My Face, My Voice: The Constitutional, Commercial, And Enforcement Dimensions Of AI-driven IP 

(R. MADHAVAN Vs. G FIMLZ STUDIOZ & ORS) 

When AI Clones a Celebrity: The Battle for Digital Identity 

The Delhi High Court’s interim order in Ranganathan Madhavan v G Filmz Studioz¹ and Others marks a decisive moment in the convergence of personality rights, artificial intelligence and platform liability in India. It is not merely an injunction in favor of a celebrated actor, it is a constitutional restatement of who owns the commercial and moral value of a human face and voice in the age of synthetic media. 

The Infringers: From Deepfakes to Unauthorized Merchandise 

The suit is a classic modern personality rights action with 21 defendants spanning creators, platforms, domain registrars, ecommerce intermediaries and government departments. The plaintiff a prominent Indian actor, film maker and public figure, with a long filmography and substantial social media following, asserts that his: (a) name ‘Ranganathan Madhavan’ /‘R Madhavan’, (b) image, (c) likeness, and (d) voice mannerisms and screen persona have become distinctive identifiers of his personality and a valuable commercial asset internationally. 

Against this backdrop three clusters of allegedly unlawful activity are pleaded. 

1. First, a set of YouTube channels including G Filmz Studioz and others are said to be creating and disseminating artificial intelligence generated deepfake trailers and short videos using the plaintiff’s likeness for commercial gain.  

2. Second, certain blogspot and related URLs are alleged to host fake vulgar morphed and presumably AI generated pornographic depictions of the plaintiff.  

3. Third, online posters and merchandise platforms are accused of selling unauthorized posters images and other goods exploiting the plaintiff’s image without license or consent. 

The platforms Meta and Google are arrayed as proforma defendants not as primary infringers, but as necessary actors for enforcement of any blocking or takedown directions together with domain name registrars and government ministries, to facilitate domain suspension and subscriber disclosure. 

Judicial recognition of personality as property and dignity 

At the heart of the order, lies a clear doctrinal move the court treats the plaintiff’s persona as both a proprietary and dignitary interest. Building upon earlier Delhi precedents including the decisions concerning a leading music impresario a senior film actor and another prominent film personality, the court reiterates that the celebrity status of the plaintiff inherently grants proprietary rights over personality attributes such as name, image, likeness and voice. 

The plaintiff’s case is explicitly framed in constitutional and statutory terms. The order records that his rights arise from personality and publicity rights grounded in Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, moral rights recognized for performers under the Copyright Act and common law actions in passing off, misappropriation and unfair competition. Personality is therefore positioned at the intersection of freedom of expression, privacy, integrity of creative performance and commercial goodwill. 

The court accepts at the interlocutory stage that the plaintiff’s traits including his names Ranganathan Madhavan and R Madhavan, his likeness, his image and his voice are protectable elements and that unauthorized exploitation especially for commercial gain amounts to prima facie violation of personality rights. In addition, the court is prepared to recognize personality-based claims to restrain obscene morphed and deepfake content as an affront not only to commercial interests but also to the plaintiffs right to live with dignity. 

Artificial intelligence deepfakes and the limits of fair use 

The most significant doctrinal development is the courts treatment of artificial intelligence generated content. The infringing works are not merely traditional counterfeits, they are synthetic media, in which the plaintiff’s image and persona are algorithmically manipulated for allegedly commercial accounts on social media and video platforms. 

The court draws a sharp line between such AI generated commercial exploitation and legitimate expressive uses. It holds that this content would not be protected by principles analogous to fair dealing or free speech which had previously been invoked to justify certain forms of parody or transformative expression in earlier publicity rights litigation. The order emphasizes the commercial character of the channels the absence of fan activity markers and the use of AI as a tool of misappropriation rather than creativity. 

This approach is notable for two reasons. First, it treats the use of AI not as inherently suspect but as a factor that can exacerbate the wrong when deployed to generate deepfakes and morphed material that create false suggestion of endorsement or association. Second, it signals an emerging Indian standard that regards AI enabled personality cloning particularly in pornographic or deceptive advertising contexts as falling squarely outside the protective zone of fair dealing or free speech. 

The Legal Arsenal: CPC, Commercial Courts Act, and Copyright Law 

Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff, sought urgent interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151, and Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for ex-parte ad-interim injunctions against unauthorized use of Ranganathan Madhavan’s name, image, likeness, and voice in AI-generated deepfake trailers, morphed pornographic content, and unauthorized merchandise sales. She argued that such exploitation violated his personality and publicity rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, moral rights under Sections 38, 38A, and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, and common law rights against passing off and unfair competition, citing precedents such as D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House², Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India³, and Jaikishan Kaku Bhai Sarf v. The Peppy Store⁴. The counsel requested the court to restrain defendants from further infringement, order takedown of infringing content, and direct disclosure of information for identifying infringers. 

The Court’s Orders: A Multi-Layered Enforcement Strategy 

The court granted interim relief which is expansive and architecturally sophisticated revealing how courts operationalize personality rights in a platform mediated environment. The order issues a broad restraint against identified infringing defendants and unknown John Doe actors from using the plaintiffs name image likeness or voice for any commercial or personal gain through any technology including artificial intelligence, machine learning, deepfakes and face morphing across all media formats. 

The court does not stop at end user injunctions. It constructs a layered enforcement mechanism engaging multiple categories of intermediaries. Video platforms are directed to require infringing channel owners to remove content within a fixed time failing which the platform must itself take down the content and furnish basic subscriber and IP login information to the plaintiff. Websites hosting pornographic morphs are similarly ordered to remove URLs failing which their domain name registrars must suspend or lock domain names and disclose registrant details. Merchandising platforms are required to delist infringing products and provide information about sellers while social media platforms must both notify account holders and effect takedowns if users do not comply.  

This design achieves three structural goals that resonate with broader intellectual property enforcement debates. It internalizes the cost of monitoring and compliance within commercial intermediaries that profit from user activity. It leverages subscriber information to pierce online anonymity and identify actual infringers. And it preserves a pathway for non-infringing websites to approach the court if unintentionally affected by blocking measures thereby attenuating collateral censorship risks. 

The Big Picture: Identity, Ethics, and the Future of IP 

Substantively the order pushes Indian law toward a more integrated conception of personality rights within the intellectual property ecosystem. Personality is not treated as a fragile adjunct of privacy but as a robust economic interest akin to a trademark or neighboring right, grounded in the celebrities’ ability to act as a source identifier and endorsement vehicle. The plaintiff’s reputation and social media following are expressly cited as evidence of goodwill and commercial brand value making the persona itself a quasi-mark that signals origin sponsorship or affiliation to consumers. 

At the same time, the intellectual property framing is carefully tethered to constitutional dignity. The court is particularly concerned with vulgar morphed pornographic imagery and deepfake pornography and recognizes that such depictions inflict irreparable injury distinct from the loss of endorsement fees. This dual lens elevates personality rights from a purely commercial doctrine into a hybrid of property privacy and anti-defamation norms well suited to the harms of AI-enabled impersonation. 

Doctrinally, this raises the prospect of a more unified personality rights regime in India one that could eventually crystallize through legislation drawing upon the court’s current reliance on Articles 19 and 21 performer moral rights and common law passing off. Such a regime would need to grapple with the outer boundaries of permissible transformative uses by artists satirists and documentarians as well as with the compatibility of strong publicity rights with the constitutional guarantee of free expression. 

Conclusion: A new script for the digital self 

The Madhavan order writes an important new chapter in the law of personality and intellectual property. In granting robust ex-parte protection against AI-generated deepfakes, pornographic morphs and unauthorized merchandising, while simultaneously conscripting platforms registrars and state authorities into a coordinated enforcement network, the Delhi High Court signals judicial willingness to treat the digital persona as both a valuable asset and a facet of human dignity. 

As artificial intelligence rapidly lowers the cost of fabricating convincing human likenesses, the central question for global legal systems is whether a person retains sovereign control over the commercial and moral value of their own face and voice. This decision answers in the affirmative and in doing so offers an emerging Indian model of personality rights that is technologically aware commercially grounded and constitutionally infused. 

For more details, write to us at: contact@indialaw.in 

References: 

1. RANGANTHAN MADHAVAN V. G FIMLZ STUDIOZ & ORS. 

2. (MANU/DE/2043/2010) 

3. (2023 SCC Online Del 6914) 

4. (2024 SCC Online Del 3664)