Opinion
Persona theft need not always result in injury
Summary
The Delhi high court’s order barring the unauthorized use of actor Anil Kapoor’s persona is understandable in the age of AI. Over-strictness on this, though, could punish harmless fun
A high court order in favour of actor Anil Kapoor has barred the commercial misuse of his persona, including his characteristic use of the term ‘jhakaas.’ The interim order restrains social media channels, e-commerce platforms and people at large from infringing a broadly outlined set of his personal rights. The court ordered that the actor’s name, voice, image or dialogues must not be used without his authorization. So, using a voice clip of his for a ringtone, for example, now stands barred unless he approves. Also, the word ‘jhakaas’—at least the way he says it. A Marathi slang that translates roughly to ‘awesome,’ it has been articulated so frequently by Kapoor in his films, and that too with a particular twisted-lip inflection, that the court found merit in the argument that his way of saying it is part of his persona. Those who appropriate any of this for their own ends cannot claim to be exercising freedom of speech. “When [free speech] crosses the line and results in tarnishment… or results in jeopardizing the individual’s personality and elements associated with the said individual, the same would be illegal," held the court.
In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), there is plenty of scope for line-crossing that could leave Kapoor aggrieved. AI tools exist that could portray a highly realistic version of him engaged in appalling acts, with few able to make out that it’s fake. So the court order is broadly in keeping with a pressing need of the times. Given the pace at which generative AI is churning out material, some of which ends up going viral on social media, it was crucial for the judiciary to declare how the law would apply. Kapoor is not the only celebrity to have knocked on judicial doors with a complaint of this sort. Last year, Amitabh Bachchan had also won an order to restrain the public from infringing his persona. In general, it is entirely fair that famous people are not treated as digital puppets for anyone to manipulate as they please. Celebrities may not even know if life-like avatars of theirs are being deployed to send out some message or the other. Since actors do endorse a wide range of products, services and causes, not everyone in the audience may be able to discern an AI-generated job. It is not just the lost earnings of a financial deal that’s the worry, but also the reputational harm that could be suffered by the one whose persona is stolen. And if the depictions are vile, as in the case of AI-spun pornographic clips, then the injury could be severe.
The logic of complete persona ownership can’t go too far, though. Take casual mimicry of a film star, which is a common pastime in India. Would it be persona theft for a stand-up comic to do a Kapoor act that features the same lip-curled ‘jhakaas’? Such use can be argued to involve a commercial benefit for the user. Whether it also results in injury to the actor is far less obvious, even if the joke leaves him unamused. And what of those among us who have always believed Kapoor’s is the only authentic way to say that word? Have we been violating his rights without knowing it? It would be best perhaps to go by the context in which the tics of famous people are used. We often steal the mannerisms of others subconsciously. Such theft is common, even abetted by society as it conditions us to adopt imitative behaviour at times just to be likeable. What should matter is whether any injury is done. And that, again, comes down to context.
