Singer Kumar Sanu has approached the Delhi High Court, seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, including his name, voice, vocal style and technique. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora is likely to hear the plea on Monday.
In his plea, Sanu has sought protection of his personality and publicity rights, including his name, voice, vocal style and technique, vocal arrangements and interpretations, mannerisms and manner of singing, images, caricatures, photographs, likeness and signature. He has also sought protection against unauthorised or unlicensed use and commercial exploitation by third parties, which is likely to create confusion or deception and dilution among the public.
The suit, filed through advocates Shikha Sachdeva and Sana Raees Khan, also alleges violation of Sanu’s moral rights in his performances conferred upon him by virtue of provisions of the Copyright Act.
The plea has claimed that the defendants are violating Sanu’s personality and publicity rights by extracting his name, voice, likeness and persona.
Recently, Bollywood actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and her husband Abhishek Bachchan, filmmaker Karan Johar, Telugu actor Akkineni Nagarjuna, “Art of Living” founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and journalist Sudhir Chaudhary also approached the high court seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights and the court granted them interim relief.
The right to publicity, popularly known as personality rights, is the right to protect, control and profit from one’s image, name or likeness.
Sanu is aggrieved by various GIFs, and audio and video recordings containing his performances and voice, which bring disrepute to him and make him a subject of “unsavoury humour”, thereby violating his moral rights in his performances.
He is also aggrieved by content made using artificial intelligence (AI) to clone his voice, vocal style and technique, vocal arrangements and interpretations, manner of singing, and the morphing of his face, including making of merchandise.
“Such merchandise and audios/videos of the plaintiff generate revenue for the defendants, as they are uploaded and streamed on social networking websites, including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, which generate revenue based on the number of clicks or views to a particular image/video,” the suit says.
“Such acts also amount to an attempt at false endorsements and passing off and hence, must be restrained by an order of injunction by this court,” it says.
