Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a space-age concept, it is a present reality shaping our identities, businesses, and legal systems. Tools capable of generating hyper-realistic images can now replicate a person’s face, voice, or even signature style without their knowledge or consent. A stranger’s photo uploaded online can be transformed into an advertisement, a fake political endorsement, or even explicit content within seconds. Yet, when such an incident occurs today in India, the question remains, “which law truly protects the victim?”

AI-generated content sits uncomfortably between innovation and exploitation. While businesses celebrate the efficiencies AI brings to branding, marketing, and entertainment, individuals face the risk of digital impersonation and reputational harm. Traditional intellectual property (IP) laws were drafted for human authors, physical infringements, and tangible evidence. They were not designed to answer questions like:

  • If an AI platform creates a painting in my likeness, do I own it or does the platform?
  • If my face is used without consent to endorse a product, is it defamation, identity theft, or copyright infringement?
  • If a trademarked logo is replicated by an AI system with minor variations, is it parody, fair use, or counterfeiting?

The legal uncertainty is further evidenced by ongoing litigation such as ANI Media v. OpenAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024), where ANI has alleged that OpenAI used its news content including paywalled material, to train its AI models, which later generated outputs falsely attributed to ANI. This case marks a pivotal moment for Indian jurisprudence, as courts now confront the complex issue of whether AI training on copyrighted data constitutes infringement or falls under “fair dealing” (Section 52, Copyright Act, 1957).

Recognising these growing ambiguities, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) issued an Office Memorandum on 28 April 2025, constituting a committee to prepare a working paper on AI and Copyright. Its mandate is clear, that is, identify emerging legal issues, review the adequacy of the Copyright Act, 1957, and recommend policy reforms to address ownership, authorship, and liability in AI-generated works.

However, copyright is just one piece of the puzzle. Identity protection remains an even larger vacuum. In a landmark judgment, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The court held that privacy is an essential aspect of personal liberty and dignity and is intrinsic to the entire constitutional scheme. Thus Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides individuals with the right to safeguard their personal information and identity. But however, the country still lacks a specific statutory framework against digital identity theft or deepfake misuse. In India, the Information Technology Act, 2000, which aims to protect sensitive personal data, fails to address critical issues such as privacy and content regulation. The Act primarily focuses on data security rather than the unauthorized use of an individual’s image. Further a vital development came with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and took effect on July 1, 2024. While the BNS does not specifically mention AI, it expands the scope of forgery and impersonation to include electronic records and digital documents, making it highly relevant for combating AI-enabled identity theft. For example, Section 335 penalizes making false documents or electronic records, which can also cover AI-generated fake images. Section 336 criminalizes forgery intended to cheat or harm, which can be applicable to deepfakes. Sections 337 and 338 address forgery of public records, identity documents, wills, and valuable securities, punishable up to life imprisonment, covering fake Aadhaar, voter ID, or wills. This section can also be implied to AI-generated documents. Section 340 punishes the use of forged electronic records as genuine and Sections 345 to 349 address counterfeit property marks, relevant where AI replicates trademarks or product logos. Thus, the BNS provides a strong legal framework with regard to combat and to protect individuals and businesses against AI-driven identity theft, deepfakes, and IP infringement.

Hence with the growth of AI technology, it is important for India to apprise its intellectual property laws and digital identity protections so that creators, businesses, and individuals remain well protected in this new digital era. Some of the measures which can be incorporated are:

  • Defining authorship and ownership of AI-generated works under the Copyright Act, to ensure creators’ rights are not compromised 
  • Creating Stronger Laws Against Digital Identity Theft by establishing comprehensive protections for personal images, names, and likenesses from misuse by AI.
  • Incorporating provisions under the Trademark Act, for the protection of brand identity in a world where AI can easily generate counterfeit logos and products.
  • Implementing AI Detection and Enforcement Tools to monitor and impose IP rights, detect counterfeit goods, and prevent digital identity theft.

By updating intellectual property and identity protection laws, India can strike a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring that rights holders and individuals remain protected in this new digital era.

 

By Amrita Chowdhur