ARTICLE: When a women’s photograph become someone else ’s digital identity : examining legal ownership, consent and accountability in the age of AI ., AUTHOR: ishika kamboj
A photograph once captured a moment. Today, the same photograph can become the foundation of an entirely fabricated identity, one that its subject may never have authorised or even encountered. The use of artificial intelligence to manipulate photographs has raised serious concerns about consent, privacy and individual identity. A photograph may legally belong to its creator, but does that give others the right to manipulate the identity of the person depicted?
ARTICLE
ABSTRACT
A photograph once captured a moment. Today, the same photograph can become the foundation of an entirely fabricated identity, one that its subject may never have authorised or even encountered. The use of artificial intelligence to manipulate photographs has raised serious concerns about consent, privacy and individual identity. A photograph may legally belong to its creator, but does that give others the right to manipulate the identity of the person depicted? This article examines the distinction between copyright ownership and personality rights under Indian law. It also explores the legal protection available to women against unauthorised AI-generated images and the accountability of those who create and circulate them.
INTRODUCTION :
A photograph can capture a person's identity, but artificial intelligence can now alter it beyond recognition or use it to create a false representation. Women increasingly face the risk of their photographs being manipulated and circulated without consent. This raises an important legal question: does owning a photograph also mean having control over the identity it represents? Under Indian law, copyright, privacy and personality rights offer different forms of protection. However, their application to AI-generated images remains challenging.
Pillar 1: Ownership of a Photograph versus Ownership of Identity
Ownership of a photograph and ownership of the identity represented through it are two distinct legal concepts. Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in a photograph generally belongs to its author, subject to statutory exceptions and agreements. However, ownership of the image does not confer ownership over the identity, personality or dignity of the person depicted. Sharing a photograph voluntarily or consenting to its publication does not amount to granting unrestricted permission to reproduce, manipulate or recreate one's identity. This distinction becomes critical with Artificial Intelligence, where publicly available photographs can be transformed into fabricated images and videos without the individual's knowledge or consent. Such misuse is not merely an infringement involving a photograph; it is an unauthorised interference with a person's digital identity. The question, therefore, is not simply who owns the photograph, but who has the right to control the identity it represents.
Pillar 2: Consent, Constitutional Dignity and AI Manipulation
Cons
ent is not a one-time permission that gives others unlimited control over an individual's identity. The voluntary sharing of a photograph does not amount to consent for its artificial alteration, sexualisation or circulation in a misleading form. Consent must be understood in relation to the specific purpose for which it is given, and cannot be extended to activities that an individual never authorised. Such manipulation raises concerns beyond the misuse of personal images, as it directly affects an individual's privacy, autonomy and dignity.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include the right to privacy and human dignity. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right. This recognition becomes particularly relevant when technology is used to interfere with an individual's personal identity without consent. AI-generated deepfakes challenge these protections by creating false representations of individuals without their knowledge or approval. The problem becomes more serious when such images are sexually explicit or deliberately circulated to humiliate, threaten or damage a woman's reputation.
For ordinary women, the consequences may extend beyond digital platforms into their families, workplaces and social lives. Even when fabricated, such representations can cause lasting harm because society may struggle to distinguish manipulated content from reality. The individual is consequently forced to defend herself against an identity she never created. This raises an important concern about personal autonomy: a woman should not have to surrender control over her identity simply because her photograph is accessible online. Technological advancement cannot become a justification for disregarding human consent and constitutional dignity.
Pilllar 3: India's Legal Response and Its Gaps
The violation of a woman's digital identity does not end with the creation of a manipulated image; it raises the question of whether the law can identify the wrongdoer, prevent further circulation and provide an effective remedy to the victim. India's existing legal framework offers several avenues of protection, but these must be examined in the context of AI-generated abuse. The Information Technology Act, 2000 addresses identity theft under Section 66C, cheating by personation under Section 66D and violations involving private images under Section 66E. Sections 67 and 67A further penalise the electronic publication or transmission of obscene and sexually explicit material, where their respective legal requirements are satisfied. However, these provisions address particular forms of cybercrime and do not create a comprehensive, standalone offence covering every form of unauthorised AI-generated representation.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 also recognises offences such as voyeurism under Section 77, stalking under Section 78 and acts intended to insult a woman's modesty under Section 79. Particularly significant is Section 77, which distinguishes consent to capturing an image from consent to its dissemination. This reflects an important principle already central to our discussion: permission to share one's identity in one context cannot be treated as permission for its misuse in another. Nevertheless, the application of these provisions to entirely fabricated images may depend upon the specific facts and statutory requirements of the offence.
A further development is the 2026 amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The amended Rules expressly recognise synthetically generated information and introduce obligations relating to unlawful AI-generated content, including non-consensual intimate imagery and deceptive representations of an individual's identity. Rule 3(2)(b) also requires intermediaries to act within two hours of receiving specified complaints concerning intimate or impersonation-related content, including artificially morphed images.
Yet, the existence of legal provisions does not automatically translate into justice. A photograph may be removed from one platform while copies continue circulating elsewhere; identifying the original creator and establishing responsibility may also remain difficult. For an ordinary woman, the process of reporting, pursuing complaints and defending her reputation can become another burden. The real question is not simply whether Indian law recognises digital violations, but whether it can protect a ordinary woman's identity with the same urgency with which technology can destroy it.
Pillar 4: Accountability, Freedom of Expression and Access to Justice
The question of AI-generated identity misuse cannot end with identifying the wrong or establishing the existence of legal remedies. It must also address responsibility: who should be held accountable when a woman's photograph is transformed into misleading or sexually explicit content, circulated across digital platforms, and repeatedly reproduced beyond her control? Accountability in such cases cannot rest solely upon the individual who initially creates the manipulated image. It must extend, according to their respective roles and knowledge, to those who knowingly distribute, promote or facilitate its circulation, as well as platforms that fail to discharge their statutory obligations.
The Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provides an important framework for intermediary accountability. Section 79 grants conditional safe-harbour protection to intermediaries, subject to compliance with statutory due-diligence requirements. This protection should not become a shield for platforms that knowingly facilitate unlawful content or disregard valid complaints. Significantly, the 2026 amendments to the IT Rules, which came into force on 20 February 2026, specifically address synthetically generated information. They introduce obligations concerning identification and labelling of synthetic content, technical safeguards and stronger platform compliance. These developments recognise that responsibility in the AI ecosystem must extend beyond the original creator.
However, accountability must operate alongside constitutional freedom of expression. Article 19(1)(a) protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on specified grounds. Satire, parody, artistic representation and legitimate criticism cannot automatically be equated with identity abuse merely because they involve digital alteration. The legal distinction lies in the nature, purpose and consequences of the representation, particularly where it becomes deceptive, sexually exploitative, defamatory or an invasion of privacy. Protecting women's digital identities should not result in an unrestricted power to suppress legitimate expression; equally, freedom of expression cannot be invoked to legitimise the unauthorised exploitation of another person's identity.
The final concern is access to justice. For a victim, obtaining a takedown order is only one part of the remedy. Identifying anonymous creators, preserving digital evidence, preventing repeated uploads and pursuing compensation or criminal proceedings remain substantial challenges in india yet . An effective response therefore requires accessible grievance mechanisms, timely platform action, coordinated cybercrime investigation and victim-sensitive procedures that do not force women to repeatedly reproduce or publicly explain their humiliation.
Ultimately, the right to control one's digital identity must be accompanied by an enforceable right to seek accountability when that identity is violated.
Pillar 5: Counterarguments and Limitations – Balancing Rights with Regulation
Despite evolving legal protections, regulating AI-generated content presents certain legal and practical challenges. Not every digital alteration amounts to an infringement; satire, artistic expression, parody and legitimate creative use must also be protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court emphasised that restrictions on online expression must remain within constitutionally permissible limits. Therefore, regulation must distinguish between legitimate creative expression and the non-consensual manipulation of an individual's identity.
Further, the existence of legal remedies does not guarantee effective enforcement. Identifying anonymous perpetrators, tracing manipulated content across platforms and preventing repeated circulation remain significant obstacles. Although the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2026 introduce specific safeguards concerning synthetically generated information, their effectiveness ultimately depends upon implementation and platform compliance. The challenge, therefore, is not merely to strengthen existing laws, but to ensure that they remain proportionate, enforceable and responsive to technological developments without compromising legitimate freedom of expression.
Conclusion: Protecting Identity in an Age of Artificial Reality
The misuse of women's photographs through artificial intelligence is not merely a technological concern; it is a question of identity, autonomy, dignity and the limits of individual freedom in a digital society. As this discussion establishes, ownership of a photograph and ownership of one's identity are distinct legal concepts. A photograph may be publicly accessible, but the person represented in it does not surrender the right to determine how her identity is portrayed, manipulated or circulated.
India's existing legal framework, supported by constitutional protections and evolving technology regulations, provides a foundation for addressing such violations. Nevertheless, the existence of legal provisions alone cannot guarantee meaningful protection. The real measure of an effective legal system lies in its ability to identify violations, establish accountability, provide timely remedies and ensure that victims are not left to bear the consequences of technological misuse themselves.
The challenge, therefore, is not to restrict technological advancement or legitimate freedom of expression, but to ensure that neither progresses at the expense of another person's fundamental rights. Artificial intelligence may create convincing representations of reality, but it cannot create consent, transfer identity or erase responsibility.
A woman's photograph may exist in the public domain, but her identity must never become public property.
References and Bibliography
I. Constitutional and statutory provisions
1. Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21.
2. Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 43, 66C, 66D, 66E, 67, 67A, 69A and 79.
3. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended.
4. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, G.S.R. 120(E), dated 10 February 2026.
5. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and2025.
6. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – relevant provisions concerning cheating by personation, forgery and related offences.
II. Judicial precedents
8. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Right to privacy, dignity and individual autonomy.
9. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 – Freedom of expression and intermediary liability.
10. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 – Right to privacy and publication of personal information.
III. Government reports and official resources
11. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India – Government's response to AI-generated deepfakes and cybercrime, 8 August 2025.
12. Press Information Bureau – Government Strengthens Regulatory Framework to Address AI-Generated Deepfakes, 6 August 2026.
13. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology – Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025
IV. Important online legal resources
· India Code – Central Acts and legislation