Deepfakes and Copyright Limits
Abstract
The use of deepfake technology has shifted from being mere entertainment to becoming an instrument for misinformation, exploitation, and defamation. The current paper considers the inefficiencies of the Copyright Act, 1957 in dealing with these issues, contending that the Act covers creative expressions rather than personalities. Using contemporary examples from India of cases against Akshay Kumar and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, it brings out the necessity for laws specific to deepfakes.
From Entertainment to Exploitation
After people started knowing more about deepfakes, they were mainly looked at as a form of entertainment. It was amusing and innocuous to see celebrities appearing in scenes they never appeared in, or to hear public figures say things they never really said. But, as is the case with many technological innovations, the fun ended when the abuse began. Deepfakes are now being used to spread misinformation, generate non-consensual content, tarnish reputations and commercially exploit the identities of individuals without their consent.
The increasing misuse of artificial intelligence has led to a surge in litigation on personality rights in India between 2022 and 2025. Celebrities have increasingly turned to courts for protection from unauthorized use of their name, image, voice and likeness in AI-generated content.Courts have offered relief in many cases, but these disputes also highlight the limitations of copyright law as a weapon against deepfakes.
The Assumption That Copyright Solves the Problem
It is generally assumed that copyright law offers adequate protection against such misuse. However, the Copyright Act, 1957 does not serve any protection for an individual’s personal identity. Copyright law only covers original literary, artistic, musical creations, sound records, and film shows. There is no copyright that protects the look, sound, or persona of any person.
It is important to highlight this because the real damage that deepfakes cause is not the act of plagiarism, but rather the abuse of one’s identity.
The Akshay Kumar Case: Copyright Alone Was Not Enough
The limitation was seen in the recent lawsuit involving actor Akshay Kumar. He used Article 21 of the constitution that protects privacy and dignity while filing a lawsuit for infringement of his personality and likeness rights instead of simply basing his claim on copyright law. It became clear from this that copyright protection is inadequate and should be supported by constitutional and personality rights.The fact that litigants must combine multiple legal doctrines to protect their identity highlights the absence of a dedicated legal framework.
The issue is clarified by looking at the way deepfakes are created. Modern AI systems can generate entirely new images, videos and audio recordings that only resemble a person without directly copying any existing copyrighted work. Even where a person’s identity is clearly misused, there may be no copyright infringement if no protected photograph, film clip or sound recording is reproduced.
Even where copyrighted material is copied, ownership creates another obstacle.Normally the photographer owns the copyright in a photograph, while in a cinematograph film or a sound recording it is normally the producer who owns the copyright. “Thus, the person whose image or performance is being exploited may not be the actual copyright owner and may not be the proper party to bring an infringement action.
The limitations of copyright law become even clearer in cases involving voice cloning. AI can generate a convincing imitation of a person’s voice without reproducing any pre-existing recording. Since copyright protects the recording and not the voice itself, such conduct may fall outside the traditional boundaries of copyright protection.
Indian courts have attempted to address these gaps through innovative remedies. One such development is the use of dynamic injunctions. Unlike traditional injunctions, which target specific defendants and specific infringing content, dynamic injunctions extend to future unidentified infringers and future infringing content. This allows rights holders to combat the rapidly evolving nature of online deepfake dissemination
Ravi Shankar case
As far as technology-driven issues relating to the right of personality are concerned, one of the famous examples would be the case involving the spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, wherein the Delhi High Court prohibited unidentified parties from using his name, image, voice, likeness, and any other identifiable information through any kind of medium including artificial intelligence-based mediums such as deepfakes, voice-cloning, and any other medium in the coming future.
Why Copyright Remains an Incomplete Solution
The above examples highlight a significant problem. The Copyright Act is designed to protect expression, while deepfakes involve abuse of one’s identity. In most cases, it is a victim’s face, voice, reputation, and image that get manipulated by artificial intelligence, which means these elements don’t fall under the ambit of the Copyright Act of 1957.
In other words, copyright protection falls short. If there was any copying done from the image, video footage, or audio recording, copyright would offer some level of protection. However, it will not be enough when the bigger problem of identity theft comes into play.
Conclusion
It has thus become clear that depending on copyright laws to address this problem is not sufficient. Although copyright laws may be able to address some issues when there is a reproduction of copyrighted material, it is only an additional and incomplete solution. The instances of infringement that celebrities like Akshay Kumar faced, as well as the involvement of the court in the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar case, indicate that more often than not, courts are being compelled to turn to a blend of constitutional law, personality laws, and equitable law to resolve problems not addressed by copyright laws.
References
https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf
https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/deepfakes-and-personality-rights-the-ip-law-gap-in-india