Personality Rights Of Non-Celebrities In The Age Of Deepfakes - Re-Centring Dignity And Autonomy In Indian Law

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:44:11.101327+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:10:10.34+00:00

PERSONALITY RIGHTS OF NON-CELEBRITIES IN THE

AGE OF DEEPFAKES: RE-CENTRING DIGNITY AND

AUTONOMY IN INDIAN LAW

Pratishtha Shree, School of Law, NMIMS University1

ABSTRACT

The development of Indian personality rights law has occurred primarily through celebrity court cases, which use commercial worth, endorsement capabilities and brand reputation to support their protection decisions. The market-based system determines which legal protections will get support through its practice of using celebrity status as a deciding factor. The development of deepfake technology reveals both the weak points and discriminatory features which exist within this system. Deepfakes allow users to create fake versions of regular people, which they can use to commit fraud, sexual exploitation, harassment, and damage someone's reputation, while causing harm that exceeds what public figures experience. Yet noncelebrities lack doctrinally clear remedies under Indian law.

The author proposes that Indian personality rights should exist as dignity-based rights which protect individual autonomy and identity under Article 21 instead of being treated as property rights that require fame or market value for protection. The proposal creates a constitutional system which divides identity-integrity rights from commercial publicity rights to protect all people's rights while preserving their freedom of expression.

1 The author is a law student at School of Law, NMIMS University.

I. Introduction

Digital technologies have revolutionized personal identity development through which people now use their voice and image and expressions as digital data which exists separately from their physical body. 2 Deepfake technology enables users to create fake audio-visual content which looks authentic for them to perform identity theft through deceptive methods. 3 The Indian judiciary now uses wide-ranging court orders to defend celebrities against unauthorized exploitation of their identity through name and image and voice and likeness usage.

4 The legal system which protects personality rights received praise for its modern design but shows clear bias toward protecting the rights of celebrities Courts base their protection of such rights on three main grounds which include endorsement value and commercial exploitation and goodwill preservation because they view personality rights as economic assets which only persons with marketable identities can enforce. 5 The established framework fails to provide adequate defense against deepfake attacks which primarily affect regular people who experience the most severe damage. Deepfakes demonstrate the maximum extent which this method can achieve.

The harm which results from identity damage does not depend on how famous a person is because deepfakes used for sexual purposes and voice cloning scams and made-up political information cause permanent damage to ordinary people's reputation and their mental health and their social position. 6 The current legal remedies which protect passing off trademarks and privacy and defamation rights fail to provide adequate protection against impersonation attacks because they lack effectiveness and take too long to resolve cases. 2 Julie E. Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice 5–7 (Yale Univ. Press 2012). 3 Robert Chesney & Danielle Keats Citron, Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, 107 Calif. L. Rev. 1753, 1756–59 (2019). 4 Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4111; Anil Kapoor v.

Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 123.

5 Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.

6 Org. for Econ. Coop. & Dev., Synthetic Media and Deepfakes: Policy Challenges 14–18 (2023); Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Public Service Announcement: Criminals Use Artificial Intelligence to Conduct Voice Cloning Scams (2024).

II. Conceptual Foundations of Personality Rights

A. Personality Rights and Identity Integrity

Personality rights protect the rights of people to determine how their personal identity, including their name, image, voice, and likeness, will be used.7 The established rights defend personal identity through their power to prevent false representations, unauthorised uses, and deceptive alterations which threaten a person's right to self-determination. Historically, personality rights have been justified through two distinct logics. The first is dignitary—rooted in privacy, autonomy, and human dignity. The second method views identity as an economic resource which companies utilise to generate financial profits. These logics coexist uneasily in Indian jurisprudence.8 B. Distinction Between Personality Rights and the Right of Publicity

The right of publicity, which emerged mainly in the United States, exists to defend the market value of personal identity. It is explicitly property-oriented and often limited to public figures. Personality rights exist beyond commercial needs because they function under a broader conceptual system which does not need business operations to exist. The two concepts exist as separate entities, which Indian courts tend to merge into each other. The legal system handles celebrity cases by identifying privacy violations, which also involve publicity rights and unfair competition issues, but it does not determine which rights require protection. The absence of a definition for this concept has forced courts to determine financial assistance through market value assessments, which they use as their primary decision factor. C. Why This Distinction Matters in the Deepfake Context

Deepfakes operate beyond the standard boundaries which commercial endorsements normally follow. The practice of causing harm to others does not produce financial gains because it includes activities such as sexual humiliation, political manipulation, social ostracisation, and coercive fraud.9 The proprietary model fails to safeguard victims because it lacks any form of

7 See J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 1:3 (2d ed. 2017).

8 See Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382 (India).

9 Robert Chesney & Danielle Keats Citron, Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, 107 Calif. L. Rev. 1753, 1762–66 (2019).

protection for individuals whose names fail to generate financial worth. The dignity-based model focuses on the damage which occurs to both personal autonomy and identity.

III. Indian Jurisprudence: The Celebrity-Centric Trajectory

Recent Indian personality rights jurisprudence overwhelmingly centres on celebrities. Courts use two legal categories of misappropriation and false endorsement to protect commercial value of identity which they treat as a brandable asset. The method establishes that people need to have financial value to receive protection while non-famous people who experience the same threats to their autonomy remain without defense. 10 The legal framework of passing off principles establishes an expanded distinction which separates trademark law from all other intellectual property systems. The goodwill– misrepresentation–damage framework protects people from endorsement abuse but it fails to protect them from deepfake attacks because victims who experience sexual impersonation or fraud do not have commercial goodwill yet they face severe harm.

Copyright and trademark law offer limited support, as they protect creative works and brand identifiers rather than individual identity itself. 11 Indian courts have made only sporadic assessments of personality rights which they view as dignity-based interests that protect typical members of society. The current legal system lacks proper protection for dignity and autonomy because it fails to establish a specific method to evaluate how different social statuses affect personal identity. IV. Deepfakes and the Non-Celebrity Harm Paradigm

A. The deepfake harms which affect typical people in society.

Non-celebrity individuals face three major ways deepfakes create harm to their group. The first type of deepfake sexual content which mainly affects women women leads to severe damage of their reputation and mental health but provides no effective way to recover from such incidents. Second voice-cloning scams use deception to steal money from victims through their

10 Gautam Bhatia, Personality Rights and the Indian Constitution, Indian Const. L. Rev. (2022).

11 Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India); J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 1:3 (2d ed. 2017).

fake impersonations of family members and colleagues. Third fabricated political or social speech creates conditions which lead people to face harassment and disciplinary measures and physical violence. The public does not provide regular access to platforms which enable regular people to defend themselves against false information that appears about them. The damage creates an unbalanced situation which persists for a longer period. B. Inadequacy of Existing Legal Remedies

The current privacy regulations protect personal information from unauthorised exposure, but they fail to provide sufficient protection against impersonation-based attacks. The legal process of defamation requires proof that statements were false and caused damage to someone's reputation, which leads to extended court proceedings. The legal framework which enforces cybercrime through criminal penalties handles these cases instead of dealing with them as private civil matters. The three frameworks do not solve the core issue which deepfakes create because they enable attackers to impersonate other people. The current fragmented remedies do not solve the fundamental problem which deepfakes create by allowing someone to falsely present another person's words or actions.

Personality rights are best positioned to fill this gap, provided they operate independently of celebrity status or commercial value. 12

C. The Equality Problem

The legal system, which defends celebrities through its structure but forces ordinary people to handle multiple unconnected solutions, creates Article 14 constitutional problems. Every person in the world possesses identity and dignity, which exist as common human rights that do not require celebrity status to exist. By tying protection to market value, the current system creates a hierarchy of identity protection that benefits elite groups and undermines the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.13

12 Gautam Bhatia, Personality Rights and the Indian Constitution, Indian Const. L. Rev. (2022).

13 E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 S.C.C. 3 (India)

V. Constitutional Re-Anchoring Under Article 21

A. Dignity and Autonomy serve as the fundamental elements which protect identity from

harm. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Article 21 to protect not only physical survival but also dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy as essential components of meaningful life. 14 The fundamental values in the document define what makes up constitutional personhood according to their established criteria. Deepfakes strike at each of these interests simultaneously. Synthetic impersonation damage dignity because they create fake content, which makes people experience public humiliation, sexual exploitation, and loss of social validity. This harm is exacerbated by the apparent authenticity of deepfakes, which undermines the victim’s ability to contest false representations. 15 Deepfakes enable others to produce deceptive versions of people, which prevents individuals from maintaining control over their personal presentation.

People who want to make their own choices about speech actions and endorsement decisions need to have autonomy. The fundamental decision to attribute speech or conduct to a person becomes invalid when technology creates artificial speech or conduct which it presents as coming from that person. The dignity-based approach for personality rights protection under Article 21 treats the harm as a complete destruction of personal identity which surpasses financial damage. Every individual, irrespective of public status, possesses equal constitutional worth and is entitled to protection of dignity and personal autonomy. 16 B. Informational Self-Determination and Control Over Identity

The Supreme Court established privacy rights through Article 21, which grants citizens the right to informational self-determination for controlling their personal data collection, distribution, and usage. The human body uses facial features, voice patterns, gestures, and expressions to present personality traits which extend beyond basic information.

14 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).

15 Citron & Chesney, supra note 3, at 1760–61.

16 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

Deepfakes achieve their goals through their particular system elements. Deepfake systems use publicly available biometric and expressive data to generate fake, deceptive content which impersonates people without their authorisation. The system operates without consent to use personal data for impersonation purposes. The constitutional damage from privacy violations makes you lose all power to decide how others will handle your personal data. The legal system of informational self-determination law recognises personality rights, which establish an essential link between these two legal frameworks. The system enables Indian constitutional law to handle identity misuse situations, which occur when information was properly shared and voluntarily given.

The act of giving permission for someone to see you does not grant permission for them to duplicate your image or modify it in any way or present it as something else. A dignity-based framework acknowledges the distinction between being seen and being impersonated, preventing digital technologies from eroding personal freedom and autonomy. 17 C. Harmonising Personality Rights with Free Speech under Article 19(1)(a)

The core foundation of personality rights based on dignity does not prevent people from showing their true selves. A constitutional system based on Article 21 needs to function together with Article 19(1)(a),

which ensures citizens have the right to free speech and expression. The fear that personality rights will restrict free speech emerges mainly when these rights are applied as broad ownership rights which control how people present themselves. The existing Article 19(2) provisions allow for appropriate restrictions which protect against defamation while maintaining decency and morality and preserving public order. The legal system has validated two established reasons which enable deepfake impersonation to deceive viewers while simultaneously causing them emotional harm. The concepts of deception and impersonation exist independently from criticism and parody and artistic expression. Dignity-based personality rights therefore protect individuals from false attribution without restricting negative opinions or legitimate expression.18

17 Julie E. Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self 6–9 (2012).

18 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 221 (India).

Indian law should maintain freedom for satire and political commentary, and biographical storytelling and creative reinterpretation through its emphasis on identity integrity instead of trying to control all persona applications. The constitutional requirement protects citizens from both government monitoring and insufficient representation, but it needs to prevent technology from converting personal data into artificial information, which endangers personal liberties and democratic dialogue. VI. Towards a Dignity-Based Framework for Personality Rights

The deepfake phenomenon compels Indian law to move beyond its existing, celebrity-centric conception of personality rights. If identity can be technologically replicated, manipulated, and weaponised regardless of fame or commercial value, then legal protection must respond to the nature of the harm, not the status of the victim.19 The proposed framework in this section establishes dignity-based principles which separate personal identity protection from commercial advertising practices while developing an applicable court procedure for nonfamous individuals to file their cases and establishing protective measures to stop excessive judicial intervention. A. Distinguishing Identity-Integrity Rights from Publicity Rights

The Indian legal system needs to establish independent legal protections for two separate interests which exist under the current single category of "personality rights." Identity-integrity rights are dignity-based and protect every individual’s control over the use of their name, image, voice, and persona against deceptive, non-consensual, or manipulative uses.20 The main damage results from the violation which affects personal autonomy and dignity and the right to control personal information according to Article 21 of the Constitution and exists without connection to fame or economic worth. The legal framework of publicity rights exists as a commercial and property-based system. The protection system defends economic value of identity from unauthorized endorsement and

19 Danielle Keats Citron, Sexual Privacy, 128 Yale L.J. 1870, 1892–96 (2019).

20 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 (India).

profit-based identity misuse which mainly helps celebrities and public figures who use their identity as their business value. Indian courts make errors when they fail to recognize the difference between these interests because they use endorsement value and goodwill to make decisions about cases that do not involve celebrities. The method produces successful results for celebrity endorsement disputes but it fails to work effectively in deepfake cases that affect regular people because these cases lack market value. The deceptive nature of deepfakes makes valuation-based protection an ineffective solution because it does not address their impersonation method. A dignity-based framework refocuses judicial attention on identity deception and resulting

harm, enabling courts to address deepfake abuse without asserting blanket control over all representations of identity.21 B. Suggested Legal Test for Non-Celebrity Deepfake Claims

Indian courts should create a systematic process to protect identity-integrity rights through noncelebrity deepfake cases which focuses on deception and harm instead of commercial value to protect both free speech and legitimate expression. At first, the court needs to determine if the content presents deceptive impersonation through its use of authentic audio-visual components which create false images of the plaintiff performing actions or speaking words that he never did while distinguishing this from using his name or likeness in a reference or artistic work. Second, the court needs to create an average-viewer standard which will help them determine if the content seems authentic to ordinary viewers.

The distinction between harmful impersonation and parody and satire and fiction becomes possible through this definition which also includes realistic deepfakes that use their authentic appearance to deceive users. Third, the court should examine whether the content causes actual harm or a real risk of harm which threatens to harm dignity and reputation and psychological and material assets including sexualized impersonation and fraud and coercion and stigma and professional

21 J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 1:3 (2d ed. 2017).

damage and emotional suffering. Proof of commercial exploitation or endorsement value should not be required.22 The test for personality rights enforcement follows constitutional principles which protect dignity and autonomy while using defamation and privacy law functional principles without their complicated procedures. C. Procedural Safeguards and Proportional Remedies

The protection of personality rights through expressive actions needs established procedures which defend free speech rights from censorship while stopping people from using these rights for abusive purposes. The need for immediate action in deepfake situations does not justify court orders that would establish a system which restricts free speech through prior authorization. The court should issue interim and ex parte injunctions which contain only essential information that targets particular content and URLs and accounts. The court should only provide relief through prima facie evidence which proves deceptive impersonation and resulting harm before conducting immediate post-injunction hearings.

Courts need to establish two types of procedures which include counter-notice and review systems that should only apply to situations where people claim parody or satire or journalism or public interest content. The system for protecting identity integrity must have boundaries which prevent it from interfering with the free speech rights protected under Article 19(1)(a). Remedies must extend beyond takedowns. Corrective disclosures, authenticity notices, and labelling requirements can mitigate harm while preserving expressive freedom and protecting both informational and cultural speech from deception. 23 Finally, procedural proportionality is essential. Non-celebrity victims face financial barriers which prevent them from maintaining long-term legal fights.

A dignity-based framework requires accessibility and speed and clarity because it needs to safeguard identities from harm while stopping any form of dominance or exclusion.

22 Danielle Keats Citron, Sexual Privacy, 128 Yale L.J. 1870, 1892–96 (2019).

23 OECD, Synthetic Media and Deepfakes: Policy Challenges 25–27 (2023).

VII. Conclusion

The Indian legal system faces an essential problem because it bases personality rights protection on celebrity status and market worth. The marketability and endorsement system provides complete protection to celebrity identities yet most people must deal with insufficient legal options when deepfakes cause them severe damage. The celebrity-based judgment system which evaluates people establishes an unfair system which violates both constitutional values of dignity and equality. Article 21 establishes a principle-based system which creates a new framework for personality rights through its protection of human dignity and individual self-determination. The dignity-based framework requires legal protection for personal identity because it constitutes a fundamental element of human dignity which should exist independently of financial status to prevent deepfake impersonation.

The framework enables Indian law to establish two separate categories of rights which protect identity integrity for all people from deceptive practices and publicity rights for commercial exploitation purposes while maintaining full protection for satire and journalism and creative expression under Article 19(1)(a). The increasing use of synthetic media demands Indian law to move away from protecting celebrities because it needs to establish basic rights which defend human dignity for every person. The protection of identity needs constitutional status because this framework establishes equal rights for everyone while stopping people from using their personality rights to control or limit others.

REFERENCES

Cases (India)

1. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4111 (India).

2. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 123 (India).

3. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 129 (India).

4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 S.C.C. 3 (India).

5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).

7. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).

8. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 (India).

9. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

10. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 S.C.C. 221 (India).

11. Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382 (India).

Cases (United States)

1. Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953).

2. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977).

Statutes

1. INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 19, 21.

2. Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, §§ 66D, 67 (India

Books

1. GAUTAM BHATIA, FREE SPEECH AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2d ed.

2019).

2. JULIE E. COHEN, CONFIGURING THE NETWORKED SELF: LAW, CODE, AND

THE PLAY OF EVERYDAY PRACTICE (2012).

3. J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, THE RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY AND PRIVACY (2d ed.

2017).

4. SHOSHANA ZUBOFF, THE AGE OF SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM (2019).

Journal Articles

1. Gautam Bhatia, Personality Rights and the Indian Constitution, Indian Const. L. Rev.

(2022).

2. Robert Chesney & Danielle Keats Citron, Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for

Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, 107 Calif. L. Rev. 1753 (2019).

3. Danielle Keats Citron, Sexual Privacy, 128 Yale L.J. 1870 (2019).

4. Apar Gupta & Abhinav Sekhri, Deepfakes and the Limits of Indian Law, Econ. &

Pol. Wkly., Aug. 12, 2023. Reports & Policy Documents

1. FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Public Service Announcement: Criminals

Use Artificial Intelligence to Conduct Voice Cloning Scams (2024).

2. ORG. FOR ECON. COOP. & DEV., Synthetic Media and Deepfakes: Policy

Challenges (2023).