Personality Rights, Detection Bias and Effective Remedies for AI-Generated Identity Harm: A Comparative Study of India and Bangladesh
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47604/ijlp.3876Keywords:
Personality Rights, Deepfakes, Digital Replicas, Detection Bias, Effective Remedy, Synthetic Identification, Bangladesh, IndiaAbstract
Purpose: This article examines whether an automatic personality right in face, voice, likeness and synthetic performance can provide an effective remedy for ordinary victims of AI-generated identity harm in India and Bangladesh. It defines effectiveness by accessibility, speed, practical outcomes and independence from celebrity or market value.
Methodology: The study uses doctrinal, comparative and law-and-technology analysis of cases, legislation, platform regulation, human-rights standards and technical research reviewed through 15 July 2026. India is examined as the more developed regional common-law and constitutional personality-rights jurisdiction, while Bangladesh is used to test institutional feasibility in a lower-resource and speech-sensitive setting.
Findings: An automatic right is necessary but insufficient. Celebrity litigation establishes important commercial and dignitary principles, yet ordinary victims face anonymous distribution, litigation cost, stigma, platform opacity and detector error. Bengali audio evidence and demographic-fairness research show that technical detection can become an unequal gateway to legal proof. A 53% accurate detector cannot fairly determine access to preservation or interim relief.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: The article shifts the debate from ownership to remedy design and connects detector bias directly to evidence, equality and institutional access. It proposes a judicially supervised Digital Identity Remedy Cell within the legal-aid system rather than an executive censorship authority. Bangladesh should adopt a narrow civil AI Identity Harm Act triggered by synthetic identification rather than fame. It should require rapid platform preservation and disclosure, graduated proof thresholds, audited local-language tools, anonymised dockets, in-camera hearings, distinct commercial and dignitary remedies, and clear speech defences with explicit burdens of production.
Downloads
References
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Others, CS(COMM) 956/2025 (Delhi High Court Sept. 9, 2025). https://delhihighcourt.nic.in
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110 (Delhi High Court 2022).
Amnesty International. (2024). Repackaging repression: The Cyber Security Act and the continuing lawfare against dissent in Bangladesh. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa13/8332/2024/en/
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Others, CS(COMM) 652/2023 (Delhi High Court Sept. 20, 2023). https://delhihighcourt.nic.in
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, Interim Application (L) No. 23560 of 2024 in COM IPR Suit (L) No. 23443 of 2024 (Bombay High Court July 26, 2024). https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in
ARTICLE 19. (2025, June 18). Bangladesh: Defending free expression and electoral integrity in the digital age. https://www.article19.org/resources/bangladesh-defending-free-expression-and-electoral-integrity-in-the-digital-age/
Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. & Others, Interim Application (L) No. 30382 of 2025 in COM IPR Suit (L) No. 30179 of 2025 (Bombay High Court Sept. 29, 2025).
Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha. (2025, March 29). 410 cases over speech-based offences under cyber laws to be withdrawn. https://www.bssnews.net/news/259276
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104, 671-732.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Act No. 45 of 2023 (India).
Bosher, H. (2026). Do deepfakes, digital replicas and human digital twins justify personality rights? Journal of World Intellectual Property. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.70020
Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute.
Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-15.
Campbell v. MGN Ltd., [2004] UKHL 22.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Association, 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996).
Cartier International AG v. British Telecommunications plc, [2018] UKSC 28.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 391.
Chesney, B., & Citron, D. K. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107, 1753-1820.
Chopra, P., Sony, R. A. L., & Chopra, S. (2025). Generative AI, copyright and personality rights: A comparative legal perspective. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 6(3), 23-50.
Citron, D. K. (2019). Sexual privacy. Yale University Press.
Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345-391.
Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity. (2026). C2PA technical specification (Version 2.4). https://c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.4/index.html
Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001).
Constitution of India, 1950.
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 1972. https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367.html
Content Authenticity Initiative. (2026). Content credentials. https://contentauthenticity.org/
Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957 (India).
Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/the-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence
Cyber Security Act, 2026 (Bangladesh). https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/
Deepa Jayakumar v. A. L. Vijay, AIR 2021 Mad 167 (Madras High Court 2021).
Digital Security Act, 2018 (Bangladesh).
DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790 (Delhi High Court 2010).
Douglas v. Hello! Ltd., [2007] UKHL 21.
eDate Advertising GmbH v. X, Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, EU:C:2011:685.
European Commission. (2026). Article 50: Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems. AI Act Service Desk. https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-50
European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.
Federal Trade Commission. (2026). TAKE IT DOWN Act: What covered platforms need to know.https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/take-it-down-act-what-covered-platforms-need-know
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., III, & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723
Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Case C-131/12, EU:C:2014:317.
Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953).
Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42 (UK).
Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 (Bangladesh).
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended 2026 (India). https://www.meity.gov.in/
Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
Ju, Y., Hu, S., Jia, S., Chen, G. H., & Lyu, S. (2024). Improving fairness in deepfake detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (pp. 4655-4665). https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/WACV2024/html/Ju_Improving_Fairness_in_Deepfake_Detection_WACV_2024_paper.html
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India 2017).
Karttunen, S. (2026). The Danish approach to copyright and deepfakes: A model for the EU? European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2026/782611/EPRS_ATA(2026)782611_EN.pdf
Kaye v. Robertson, [1991] FSR 62.
Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013).
Khan, D. (2026). Between criminalisation and governance: Regulating AI-generated deepfakes in Bangladesh’s transitional democracy [Preprint]. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6508275
Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, (2021) 88 PTC 40 (Delhi High Court 2021).
Law Commission of England and Wales. (2022). Intimate image abuse: A final report (Law Com No. 407).
Livernoche, V., et al. (2025). Deepfakes in the 2025 Canadian election: Prevalence, partisanship, and platform dynamics [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13915
L’Oréal SA v. eBay International AG, Case C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474.
Mahamuni, R. (2025). Lehrman and Indian celebs: How personality rights are getting real [Preprint]. SSRN.
Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability. (2015). https://www.manilaprinciples.org/
Marlan, D. (2025). Generative identity theft: Criminalizing deepfakes using the right of publicity. Akron Law Review, 58(3), 445-500.
Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988).
Milmo, D. (2025, June 27). Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/deepfakes-denmark-copyright-law-artificial-intelligence
Mirsky, Y., & Lee, W. (2021). The creation and detection of deepfakes: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3425780
Mitchell, M., et al. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 220-229). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] AC 133.
Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50 (UK).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
Personal Data Protection Act, 2026 (Bangladesh). https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 (Supreme Court of India 1994).
Raji, I. D., & Buolamwini, J. (2019). Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 429-435).
Ranka, H., et al. (2024). Examining the implications of deepfakes for election integrity [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14290
Ravindra Shukla alias Ravi Kishan v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe), CS(COMM) 2026 (Delhi High Court July 2, 2026). https://delhihighcourt.nic.in
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 (Digital Services Act), 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 (Artificial Intelligence Act), 2024 O.J. L 2024/1689.
Rini, R. (2020). Deepfakes and the epistemic backstop. Philosophers’ Imprint, 20(24), 1-16.
Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989).
Samu, M. S. S., et al. (2025). Zero-shot to zero-lies: Detecting Bengali deepfake audio through transfer learning [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21702
Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation. (2021). https://santaclaraprinciples.org/
TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12, 139 Stat. 50 (2025).
Tech Global Institute. (2024). Reforming AI laws and regulation in Bangladesh: Current harms and possible futures. https://techglobalinstitute.com/research/reforming-ai-laws-and-regulation-in-bangladesh-current-harms-and-possible-futures/
The Daily Star. (2026, July 7). Over 4.6 million cases pending in courts. https://www.thedailystar.net/
Transparency International Bangladesh. (2024). Review of proposed Cyber Security Rules, 2024. https://www.ti-bangladesh.org/
U.N. Human Rights Committee. (2004). General Comment No. 31: The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13).
U.N. Human Rights Committee. (2011). General Comment No. 34: Article 19, freedoms of opinion and expression (CCPR/C/GC/34).
U.N. Human Rights Council. (2021). Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression: Report of the Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/47/25).
U.S. Copyright Office. (2024). Copyright and artificial intelligence, Part 1: Digital replicas. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-1-Digital-Replicas-Report.pdf
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
Varun Dhawan v. Artist Booking Company, CS(COMM) 2026 (Delhi High Court May 29, 2026). https://delhihighcourt.nic.in
Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992).
Wasi, A. T., et al. (2025). Seeing isn’t believing: Addressing the societal impact of deepfakes in low-tech environments [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16618
Westerlund, M. (2019). The emergence of deepfake technology: A review. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11), 39-52.
White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992).
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025, April 17). AI voice cloning: How a Bollywood veteran set a legal precedent. WIPO Magazine. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/ai-voice-cloning-how-a-bollywood-veteran-set-a-legal-precedent-73631
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shanjida Israt Jahan Efat
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
