The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, deepfakes, voice synthesis and digital avatars has created a new technological phenomenon commonly described as Digital Cloning. Digital cloning refers to the creation of an artificial digital representation of an individual, object, voice, image, personality or creative work using technological tools. A person’s face can be reproduced, their voice can be synthetically generated, and their mannerisms or artistic style can be imitated with increasing accuracy. Digital cloning has legitimate applications in entertainment, education, advertising, gaming, virtual reality and accessibility. However, it also creates serious legal questions when a person’s identity or creative work is reproduced without consent. One of the most important areas affected is Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Traditional intellectual property law was developed around identifiable human creators and conventional forms of copying. Digital cloning challenges these assumptions. It can involve copyright infringement, trademark misuse, passing off, infringement of performers’ rights and unauthorized commercial exploitation of personality. The difficulty becomes even greater when the cloned content is generated by AI and distributed across multiple digital platforms.
When AI Recreates human: Copyright, Identity, Creativity
Artificial Intelligence is changing the way we think about creativity and identity. Today, a person’s voice, face or appearance can be recreated digitally in a way that may appear almost real. While this technology can be useful in films, advertising, entertainment and other fields, it also creates a difficult question: what happens when someone’s identity is recreated without their knowledge or permission? Take the example of a singer. The singer may never have recorded a particular song, yet AI can generate the song using a voice that sounds like theirs. To the audience, it may even appear that the singer actually performed it. The same can happen with an actor whose face or likeness is digitally placed in an advertisement or video without their involvement. Here, the problem is not simply about copying a copyrighted work. It is also about using something that is closely connected to the person themselves. Indian courts have increasingly addressed such issues through personality and publicity rights, particularly in cases involving well-known public figures. For instance, in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of her personality. The Court restrained the defendants from using her name, image, likeness, voice, persona and other identifiable attributes without her consent, including through technologies such as AI-generated content, deepfakes, machine learning and face morphing.
The Court also directed action against unauthorised online content and websites exploiting her identity commercially. This is where copyright law faces an important limitation. Copyright generally protects original creative works such as songs, films, photographs and sound recordings. But what happens when AI creates something completely new while making it appear as though a particular person created or performed it? The original work may not have been copied at all, yet the person’s identity may still have been used to create commercial value. Another important question is consent. If a new song, advertisement or video is created using someone’s cloned voice or likeness, the person may have had no role in creating it and may never have agreed to its use. At the same time, their identity may be the very reason why the content attracts attention or tifiable categories of works such as literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings. However, digital cloning does not always involve the direct reproduction of an existing work. An AI system may instead generate entirely new content while imitating the distinctive voice, appearance or mannerisms of a real person. generates money. This makes it important to distinguish between ownership of the newly created content and a person’s right to control the use of their own identity. In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (2024), the Bombay High Court restrained the unauthorised use and commercial exploitation of Singh’s personality, including the unauthorised replication of his voice through AI-based technology. The case demonstrated that a person’s voice can have an independent personal and commercial value even where no particular song or sound recording has been directly copied. Digital cloning therefore raises a question that traditional intellectual property law was not originally designed to answer: the law protects many things that people create, but how should it protect the identity that makes those creations— or the person behind them— recognisable?
Legal protection, gaps and the Road Ahead
The emergence of AI-based digital cloning has exposed an important difficulty within India’s existing intellectual property framework, particularly in the application of copyright law. The Copyright Act, 1957, was developed to protect idenThe issue is further complicated by the fact that the Copyright Act recognises certain computer-generated works and identifies the person who causes such a work to be created as its author. However, this provision does not clearly resolve the question of ownership when artificial intelligence is used to generate a digital clone of another person. The difficulty becomes even more apparent in the case of identity itself. Copyright protects particular forms of creative expression, but a person’s face, voice, manner of speaking or overall persona is not automatically treated as a copyrighted work. Although performers may receive specific protection for their performances under the Copyright Act, the unauthorised creation of a synthetic performance raises a different question: what happens when no actual performance is copied, but the performer can nevertheless be digitally recreated?
Digital cloning And data protection
Digital cloning also raises concerns that extend beyond intellectual property rights. Before an artificial intelligence system can reproduce a person’s voice, face or other identifiable characteristics, it may need to collect, store or process digital information relating to that individual. This brings the issue into the wider framework of personal data protection. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides a framework for the processing of digital personal data and includes requirements relating to consent and lawful processing. This becomes relevant where personal data is collected for one purpose but is subsequently used for creating an AI-generated replica or digital clone. However, the DPDP Act does not treat a person’s identity as intellectual property, nor does it specifically create a right of ownership over a person’s voice, face or likeness. Its role is therefore different from that of copyright or personality rights.
While intellectual property law may address the protection and commercial exploitation of creative works, data protection law focuses primarily on the lawful processing of personal data. Digital cloning therefore demonstrates how a single technological act can raise overlapping questions of intellectual property, personality rights and data protection. The challenges created by digital cloning are not limited to India. Different countries have begun approaching the problem in different ways. The United States has increasingly explored specific protection for an individual’s voice and visual likeness, rather than relying entirely on traditional copyright law. South Korea has adopted strong measures against harmful deepfakes, particularly where synthetic content is used for sexual exploitation or impersonation. China has taken a more preventive approach by introducing rules requiring AI-generated and synthetic content to carry visible and technical labels. The European Union’s AI Act also introduces transparency obligations for certain AI-generated and manipulated content.
*Dr. S.Krishnan is An Academician And An Experienced Journalist Based In Jaipur. Ms. Aliza Khan is a 3rd Year Student of BALLB In Seedling School of Law And Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur. Ms. Anushka Sharma is a 3rd Year Student of BALLB In Seedling School of Law And Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur.