Generative AI, Copyright and Personality Rights: A Comparative Legal Perspective

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has unsettled traditional boundaries between human authorship, machine creativity, and personal identity. Systems such as large language models (LLMs), text-to-image generators, and voice-cloning technologies are trained on vast repositories of copyrighted material, extracting patterns to produce novel outputs. These outputs increasingly emulate the stylistic signatures of authors or replicate the likeness and voices of individuals without authorization. The processes of training and generation have therefore become focal points of contestation among artists, legal scholars, and policymakers, as they implicate both the integrity of copyright protection and the evolving contours of personality rights. The present paper examines the ways in which courts and policymakers are addressing the complex intersection of generative AI, copyright law, and personality rights, with particular emphasis on the protection of voice and likeness in India and in other jurisdictions. It situates recent legal and regulatory developments—such as Midler v. Ford Motor Co. in the United States, Tennessee’s ELVIS Act, and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP—within broader scholarly debates concerning fair use, derivative works, originality, and the misappropriation of identity. Through a comparative lens, the analysis underscores divergent regulatory approaches: the United States’ reliance on litigation and common law doctrines; the European Union’s statutory framework prioritizing transparency, data protection, and opt-out mechanisms; and India’s evolving jurisprudence, characterized by judicial innovation through dynamic injunctions and the recognition of personality rights. The study advances a unified “Consent–Compensation–Control” (3C) framework that integrates copyright and personality rights as a coherent response to AI-driven infringements. This framework emphasizes the need for explicit consent in the use of creative works and personal attributes, equitable mechanisms of compensation for such uses, and practical legal and technological tools to maintain individual control over identity and expression. By bridging the longstanding doctrinal divide between intellectual property and personality rights, the framework aims to safeguard both creative labour and personal dignity, while simultaneously enabling innovation within responsible and clearly delineated boundaries.