Lehrman And Indian Celebs: How Personality Rights Are Getting Real

1. Introduction

Imagine if Siri or Google Assistant could have the voice of Jagjit Singh or Alka Yagnik where the voice's of legendary performers are cloned by using AI tools, reproduced endlessly, and sold to the highest bidder without consent or credit, this has become a reality!! The essence of what makes their artistry unique would be reduced to data, stripped of its soul, and commercialised in ways they never agreed to.

That's what unfolded in the case of Lehrman v. Lovo¹ 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's findings revealed that while the misconduct was clear, federal IP statutes offered little meaningful protection. This outcome showed a clear gap in traditional IP law. While it works well for fixed creations and clear brand identifiers, it fails to protect the flexible, easily copied traits of human identity that AI can now misuse on a large scale.

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"²

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 logo; it may encompass other recognizable traits that identify and distinguish an individual.

The plaintiffs sought relief under U.S. federal IP laws, the trademark claims under the Lanham Act where owing to the earlier wider interpretation the court 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"³

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 lawsuit⁴, 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 rule⁵ 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 the recent case of Arjit Singh⁶ 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.⁷

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.

4. Conclusion

With AI technology advancing rapidly, it is now possible to copy someone's voice, face, or other personal traits without their permission. What makes a person unique can be reproduced and used by others for profit, raising important questions about whether our identity of general public be legally protected in the digital age. Lehrman and Aishwarya Rai case plugged a few gaps in IP & privacy law, but India shall recognise that voice and other traits of identity are economic assets in the AI era. And although it is inevitably true that technology progress's so fast that the law cannot keep up, The question of whether the legislature should consider a special statute for protecting digital identity would have an answer that becomes absolute at the time it is given. Hence, judicial interpretation coming to the rescue of the victims seems to be the only viable option.

Traditional statutes were built for fixed works and tangible marks, yet AI thrives on replicating the intangible. Courts stepping in whether through Article 21 in India or Civil rights statutes in New York show that the law is slowly reshaping itself around a new reality: in the age of generative AI, identity itself is property, and protecting it is as much about safeguarding human dignity as it is about regulating markets.

And this protection cannot be limited only to celebrities; even ordinary individuals must have the right to safeguard their identity, since Article 14 & 21 applies to all, dignity and privacy belong equally to all, regardless of fame.

Footnotes

1 Lehrman V. Lovo 24-Cv-3770 (Jpo) - Https://Copyrightalliance.Org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2025/07/Lehrman-V-Lovo-Opinion-July-10-2025.Pdf

2 15 U.S.C. § 1127.

3 Supra Note 1, Pg No 18

4 Court Interpreted That Copyright Claims Filed Before Registration Must Be Dismissed Without Prejudice - Zonis V. Grubman, No. 20-Cv-7181, 2022 Wl 597447

5 New York Civil Rights Law ("Nycrl") Section 50

6 Arijit Singh Vs Codible Ventures Llp (Com Ipr Suit (L)/ 23443/ 2024) BHC

7 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan V/S Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors.- Order Dt. 09.09.2025 - Cs(Comm) 956/2025

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.