Indian actor Manoj Bajpayee has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against the alleged unauthorised use of his image, voice and other identifiable aspects of his identity.
The matter was heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on Monday, with Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar appearing for Bajpayee, according to Live Law.
The petition raises concerns over the alleged commercial use of Bajpayee’s photographs and the use of artificial intelligence to recreate his voice.
Actor raises concerns over AI-generated voice
One of the defendants named in the case is H2PG Designs Private Limited.
Bajpayee has alleged that the company used his photographs in a manner that suggested he was wearing suits made by the brand.
The actor has also alleged that another defendant used AI technology to replicate his voice without authorisation.
His petition further seeks protection against AI chatbots that may reproduce or use identifiable elements of his personality.
Court questions Delhi jurisdiction
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court questioned why the petition had been filed in Delhi when Bajpayee is primarily based in Mumbai.
His counsel argued that the court has jurisdiction because some of the defendants are based in Delhi.
The court has asked Bajpayee’s lawyers to place previous interim and final orders from personality-rights cases on record, including decisions issued by other High Courts.
AI raises new personality-rights concerns
The case comes as artificial intelligence makes it increasingly possible to reproduce a public figure’s voice, appearance and other recognisable characteristics.
Celebrities and rights holders have raised concerns over the commercial use of AI-generated replicas, particularly when they are created without consent.
Bajpayee’s petition seeks legal protection over aspects of his identity that he says have allegedly been used without authorisation. The Delhi High Court’s consideration of previous personality-rights rulings could help shape how such claims are assessed in the case.
