- within Technology, Real Estate and Construction and Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Voice as A Part of Personality Rights: Lessons from Lehrman And Indian Celebs
Author: Rugved Mahamuni
1. Introduction
Imagine if Siri or Google Assistant could have the voice of Jagjit Singh or Asha Bhosle, the voices of legendary performers could be cloned using AI tools, reproduced endlessly, and sold to the highest bidder without consent or credit, this has become a reality!!1 The essence of what makes their artistry unique can be reduced to data, stripped of its soul, and commercialised in ways the legends never agreed to.
That's what unfolded in the case of Lehrman v. Lovo2 which has become a quintessential moment in the conversation around AI & Identity as a part of intellectual property. At its core, the dispute revolved around allegations that Lovo, an AI platform, had misled 2 voice actors Lehrman and Linnea into providing recordings for "research purposes only," before repurposing them into digital clones for commercial use. These cloned voices, were marketed with full commercial rights to subscribers, raising difficult questions about deception, exploitation, and the limits of existing intellectual property law.
The U.S. Court found that existing IP laws gave very little protection. These laws work well for traditions works like books or logos, but they do not cover the easily copied parts of human identity, such as voice or facial features, which AI can now replicate and misuse widely and hence only a wider judicial interpretation can help protect such feature of the human identity.
2. NY District Court interpretation of "mark" under Lantham Act
The court in Lehrman case gave the word "mark" a broader interpretation under the Lanham Act, where the statutory phrase for mark is -
"name, symbol, or device"3
It was interpreted to cover any trait of identity, including a person's image, likeness, persona and even their voice. In short, a "mark" doesn't need to be a visual mark or logo, It can also include other recognizable traits that identify and distinguish an individual, Similar to a Indian court ruling regarding an actor who has sought protection over use of his name, voice, image, mannerisms, nickname "Bhidu" etc. which were part of a movie) demonstrates how courts are giving weight to these non-visual attributes in protecting personality rights.4
The plaintiffs sought relief under U.S. federal IP laws, wherein owing to the court's wider interpretation of the Lanham Act it was held -
"general principle emerges that there can exist a "trademark-like interest in [one's] image, likeness, persona, and identity." Jackson, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 355. Given this, the Court can discern no basis for categorically excluding voices, as opposed to images, from such protection"5
Hence protecting voice's under the US Trademark law.
2.1 Copyright claim after registration: invalid on procedural grounds?
The NY Court pragmatically recognised that, as a general rule, copyright registration is a precondition to bringing a lawsuit6, but declined to apply that rule rigidly where the plaintiff (Lehrman) amended their complaint to include copyright claim only after obtaining the necessary registrations. Rather than penalise the plaintiffs for timing, the court had a practicality focused approach. This finding of the court prefers to decide cases on substance rather than on technicalities.
2.2 Protecting Voice Under Civil Rights Law
The court treated New York's Civil Rights Law as a straightforward rule7 where no one could use another person's name, image, or voice in advertising or trade without written consent. Since New York did not have a broad privacy right, this statute acted as a clear safeguard against commercial misuse of identity. The court applied it narrowly, sticking to its purpose of stopping non-consensual exploitation, but once the basic requirements were met, it left little room for defendants to escape liability. In practice, this meant individuals retained firm control over how their identity was used in business and media.
3. What Lehrman Case means for Indian Law?
Although one might say that there are some gaps in the IP statutes when it comes to specifically protecting voices against AI misuse wherein the Copyright Act, 1957, only safeguard's sound recordings u/s 2(m), not the human voice itself. But such an interpretation would be wrong as the court can give liberal interpretation to the term – "infringing copy" as the end of the Clause mentions -
"if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act"
The words "such reproduction" u/s 2(m) could be given a wider meaning and hence an unauthorised AI-generated imitation of a person's voice style would likely fall inside infringement, leaving performers and voice artists with some recourse. But this is where courts in recent times through their power of liberal interpretation have clarified the interpretation further and upheld the standard of protection.
Taking inspiration from Lehrman Case, The Trade Marks Act, 1999 can be utilised by celebrity to protect their voices under "passing off", hence giving a wider interpretation to the work "Mark". For ordinary voice actors and creators, establishing such recognition was difficult, making trademark law an unreliable tool against digital cloning or unauthorised use of voices.
In this context of AI tools which make it possible for any illegal and unauthorised use, production or imitation in the recent case of Arjit Singh8 the Bombay HC's liberal interpretation of provision akin to that in Lehrman gives hope for future jurisprudence. As the court held that cloning a celebrity's voice through AI violated personality and publicity rights.
In September 2025, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court extended Article 21 to protect personality rights, holding that AI-generated deepfakes without consent violated both the commercial and dignity aspects of identity, justifying ex-parte injunction.9
In more recent case the Bombay HC held that –
"voice, is a key component of their (celebrity's) personal identity and public persona"10
Hence voice is protected from unauthorised use, unless there is a valid contract permitting it.
Similarly, in Lehrman v. Lovo, the court addressed AI voice cloning under New York publicity law. Though grounded in different legal frameworks constitutional rights in India and statutory rights in the U.S. both courts reached the same conclusion: AI misuse of identity for profit is unlawful. These rulings signal a global judicial trend towards adapting personality rights to tackle digital cloning and deepfake technologies.
- Conclusion
What makes a person unique can be replicated and used by others for profit, raising important questions about whether the identity of an individual from general public be legally protected in the digital age. Lehrman and Asha Bhosle case plugged a few gaps in IP & privacy law. And although it is inevitably true that technology progress's so fast that the law cannot keep up, the question that whether the legislature should consider a amendment to IPR statutes for protecting digital identity of the general public and celebrities alike has become a quintessential point to ponder on as India shall recognise that voice and other traits of identity are economic assets in the AI era.
Taking inspiration from the government of Denmark where a Bill has been introduced to amend the Copyright Act prohibiting unauthorised sharing of digitally generated imitations of personal characteristics (of everyone including the general public and celebrities)11
Hence, we have two options –
- A Wider judicial interpretation of IP statues coming to the rescue of the victims.
- A new Bill/Amendment (Taking inspiration from Denmark's amendment to Copyright Act)
In the age of generative AI, identity itself is a property where its protection is not merely a matter of legal compliance but a question of preserving human dignity. Such protection cannot be confined to celebrities alone. As it would mean that the common man is treated as a secondary citizen in the context of personality rights. This goes against the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution that affirm dignity and privacy to be inherent to every individual, ensuring that ordinary citizens, no less than public figures, are entitled to safeguard their identity.
Footnotes
1 Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. [Interim Application (L) NO. 30382 OF 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 13215 of 2025]
2 Lehrman V. Lovo 24-Cv-3770 (Jpo) - Https://Copyrightalliance.Org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2025/07/Lehrman-V-Lovo-Opinion-July-10-2025.Pdf
3 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
4 Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff V. The Peppy Store & Ors. [I.A. 10961/2024 IN CS(COMM) 389/2024]
5 Supra Note 1, Pg No 18
6 Court Interpreted That Copyright Claims Filed Before Registration Must Be Dismissed Without Prejudice - Zonis V. Grubman, No. 20-Cv-7181, 2022 Wl 597447
7 New York Civil Rights Law ("Nycrl") Section 50
8 Arijit Singh Vs Codible Ventures Llp (Com Ipr Suit (L)/ 23443/ 2024) BHC
9 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan V/S Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors.- Order Dt. 09.09.2025 - Cs(Comm) 956/2025
10 Supra Note 1
11 Danish Ministry of Culture (2025) Broad agreement on deepfakes gives everyone the right to their own body and their own voice. Press release, 26 June. Available at: https://kum.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/bred-aftale-om-deepfakes-giver-alle-ret-til-egen-krop-og-egen-stemme (Accessed: 4 October 2025).
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.
