Delhi High Court protects Kriti Sanon from AI deepfakes and impersonation

MUMBAI: When it comes to playing a character, an actor has a script. When someone else uses their face, voice or identity without permission, however, the plot can turn ugly. The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to actor Kriti Sanon against the unauthorised use of her identity, including AI-generated deepfakes, sexually explicit material and impersonating social media accounts.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, hearing Sanon’s plea seeking protection of her personality and publicity rights, directed various defendants to remove identified URLs carrying objectionable content. The court also restrained them from generating, uploading or circulating similar material in the future.

The order covers content that falsely suggests an association with the actor, impersonates her or uses her name, image, likeness or voice without authorisation. This includes sexually explicit, obscene and morphed photographs, videos and audio, as well as AI-generated material.

The restrictions extend beyond manipulated images and videos. They also cover chatbots and voice models presented as Sanon, along with certain merchandise identified in the suit. The order seeks to prevent third parties from using technology or digital platforms to create the impression that the actor has endorsed, participated in or is associated with content without her consent.

The court directed the concerned intermediaries to take down the identified URLs or disable access to them within the timelines prescribed under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

It also asked the relevant authorities to issue blocking directions against websites hosting pornographic deepfakes involving the actor.

The directions are intended to stop the identified material from remaining accessible online and limit its further circulation while the case is being heard. They also place the responsibility on platforms and relevant authorities to act within the applicable legal framework when dealing with the URLs and websites identified in the petition.

The case brings the growing use of generative AI in creating manipulated images, videos and audio into sharper focus. While such tools can be used for creative expression, they can also make it easier to produce convincing material that falsely depicts public figures in situations or associations they never consented to.

For actors and other public personalities, the concern is not limited to the unauthorised use of photographs. The ability to reproduce a person’s voice, create synthetic videos or build AI chatbots that imitate them raises questions about identity, consent and the commercial value attached to their public image.

The court has, however, drawn a distinction between impersonation and legitimate expression. It clarified that the interim directions do not cover lawful forms of expression such as news reporting, reviews, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature and fan content, provided these do not fall within the specific categories restrained by the order.

That distinction is significant because protection of personality rights does not automatically mean that all public use or discussion of a celebrity’s identity can be prohibited. Reporting on an actor, reviewing their work, commenting on their public appearances or creating legitimate fan material remain outside the restrictions specified by the court.

The court also observed that personality rights involve complex legal questions that require further examination after hearing the defendants contesting the suit.

It clarified that its observations are prima facie in nature and limited to the interim arrangement. The order is therefore not a final determination of the legal issues raised in Sanon’s plea.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 10 December. Until then, the interim directions seek to restrict the unauthorised use and circulation of the identified material while preserving legitimate forms of reporting, criticism and creative expression.