A case for creating ‘Identity Rights’ for digital identities in india
In the era of the Aadhar, demonetization, blockchain and other technological advancements, ‘digital identities’ are gaining increasing prominence. The World Bank defines ‘digital identities’ as “a set of electronically captured and stored attributes and credentials that can uniquely identify a person”. Currently, in India, the conception of digital identities centres around Aadhar, the 12-digit unique ID number issued to Indian residents. Conceptually, digital identities are wider in scope and can include social media accounts, mail accounts, IP addresses, bank accounts etc. While these identities help enhance connectivity and visibility, they also raise an alarm on privacy concerns, identity frauds and various other cyber crimes. Increasing instances of such crimes highlight the need to look into various legal measures to protect digital identities.
The protection of such identities finds some expression in Indian jurisprudence. On 24th August, 2017, in the now landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy (retd.) v. Union of India, a nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while mulling over the right to privacy, highlighted several related rights arising from the same. These included rights such as: one’s “right to control information that is available about them on the world wide web”, the right to protect one’s own reputation, and one’s “personal conception of the ‘self’. The idea of protecting identities as intellectual property may seem far-fetched to most and perhaps, even ludicrous. After all, IP law protects creations of the human mind, and identities can certainly not be classified as a ‘creation’.
The Link between Personality Rights & Digital Identities
Personality rights have been defined as the right of famous individuals, whose identities have acquired a sort of brand value. This right allows them to “control when, where and how their identity is used”. As has been stated by the Delhi High Court in ICC Development (International) v. Arvee Enterprises, such identities or ‘personas’ cannot be monopolized by persons other than the individual i.e., the right vests in an individual and he alone is entitled to profit from it.
Upon noting that personality rights have received IP protection, one can consider the possibility of extending the same to digital identities of individuals.
A pertinent argument that could follow is that digital identities are not ‘properties owned’ by individuals and are therefore not entitled to receive IP protection. While identities or indicia of identities have been held to be “property” of individuals, the ownership issue admittedly raises complex issues in case of digital identities: Several arguments have been advanced, to show that governments and companies have the right of ownership over our digital identities. This issue can also be settled by drawing parallels to personality rights.
Are Digital Identities ‘Property Owned’ by Individuals?
The right in the “identities” (or property, as shown above) is viewed as a fully alienable right, which may be assigned or transferred to others. It has been argued by scholars that this right must be interpreted as a partially alienable right. An interesting article deals with this issue and the author creates a distinction between “publicity-holders” (person who owns property interests in commercial uses of an identity) and “identity-holders” (the individual whose identity or indicia is the one that must be appropriated to show a violation of his publicity rights). However, even then, rights of the “identity holders” hold precedence. As the author of the aforementioned article argues, instead of viewing publicity right as a fully alienable property right, limits on alienability should be introduced within the property framework, and such rights must be viewed as rooted solely in the identity-holder. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court when it held that personality rights can “inhere only in an individual or in any indicia of an individual’s personality like his name, personality trait, signature, voice, etc.,”. It further held that “An individual may acquire the right of publicity by virtue of his association with an event, sport, movie, etc. However, that right does not inhere in the event in question, that made the individual famous, nor in the corporation that has brought about the organization of the event.” From the above interpretation, one may argue that the right to control one’s identity solely vests in the individual.
Another related concern with regard to the protection of “identities” under IP is that personality rights/publicity rights cannot apply to digital identities. This is because only infringement of celebrities’ rights result in commercial losses to companies and hence, IP protection should only be accorded to them, instead of ordinary people and their digital identities. However, when we view identities as properties of individuals, it is reasonable to assume that a person’s identity can assume pecuniary value in certain cases and can be exploited for commercial benefits. This can be highlighted by instances where infringement of digital identities have caused huge losses to companies and other individuals alike. Examples include the attack by the Wanna Cry ransomware on hospital databases and banking institutions, the reports of Aadhar-related frauds where customers’ Aadhar details were used to siphon money, and other similar reports of identity theft and fraud.
Source : SpicyipPrevious Post Next Post
- Powering Change: Women in innovation and Creativity
- Rapid Growth in Trademarks in China
- Nasal Spray Patents Covering Migraine Drug Zomig Not Invalid As Obvious
- Oprah Winfrey sued for Plagiarism
- Understanding U.S. Patent Prosecution