Abstract
The fast development of artificial intelligence has changed the commercial and legal environment of sports, creating complex issues around athletes’ publicity rights. Athletes today gain a lot of value not just from their physical performance, including their name, image, voice and likeness, which become more valuable commercially, which is increasingly used through artificial intelligence technologies such as virtual avatars and deepfake content. These innovations boast fan engagement and brand promotions that lead athletes at risk of unauthorised use, damage to their reputations and big financial losses.
Key Concerns Addressed
- Commercial value of athletes’ name, image, voice, and likeness.
- Growing use of artificial intelligence technologies, including virtual avatars and deepfake content.
- Risks of unauthorised use, reputational damage, and financial losses.
In India, there are no specific laws to protect these rights; instead, athletes rely on the constitution provisions, intellectual property laws, copyright act laws, IT laws and scattered court decisions which don’t provide strong protection.
In contrast, the USA has clearer recognition about publicity rights like Lehman Act, 1946, but they are still challenged in dealing with AI-related issues.
Comparative Legal Position
| Country | Current Legal Position |
|---|---|
| India | Relies on constitutional provisions, intellectual property laws, Copyright Act laws, IT laws, and scattered court decisions without dedicated publicity rights legislation. |
| USA | Has clearer recognition about publicity rights like Lehman ACT, 1946, but they are still challenges in dealing with AI-related issues. |
Focus of the Paper
This paper critically examines the legislative gaps and judicial vacuums surrounding athletes’ publicity rights in India and has a comparative legal approach, looking at Indian and US legal gaps in protecting athletes’ publicity rights in the age of artificial intelligence.
The paper highlights the need to protect athletes’ rights with a comprehensive legal framework that balances a seesaw between technological innovations and the protection of athletes’ personas in a digital- and artificial-intelligence-driven sports world.
Key Takeaways
- Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the commercial value of athletes’ identities.
- AI-generated virtual avatars and deepfake content increase legal and commercial risks.
- India lacks a dedicated statutory framework for athletes’ publicity rights.
- The USA offers comparatively clearer recognition of publicity rights but still faces AI-related legal challenges.
- The paper advocates a comprehensive legal framework that balances technological innovation with the protection of athletes’ personas.
Introduction
Elite athletes are increasingly treating their names, images, and unique performances as commercial property. These commercial interests are safeguards through legal concepts commonly called “publicity rights”, “personality rights”, or “right of identity”—grants individuals to manage these rights and profit from the commercial use of their persona.
These rights are highly relevant in billion-dollar companies where contracts are often based more on the athlete’s marketable persona than their actual performances. For instance, Virat Kohli’s long-standing partnership with Puma shows an athlete’s branding extends beyond athletic achievements, leading to profitable commercial collaborations. Scholars highlighted this right as both a privacy principle and a property right which protects economic interests associated with personal image. Research by scholars such as Cunningham (2019) highlights that an athlete’s public persona is not merely a personal identity.
Origin of Publicity Rights
The origin of right to publicity traces from the landmark case of Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum (1953) where publicity rights recognized by second circuit as distinct from privacy rights, grants right to control over their commercial use of their images and in India ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises & Anr., 2003 in which Delhi high court said that publicity rights are inherent in an individual’s persona and can’t be exploited without consent and authorization.
| Case | Significance |
|---|---|
| Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum (1953) | Recognised publicity rights as distinct from privacy rights and grants the right to control over commercial use of personal images. |
| ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises & Anr. (2003) | The Delhi High Court held that publicity rights are inherent in an individual’s persona and cannot be commercially exploited without consent and authorisation. |
Artificial Intelligence and Athlete Personality Rights
The AI technology is altering this environment because Advanced algorithms are now capable of creating realistic images or videos of athletes Haelan Laboratories, Inc. vs. Topps Chewing Gum (deepfakes), replicating voices for advertise and commentaries., etc., training game engines and holographic avatars using biometric performance data, allowing user-generated content platforms to remix or customize athlete likenesses.
These advancements blur the lines between legal innovation, creative expression, and misuse, not only violating athletes’ rights to personal dignity but also facing economic loss on their commercial persona.
Economic Impact of AI-Generated Content
Endorsements contracts, licensing deals and sponsorship arrangements depends on the authenticity and exclusivity of an athlete’s persona such as AI generate an unauthorized image of a cricketer and promote a rival sportswear brand which leads to may lose both current opportunities and future goodwill but the valuation of these losses in market value still an unresolved issue because courts awards damages in misappropriation cases but these traditional tools not working in AI generated harms.
- Unauthorised AI-generated athlete images.
- Deepfake videos and voice cloning.
- Unauthorised commercial endorsements.
- Loss of sponsorship opportunities.
- Difficulty in valuation of economic damages.
Case Study: Sachin Tendulkar AI Misuse
In Sachin Tendulkar’s AI-generated video, which portrays him promoting a game application named “Skyward Aviator Quest”, it falsely asserts, “My daughter has been using this application and withdrawing $1.8 lakh every day.” This incident shows that the current legislation framework and judicial interpretations are insufficient to address AI misuse, particularly in quantifying economic harm.
Legal Gaps in India and the United States
The fast growth of artificial intelligence has raised important issues about protecting athletes’ rights to use their name, image and likeness. This has shown that there are big gaps in the laws and court systems in both India and the United States.
A major question is whether the current legal system is good enough to deal with the misuse of athletes’ identities through AI. Real cases of artificial intelligence being used wrongly show that existing laws don’t offer enough protection, highlighting the need for better and more complete changes to keep athletes safe in the digital world.
Scope and Objectives of the Paper
The paper aims to deal with the intersection of publicity rights, AI-generated content and economic impacts by valuation only for athletes.
Why Athletes?
Why athletes? Unlike celebrities whose rights of commercial value are widely discussed, athletes’ rights have not been given as much emphasis. They are usually seen only as a player on the field.
In the age of artificial intelligence, athletes’ public images are more at risk than ever. Their personal data, live performance details and value from sponsorships can be copied and misused by AI, creating profound effects on both their publicity rights and economic interests.
Structure of the Paper
So, the paper firstly deals with the conceptual foundation of publicity/personality rights and traces their role in sports marketing.
- Conceptual foundation of publicity/personality rights and their role in sports marketing.
- Generative AI content misuse of athletes’ likenesses and identities.
- Comparative study with USA legal frameworks.
- Challenges, legislative gaps, judicial gaps, and the need for new laws to protect athletes from AI exploitation.
2. Athlete’s Persona Misuses by AI
Publicity rights are a type of personal right that lets individuals control how their identity is used for commercial purposes. This includes their name, picture, appearance, and voice. These rights stop others from using a person’s image or name without the person’s consent for benefit. They also let the person use their fame and reputation to make money and protect their images. For athletes, these rights help them do things like get sponsorships and endorsements without worrying about their name or picture being used without approval.
The growth of generative AI technologies has posed major challenges to the protection of athletes’ publicity rights. Researchers have gone through how AI technologies are expanding, from deepfake creation tools to image recognition algorithms. AI challenges to traditional legal frameworks. The potentiality of AI to produce realistic recreations of athletes develops concerns regarding misrepresentations, unauthorised endorsements, and the diminishing control over personal image and economic harms. Such as unauthorised AI replicas and deepfakes in which athletes’ images are being used more often in AI-made content without their consent.
Unauthorised AI Replicas and Deepfakes
For instance, LSU basketball player Angel Reese’s nude pictures were spread by used AI. She said, “It’s wrong to sexually exploit young athletes. These situations not only hurt a person’s sense of respect but also risk their current sponsorships and reputations.” AI-generated deepfakes show a significant concern. Their ability to produce highly realistic recreations of images and videos changes the mind-formation perception of viewers for athletes. Research in digital media ethics (Kumar & Singh, 2020) highlights that the widespread deployment of deepfakes undermines trust in online content and increases the risk for reputational damage.
Similar to the controversy of LeBron James (2025), he spreads his fake videos widely online using an AI tool named Interlink AI (Singh, 2020). One video showed him as a pregnant person, and others showed him in inappropriate and offensive situations. This tool let people make every realistic video without asking for permission. This case is one of the first times a famous person has taken a legal action against AI generated content, showing importance to have laws that protect people’s digital images without their approval and also economic loss due to his legal action specifically targeted the dilution of his brand value and commercial relationships.
AI-Enabled Impersonation and Fraud
Artificial intelligence enables scammers to impersonate athletes in digital communications, resulting in fraudulent activities.
Ray Waldheim, who runs the verified fan page with more than 242,000 followers, said he constantly sees fake photos of real players on other pages with names. A lot of AI-generated fake fan pages that are collecting a lot of followers and likes. AI expert David Schweidel notes emotional manipulation is the main trick of famous success. These fraudulent activities breach their right to privacy but weaken fans’ trust.
Digital Avatars and Virtual Exploitation
AI further issues are expanding in the field of digital avatars and virtual exploitation. AI’s ability to develop an athlete’s persona as a digital avatar capable of being involved in endorsements, virtual competitions and also video games. Research by Hernandez (2022) said that these innovations create new opportunities but also ambiguously define the distinction between representation and exploitation. Athletes must allow how someone uses their dynamic representations may be recreated or altered. The dependence of AI scholars like Nguyen says that consent becomes a significant matter. The emergence of AI is making diminishing control over public identities, and robust laws for consent are needed.
AI in Sports Broadcasting and Performance Analysis
The integration of AI into sports, exemplified by Omega’s AI-driven computer vision systems at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, illustrates both the potential and the risks associated with the athlete’s rights. These technologies, used for generating 3D graphics in broadcasting and performance analyses, offer benefits in training, talent identification and narrative creation but raise concerns about privacy and the unauthorised use of athletes’ names, images and likenesses.
Ethical Concerns and Publicity Rights
Alberto Carrio Sampedro’s “The Ethics of AI in Sport” emphasises the need for informed consent, transparency, and protection against the misuse of sensitive information.
In 2023, former NBA legend Charles Barkley voiced concerns regarding the use of deepfake-technology in sports betting ads (Sampredro, 2023). A FanDuel advertisement during the NBA playoffs showcased an AI-generated younger version of Barkley alongside his current self. Although the ad was officially licensed and Barkley had given his consent, it ignited debate about the ethics of using AI to digitally recreate athletes. Critics contended that such practices blur the distinction between consent and manipulation, promoting questions about the extent to which companies can exploit an athlete’s likeness for profit. The incident is frequently cited as an early example of how deepfakes, even when legally approved, can challenge the boundaries of publicity rights and the economic value of an athlete’s public persona.
(Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 743 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014)) he successfully took legal action against Jewel Food Stores for using his identity for their ads without permission.
Legal and Research Challenges
The current studies indicate a current legal framework for these challenges. The challenges faced by athletes by AI and fragmented legislation lead to their privacy being in danger, reputational damages and economic or commercial losses or reduce their brand values. Empirical studies on this concept are limited but necessary. Kumar and Singh conducted detailed interviews with top-level athletes and found that concern about being misrepresented online is becoming a bigger issue, especially for athletes who depend a lot on sponsorship. Another study by Fernandez and others looked at 200 court cases in the US and found that only 15% of them specifically involved content by AI. This shows that courts are still in the early stages of dealing with these kinds of AI challenges.
Key AI Risks to Athletes
| AI Issue | Impact on Athletes |
|---|---|
| Unauthorised AI Replicas | Misrepresentation, loss of image control, reputational harm |
| Deepfake Videos and Images | Unauthorised endorsements, offensive portrayals, sponsorship risks |
| AI Impersonation | Fraud, fake communications, reduced fan trust |
| Digital Avatars | Commercial exploitation without proper consent |
| AI Broadcasting Technologies | Privacy concerns and unauthorised use of name, image, and likeness |
| Fragmented Legal Frameworks | Difficulty enforcing publicity rights and recovering economic losses |
Notable Cases and Examples
- Angel Reese’s AI-generated fake images controversy.
- LeBron James AI-generated fake videos using Interlink AI.
- Charles Barkley AI-generated FanDuel advertisement debate.
- Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 743 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014).
Research Findings
- Kumar & Singh (2020): Deepfakes undermine trust in online content and increase reputational risks.
- Hernandez (2022): Digital avatars create opportunities but blur the line between representation and exploitation.
- Nguyen: Consent becomes increasingly important in AI-generated representations.
- Fernandez et al.: Only 15% of reviewed U.S. court cases specifically involved AI-generated content, indicating that legal systems are still developing responses to AI-related disputes.
3. Comparative Study of Legal Frameworks of India and the USA
This examines how India and the United States handle the rights of athletes to control their public image. It explains that India uses the constitution, intellectual property laws, copyright laws, IT Act laws and the core decisions of the judiciary since there is no specific law for this, while the US has clear and robust legislation that protects these rights. The comparison shows both the similarities and differences in how each country deals with these issues, especially when it comes to new challenges like deepfakes and digital avatars, i.e., artificial intelligence. This analysis helps to understand what works well, what needs improvement and what India can learn from the US to make its laws better.
3.1. India’s Frameworks
No specific or dedicated legislation in India. In the Indian context, protection lies only in some constitutional provisions, intellectual property statutes, and judicial precedents and contractual practices, but India lacks statutory laws dealing with these challenges directly.
Constitutional Provisions
According to the constitution, Article 19 is Freedom of Speech and Expression (the right to freely express thoughts, opinions and ideas) (Constitution of India, 1950, art. 19). Article 21 Right to privacy and personal liberty. (Constitution of India, 1950, art. 21).
| Constitutional Provision | Protection Provided |
|---|---|
| Article 19 | Freedom of speech and expression (the right to freely express thoughts, opinions and ideas). |
| Article 21 | Right to privacy and personal liberty. |
Intellectual Property Law
Under intellectual property law, the Trademarks Amendment Act (2010) has become the main legislation to deal with the personality rights of athletes on AI in India, although it was not made for this context.
- Section 14 stops someone from registering a trademark that uses the name or picture of a living person or someone who died in the past 20 years without permission.
- Section 29 explains what counts as trademark infringement. It says that using a registered trademark as a business name or using a mark that looks like a registered one on similar goods or services is illegal if it might confuse customers.
- Trademark protection requires registration and continuous use, which may not align with the inherent nature of personality rights.
Copyright Act, 1957
Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act, 1957) This act offers personality rights a restricted protection because of its protections for artistic works and performers’ rights.
- Section 57 of the act says about performers’ specific performance rights, prohibiting unauthorised recording and distribution.
- Section 2(c) of the act safeguards artistic works and deals with the unauthorised utilisation of images or artistic depictions.
- This mainly protects the photographer or artist, restricting its effectiveness in safeguarding personality rights.
- Recent amendments to the Copyright Act have strengthened the right of performers.
Information Technology Act, 2000
The IT Act, 2000 (Information Technology Act, 2000), as established, has provisions related to the protection of digital identity, although it also does not address personality rights.
- Section 66E prohibits the acquisition, dissemination, or transmission of private photographs without consent, offering protection against unauthorised utilisation of an individual’s likeness in online impersonation and identity theft, with an emphasis on criminal rather than civil punishments.
- Section 79 intermediary liability provisions have been enforced in cases of unauthorised use of personality traits on digital platforms, although the results have been consistent.
Tort Law and Judicial Precedents
Tort Law: Unauthorised use of athletes’ identities for monetary benefits leads to economic impacts that can be actionable, as recognised by the Sourav Ganguly and ICC development cases.
- D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Ors., 2002 Confirmed protection of personalities (here, Daler Mehndi) against unauthorised commercial exploitation.
- Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2011, recognised personality rights protection.
Draft Legislation, 2024
Draft legislation, 2024; the preamble says this act safeguards and regulates the personality rights of athletes in India, basically in the context of artificial intelligence and digital technologies, and prevents unauthorised commercial exploitation.
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 1 | It shall come into force on such date as the central government notifies. |
| Section 4 | Prohibition on creating unauthorised deepfakes, i.e., the utilisation of an athlete’s personality rights without consent for monetary benefits. For commercial, advertisement or promotional purposes, no one creates, publishes, or spreads any AI-generated content on an athlete’s public persona. Violations constitute actionable infringement irrespective of the technology used. |
| Section 5 | News reporting and journalism for educational and research purposes, parody and criticism within reasonable limits. |
| Remedies | An authority to examine breaches, mediation and dispute resolution mechanisms as per section. Penalties are injunction, damages, account of profits and, for malicious deepfakes, up to 3 years imprisonment in criminal. $10 LAKH to $1 Crore per violation in statuary. |
| Section 9 | Promotes an international cooperation framework for cross-border regulations for AI-related challenges. |
| Section 10 | To address new technological advancements. It’s mandatory to review every 3 years. |
These legislations are not enough to deal with these challenges; they need comprehensive statutes to make a balance on athletes’ rights.
3.2. U.S.A. Frameworks
The USA has a robust system for protecting publicity rights, or to control their name and benefit arising from it. Current changes, like in the NCAA’s 2021 ruling, let athletes make money from their NIL with the protection available.
The rise of AI-generated copies, such as unauthorised digital content, has led to discussions about creating a federal law to protect against these kinds of users.
State-Level Publicity Rights
The NO FAKES ACT (2024) is one example of such a proposal cause USA has state level laws in places like California (Civil Code 3344 and 3344.1), New York (Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51, amended in 2021 to cover digital replicas) and Indiana let people control how their name, image or likeness is used for business purposes.
- These rules stop others from using someone’s identity without permission in things like ads, videos or content made by AI.
- Some states have post-mortem publicity rights, meaning protection will continue after an athlete’s death.
The Lehman Act, 1946 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.)
The Lehman Act, 1946 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), deals with fake endorsements and when brands get diluted. It comes into play when AI images or characters are used without approval. For instance, courts have used 43 (a) to protect misleading associations between athlete and brand.
Courts also look at copyright and free speech. When deciding these cases, there is a balance between someone’s right to control their image and the freedom to express ideas, especially in things like jokes or new kinds of art made with AI, referred to as copyright law and the First Amendment.
The economic remedies are licensing, NIL monetisation, damages and statutory remedies.
Landmark U.S. Cases
| Case | Significance |
|---|---|
| Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977) | The US Supreme Court landmark case on the right of publicity for a human cannonball who had his whole act televised without his consent. The case established basic principles protecting commercial use of personal identities even if it occurred before the advent of AI. |
| Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 2013 | MJ’s personality rights are protected from unauthorised commercial use by a number of cases. Courts have stressed that commercial exploitation that is unrelated to news or commentary is not protected by the First Amendment. |
| The Baltimore deepfake criminal case (Dazhon Darien, 2025) | A former high school athletic director was given a prison sentence for producing a racist deepfake video of the principal which showed that he was criminally responsible for using harmful AI-generated fake speech. |
3.3. Analysis
The Indian system in terms of current legislation on publicity rights leaves athletes more vulnerable position because the unfair online use, depends on past court decisions and also there is no comprehensive legislation and in the sphere of economic valuation of AI harms only remedies are damages, compensation is available, no clear method.
In contrast, the USA has robust laws and also put new legislation ahead of the world for protection. American athletes can make deals about their name and image and get punishment if someone uses them wrongfully while Indian athletes have to depend on courts decisions and on general rules still AI is the emerging field US also faces challenges in new technological era in both legislation and economic quantification methods harms by AI.
Comparison of India and USA Frameworks
| Aspect | India | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Specific Legislation | No dedicated law. | State-level publicity laws with proposed federal legislation. |
| Constitutional Protection | Articles 19 and 21. | The First Amendment is balanced with publicity rights. |
| AI & Deepfakes | Limited statutory protection; draft legislation, 2024, proposed. | NO FAKES ACT (2024) proposal and state laws addressing digital replicas. |
| Economic Remedies | Damages and compensation through courts. | Licencing, NIL monetisation, damages and statutory remedies. |
| Judicial Protection | Relies heavily on judicial precedents. | Strong statutory framework supported by landmark judicial decisions. |
4. Challenges
India lacks clear legislation, as we saw, and doesn’t have specific laws and a comprehensive system to deal with AI harm, and also the traditional laws are no more effective.
Legal Challenges
In freedom of speech vs. publicity right, it is very tricky to balance an athlete’s right to control their public persona with the right to free speech, especially in an AI-era like jokes, news reports and AI news media make this more difficult.
- It’s hard to find who made AI-generated content, start a case and get damages in the digital world that makes it hard to enforce.
- Mentioned in the athlete’s persona, misuses by AI that realistic AI replicas like deepfakes, voice cloning, and digital avatars can create very realistic content without consent and make it difficult to tell what is real and what is not.
- Also, AI can create and share lots of fake content quickly across the globe, and it becomes hard for traditional methods to cope with this.
- AI content is often made by numerous people, making it hard to tell someone accountable.
Social Challenges
Social challenges are the distortion of public image; AI’s realistic replication of images creates a fake image in the minds of users, which spreads misinformation and creates a breach of trust and public image harm.
Firstly, using someone’s image or voice without consent violates their right to privacy, which affects the personal life of athletes, which develops stress, anxiety, and fear of reputational harm.
Economic and Governance Challenges
AI has the potential of unauthorised commercial use of athletes’ identities, which violates their right to monetary benefit gain.
Who controls the image? AI with technology brings many questions. One of which is who should control a person’s digital image and manage the rights.
There is also no clear guidance on how to manage AI content on dead athletes, which raises serious concerns.
Needs a method after AI harm for economic valuation: how to calculate damages and restore them.
Summary of Key Challenges
| Challenge Area | Issues Mentioned |
|---|---|
| Legal | Lack of dedicated AI legislation, ineffective traditional laws, and balancing publicity rights and freedom of speech. |
| Enforcement | Difficulty identifying creators, proving liability, and obtaining damages. |
| Technology | Deepfakes, voice cloning, digital avatars, and the rapid spread of AI-generated fake content. |
| Social | Distortion of public image, misinformation, breach of trust, reputational harm. |
| Privacy | Unauthorised use of images and voices affecting athletes’ personal lives. |
| Economic | Unauthorised commercial exploitation, uncertainty over digital image ownership, and valuation of damages. |
5. Solutions
India must make dedicated laws or mandatory amendments to existing laws.
Also, countries need to work together through agreement and treaties to cope with AI-related issues that can happen anywhere in the world, which helps stop misuse of AI within countries’ borders.
Instead of mentioning exceptions, i.e., when a person uses someone’s image without their consent, especially in cases like news reporting, funny videos and teaching materials, it maintains a seesaw of rights.
Laws also have fast remedies, fines, and punishments.
Also Read: Cyber Crime Complaint in India: How to Report Online Fraud, Hacking & Cyber Harassment Legally
Technological Solutions
Firstly, use strong tools of AI that can detect deepfakes, voices and images of athletes.
These tools help find and stop misuse of someone’s rights.
- Watermarking and blockchain: these systems verify if content is officially approved, which helps to stop unauthorised use.
- Also, make some platforms like content hosting sites which quickly check for AI-generated fake content with instant removal of the content that violates publicity rights.
Contractual and Commercial Solutions
Athletes and the teams should create contracts that clearly mention how their image is used in AI-generated content, called made-licensing agreements, and may hire sometimes experts to watch unauthorised use and absolutely a clear method to serve economic damages for justice.
Summary of Solutions
| Solution Area | Measures Mentioned |
|---|---|
| Legal Reform | Dedicated AI laws or amendments to existing laws. |
| International Cooperation | Agreements and treaties to address cross-border AI misuse. |
| Balanced Exceptions | Exceptions for news reporting, funny videos and teaching materials while maintaining a seesaw of rights. |
| Enforcement | Fast remedies, fines and punishments. |
| AI Detection | Detection tools for deepfakes, cloned voices and AI-generated images. |
| Content Verification | Watermarking, blockchain and verification systems for approved content. |
| Platform Responsibility | Rapid detection and removal of AI-generated content violating publicity rights. |
| Athlete Protection | Licencing agreements, monitoring by experts and a clear method to serve economic damages for justice. |
Suggestions for Protecting Athletes’ Publicity Rights in the AI Era
Firstly, just educate everyone about these rights, not only the athletes. A mandatory public awareness is necessary because everyone is not known about these publicity rights.
Provides them information and training on AI technology, like through campaigns to help people with AI content for protecting these rights.
Government sports bodies, athlete’s unions, technology companies and public awareness, etc., should work together to create a policy and to maintain a seesaw of AI and publicity rights.
Key Policy Recommendations
- Educate the public, not only athletes, about publicity rights.
- Make public awareness campaigns mandatory.
- Provide AI-related training and educational programmes.
- Conduct awareness campaigns on AI-generated content and publicity rights.
- Encourage cooperation between government sports bodies, athlete unions, technology companies, and the public.
- Create balanced policies that maintain a seesaw between AI innovation and publicity rights.
Equilibrium Adjustment Test
Courts use this test to distinguish between works that are only copies of those that add relevance, artistic and creative values.
This test evaluates exploitation of the outcomes over AI-created images, videos or sound-alikes.
| Recommendation | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Public awareness | Educate citizens about publicity rights and AI-related risks. |
| AI training | Help people understand AI-generated content and rights protection. |
| Policy collaboration | Balance AI innovation with athlete publicity rights. |
| Equilibrium Adjustment Test | Differentiate copied works from those with artistic and creative value. |
7. Conclusion
Artificial intelligence has really changed the sports world, and it’s brought up some new problems for athletes when it comes to their rights to control their image and reputation, i.e., their publicity rights.
These days athletes make money not just from how well they play on the field but also from who they are – like their name, picture, voice and overall persona in the public.
Artificial intelligence tools such as deepfakes, virtual characters and content made by algorithms offer new ways to promote athletes, but they also create risks of misuse.
In India there is not a specific law that clearly protects athletes from their image being used without their consent, which can lead to damage to their reputation and loss of income (commercial benefits loss). ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises & Anr., 2003.
Right now, protection comes from the constitution provisions, intellectual property laws, IT Act laws, copyright laws and some judicial interpretations, but these often don’t provide much protection, not made for the purpose of AI.
Compared to the US, where there are clearer laws and courts that recognise the right to control one’s image, India still has a long way to go. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977).
Even there, dealing with AI-generated content that misuses an athlete’s identity and figuring out how much money is lost because of it is tricky.
This comparison shows that India needs better and more specific laws that deal with new artificial intelligence technologies.
Law should clearly define publicity rights, make sure they are enforced and provide both legal and criminal options to stop misuse.
Technological Solutions for Athlete Protection
Technological tools like AI detection, watermarking, and blockchain can help stop the unauthorised use of an athlete’s image or voice.
Also, strong licences, monitoring systems and education programmes can help everyone involved – athletes, teams, and organisations – understand their rights and responsibilities in the digital world because awareness is the most important one.
Future of Publicity Rights in the AI Era
In the end, protecting the right to control your image is not just a legal job; it’s also about fairness and ethics.
By having clear laws, safe technological tools and fair ways to measure value, athletes can keep control of their identity, protect their money, and deal with the sports world as it becomes more shaped by artificial intelligence.
Without fixing these issues now, athletes remain at risk of being taken advantage of and don’t get real remuneration for their losses by artificial intelligence. It is important to take action now through legal, technological and educational efforts.
Key Takeaways
- Artificial intelligence has created both opportunities and risks for athlete publicity rights.
- India currently lacks a dedicated law protecting athletes against AI-based misuse of their identity.
- Existing protection relies on constitutional provisions, intellectual property laws, copyright laws, IT laws, and judicial interpretations.
- International approaches, particularly in the United States, provide useful guidance for stronger legal protection.
- AI detection, watermarking, blockchain, licensing, monitoring systems, and public education can reduce misuse.
- A combination of legal reforms, technological safeguards, and public awareness is essential for protecting athletes’ publicity rights in the AI era.
References
Case Law
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977).
- Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953).
- ICC Dev. (Int’l) Ltd. v. Arvee Enters. & Anr., 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del.).
- Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 743 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014).
- O’Bannon v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015).
- D.M. Ent. Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., CS (OS) No. 893/2002 (India).
- Titan Indus. Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers, CS (OS) No. 2662/2011 (India).
Statutes & Legislative Acts
| Statute / Legislation | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 19, 21. | India |
| Trademarks Act, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999. | India |
| Copyright Act, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957. | India |
| Information Technology Act, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000. | India |
| Lehman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. (1946). | United States |
| California Civil Code §§ 3344–3344.1. | California, United States |
| New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 (amended 2021). | New York, United States |
Books, Monographs & Reports
| Author | Publication | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Cunningham, P. | Athlete Branding and Publicity Rights | 2019 |
| Fernandez, L., et al. | Digital Media Ethics and the Misuse of Athlete Identity | 2022 |
| Hernandez, R. | Virtual Athletes and AI in Sports Marketing | 2022 |
| Kumar, S., & Singh, R. | Deepfakes and Digital Identity: Ethical and Legal Implications | 2020 |
| Nguyen, T. | Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Sports Media | 2021 |
| Patel, A. | Publicity Rights and AI: Legal Challenges in India | 2022 |
| Reese, J. | Social Media, AI, and Sports Law | 2020 |
| Ross, L. | AI in Media Management: Legal and Ethical Concerns | 2024 |
| Posner, R. | Economic Analysis of Law | 1992 |
Important Links
Important Links:
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Transfer Petition from One State to Another
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
