NAVIGATING THE LEGAL LABYRINTH: ETHICAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL CHALLENGES OF NON-CONSENSUAL CELEBRITY IMPERSONATION THROUGH DEEPFAKE TECHNOLOGY

Deepfake technology, fueled by advancements in artificial intelligence, has dramatically transformed the way of highly realistic audiovisual content. While, it was initially celebrated for its applications within entertainment, education, and creative media, this technology has raised significant concerns related to its misuse, particularly in the unauthorized impersonation of the celebrity. The inappropriate utilization of a celebrity’s likeness or voice to produce misleading or harmful content infringes privacy, damages reputations, and erodes public confidence in the authenticity of the media.

This research paper seeks to evaluate the possible breaches of privacy, defamation, and right to publicity laws that arise from non-consensual impersonation via deepfake technology. It evaluates whether current legal mechanisms offer sufficient protection for celebrities against such abuses and critically reviews the judicial precedents related to similar matters. By employing a qualitative and analytical approach, the study investigated both national and international legal frameworks, judicial decisions, and ethical standards to gauge their effectiveness in tackling these issues.

Additionally, it underscores the immediate requirements for more stringent regulations, clearer definitions regarding privacy, and collaborative global enforcement mechanisms to mitigate the risks posed by deepfakes, while also stressing the importance of ethical responsibility in the time of technological progress. In Douglass v. Hustler Magazine, the U.S. Court of Appeal opined that the publication was violative of an individual’s right to privacy and right to publicity, reinforcing that the person has control over their likeness. Further, in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, the court recognized that publishing unauthorized content about an individual, especially if it affects their reputation, and privacy, can be legally challenged.