionals,
technologists, and industry players, the entertainment sector can leverage AI's transformative
capabilities while mitigating legal risks and adhering to relevant laws and regulations.

Ultimately, the intersection of entertainment law and artificial intelligence (AI) brings forth
unique chances and intricate obstacles for the entertainment sector. The rise of AI-generated
content has transformed conventional content creation methods, providing new avenues for
generating music, movies, video games, and virtual personalities. Nevertheless, this
revolutionary change also brings up important legal considerations, requiring a detailed
comprehension of responsibility, liability, and regulatory structures.Our analysis has
highlighted the necessity for proactive measures to mitigate legal risks and improve legal
clarity in the field of AI-generated content. In order to achieve this, collaboration between
industry stakeholders, legal experts, and policymakers is crucial to develop customized
solutions that strike a balance between innovation and adherence to the law. These solutions
may involve the creation of industry-specific guidelines, contractual safeguards, and
regulatory reforms that specifically address the unique challenges posed by AI technology in
the entertainment sector.

Moreover, it is of utmost importance to encourage interdisciplinary dialogue and knowledge

sharing between the legal and technological communities to ensure a comprehensive
approach to tackling legal challenges in AI-generated content. By promoting transparency,
accountability, and ethical practices, the entertainment industry can harness the
transformative potential of AI while safeguarding against legal risks and protecting the rights
and interests of all parties involved.

Fundamentally, as the entertainment landscape continues to evolve in the digital era, it is

essential to adapt legal frameworks and practices in order to effectively regulate and govern
AI-generated content. By embracing innovation while upholding legal principles, the
entertainment industry can confidently navigate the complexities of AI technology, fostering
a dynamic and responsible ecosystem that fosters creativity, innovation, and adherence to the
law.