Asha Bhosle v. Mayc Inc: Bombay High Court Reaffirms That Film Titles Cannot Enjoy Copyright Protection

Introduction

The  Bombay High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment concerning celebrity and personality rights. The court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Asha Bhosle, a renowned playback singer. The order injuncts six Defendants from using and commercializing the singer's image, voice, likeness, and name through  artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The order highlights the judicial recognition being given to personality rights in today's AI-driven era. The order has also warned imitation and AI technologies against unauthorised use and commercialization of one's personality rights, terming it as clear violation and infringement of one's personality rights.

Facts of the case

Asha Bhosle (“the Plaintiff”) filed a commercial IP suit before the Bombay High  Court claiming hazardous technological misappropriation of her identity; and restraining the Defendants from unauthorised and unlicensed commercial exploitation of her personality rights. The Plaintiff bundled her name, images, photographs, caricature voice, manner of singing, vocal style under the personality rights umbrella. The Plaintiff also sought protection of her moral rights, seeking control over the integrity of her performances as it harmed her reputation and image in the industry – leading to financial damage.

The suit was filed against six Defendants involved in misappropriating different aspects of her personality –

• Defendant 1: A website offering a clone of the Plaintiff's voice.
• Defendant 2: An AI platform that enables any person to sing a song in the Plaintiff's voice. 
• Defendants 3 and 4: Online marketplaces, Amazon and Flipkart that were allegedly displaying, advertising, promoting, and offering for sale posters, wallpapers, portraits, and animated caricatures of the Plaintiff's image, photograph, and likeness which have been unauthorizedly created by unknown or unidentified persons/entities who are commercially exploiting the Plaintiff's publicity and personality rights by advertising, promoting, and selling merchandise/goods bearing the Plaintiff's name, image, photograph, and likeness.
• Defendant 5: a sketch artist who offers for sale T-shirts and hoodies for sale carrying inter alia, images of the Applicant/Plaintiff amongst other celebrities on his own website.
• Defendant 6: Google, the search engine along with its  online social media platform and social media service provider for video sharing.

The Plaintiff argued that prolonged exploitation of her personality rights would result in irreparable harm to her reputation and also cause irreparable damage. 

Court Analysis

The Court accepted that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in the Plaintiff's favour, and an irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ad-interim relief is not granted. Accordingly, the Court issued the following relief:

• Ad-interim Injunction: Defendants 1, 2, and 5 were injuncted from using, commercializing and exploiting the Plaintiff's personality and moral rights. To this effect, these Defendants were directed to remove and block access to all infringing content.
• Take down notices: Defendants 3 and 4 were directed to take down all listings displaying or selling unauthorised posters, portraits, or merchandise of the Plaintiff's. Additionally, these Defendants were to provide the Plaintiff basic seller information upon request as and when needed. Lastly, Defendant 6 was directed to remove all videos generated via AI that were using the Plaintiff's personality, cloned voice, etc.

The Court relied on earlier precedents, including Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com, to affirm that celebrities possess exclusive rights over their personalities, such that no other entity could exploited or commercialize these without seeking prior consent. 

The Court confirmed that use of AI tools to clone and manipulate the Plaintiff's voice is indeed unauthorised exploitation of her personality rights and taking away her right to control their own voice and likeness. The  court was of the view that such acts not only harm a celebrity's professional reputation thereby causing them monetary damage, but also lead to consumer confusion. The court noted that despite being served with appropriate notices, Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 5 did not appear for the hearing – and this further strengthened the Plaintiff's case. 

Conclusion

Cases of AI-driven infringement of one's personality rights is on a stark rise in India. This is slowly increasing the tension between technological innovation, artificial intelligence and individuals' rights in the country. 

The Bombay High Court's recognition that Asha Bhosle's iconic voice forms part of her  protected personality rights extends the traditional understanding of publicity rights beyond image and likeness. The judgment sets an important precedent for safeguarding creative professionals against emerging risks posed by AI cloning, deepfakes and digital impersonation – ensuring that artists retain control over the commercial and moral use of their unique identity.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.