META DESCRIPTION
The blog focuses on the recent internet trend of generating images using Gemini prompts, which can generate hyper realistic photos within a fraction of a second, offering instant visual appeal that can be mistaken for reality. This realism highlights both the beauty and risk of this technology by raising concerns about the potential misuse of the same. It draws attention to the problem that how technology is moving faster, making it difficult to address these challenges and is ill-equipped to protect people from the potential misuse of their faces. The blog tries to discuss these issues from a legal perspective by analysing the Copyright Act, 1957. The research methodology used for this blog is the Doctrinal Research Methodology.
Tags: Gemini prompts, AI-generated images, The Copyright Act 1957, Facial misuse, etc.
INTRODUCTION
In August 2025, Google Gemini launched its ‘Nano Banao AI Image Generator,’ a tool that allows users to transform a single photo into limitless artistic work by generating unique and appealing visuals. Due to its ability to create hyper-realistic images in just a few seconds from a single prompt, this tool has quickly taken over the internet, becoming an instant internet sensation and creating viral trends. It gives users the freedom to explore numerous creative liberties, such as generating images in classic Bollywood vintage aesthetics, trying on trending fashions, visualising themselves visiting foreign destinations, or imagining themselves posing with their favourite celebrities, turning this into a playful and highly engaging experience for users. However, this entertaining trend also raises serious concerns, such as the misuse of personal photos without consent, leading to privacy breaches. Deepfakes demonstrate how such innovations can be misused, creating real risks for individuals that the Copyright Act, 1957, struggles to address. These queries are vital in establishing legal and ethical guidelines for regulating the use of AI-generated images.
GEMINI’S NANO- BANA: CREATIVITY AND CONCERN
Google AI Studio launched Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, popularly known as “Nano-Banao,” intending to provide high-quality visuals while giving users more creative control over the results. Since its launch, it is estimated that Gemini’s Nano Banao have generated over 500 million images, with India ranking among the leading users of this trend. The extreme realism of these images has raised major issues, as it can be hard for ordinary viewers to distinguish them from real images, which could lead to potential misuse of the same. In defence, Gemini has stated that every image generated by Nano Banao carries an invisible digital watermark (SynthID) and a metadata tag, making AI-generated content identifiable. However, this detection system isn’t accessible to the general public for everyday use. This makes it almost impossible for someone seeing the image for the first time to verify its authenticity. Moreover, the watermark could potentially be removed or even faked, so it alone cannot be considered a fully reliable solution.
WHEN AI VIOLATES CONSENT AND PRIVACY
One of the main issues goes beyond merely identifying whether an image is AI-generated or not. The more significant concern is based on the consent obtained for the same. For instance, even if a particular image is identified as fake or generated by AI, it will still be unclear whether the person whose photo was used had given their consent and agreed to modify such images. This Deepfake technology becomes particularly troubling and harmful, with women being especially vulnerable when used to target women. Regardless of whether they are famous celebrities or ordinary individuals, A woman’s image can be manipulated into scenarios she never agreed to, such as being placed in false or intimate scenarios without her consent, resulting in direct attacks on her privacy, reputation, and dignity. Such acts cannot be considered harmless fun; they go beyond entertainment. Such actions can be considered as a form of theft, using someone’s likeness without consent and placing them in stories they never agreed to, directly infringing their right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Additionally, AI photo editing tools use a person’s visual resemblances, which is considered an integral part and essential aspect of their Personality Rights. It can be illustrated that when you upload a photo to a platform, it is presumed that you are generally granting access willingly for it to be processed or modified. If the platform’s terms do not state any restrictions, the platform may legally claim ownership of the image or content since you have permitted the same. In this context, there is a real-life possibility that these AI-generated images could be stored or used for further AI training, by the big tech companies that potentially violate the constitutional rights such as right to privacy established inthe KS Puttaswamy Judgement, further connected with personality rights affirmed in ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises, which stated that no one’s likeness can be commercially exploited without consent and uploaded selfies may also qualify as personal data under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
INTERSECTION BETWEEN COPYRIGHT AND DEEPFAKES
A deepfake is essentially an AI-generated manipulation and a form of synthetic media in the form of a video, photo, or even a voice clip. The technology is designed to give an impression as though the individual in question actually engaged in that act in real life, which never actually took place. The Copyright Act of 1957, with its outdated provisions, is still struggling to keep pace with rapid technological developments. As a result, it lacks specific provisions or updates that deal with such content. Yet still, there is a silver lining, even though the law does not explicitly address AI-generated content. Section 57, which protects moral rights, may cover deepfakes and personality rights that can protect an author’s reputation, and when images are misused, they may violate these rights depending on the content’s purpose and context. However, some questions are still unclear, such as whether AI-generated images can be permitted under the doctrine of fair dealing in Section 52 for creative or artistic purposes and who ultimately owns such works remains uncertain, highlighting legal ambiguity.
The legislature has yet to pass an amendment to tackle these challenges. Meanwhile, the judiciary has actively worked to broaden copyright protections. The Delhi High Court in the Anil Kapoor case has extended the interpretation of copyright law, affirming celebrities’ personality rights to prevent misuse while addressing the risks of illegal exploitation in today’s digital age.
However, this cannot be merely looked at as a solution by solely relying on judicial recognition of celebrities’ personality rights. This protection cannot be confined only to public figures or celebrities. As stated earlier, ordinary people, particularly vulnerable groups such as women and children, are equally exposed to pornographic or manipulated content, highlighting the immediate need for legislative reforms to prevent adverse consequences.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Most notably, Denmark has taken a historic step by passing a revolutionary copyright amendment aimed at preventing deepfakes. The law grants individuals copyright ownership over their own face, voice, and body, while extending protection even to the deceased and makes unauthorised deepfakes illegal, allowing victims to seek removal and compensation.
RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTIONS
Technology should serve people, not compromise their privacy or dignity. As technology continues to evolve rapidly, we must try to harmonise both we try to harmonise both innovation and the protection of user rights. Thus, Consent cannot be made optional; instead, it shall be made mandatory so that an individual’s autonomy and privacy are not infringed upon by anyone. Additionally, instead of hidden or invisible watermarks, every AI-generated image should have a visible one. This simple step alone would allow users to immediately identify AI-generated media, which would significantly help in preventing unethical use and misleading practices.
In line with Denmark’s approach, legislation should introduce a binding law granting individuals copyright over their own face, body, and voice. Any violation of these rights should attract strict sanctions and liability to ensure personal identity is fully protected.
Lastly, there should be strict regulations to ensure that AI-generated photos are not treated merely as data for big tech companies to exploit. Protecting users’ rights and privacy, preventing their image from being commercially misused for profit-driven purposes.
CONCLUSION
We cannot normalise misuse under the guise of innovation. Thus, it is important to understand that while Gemini’s Nano Banao generates hyperrealistic images that offer creative liberty and freedom resulting in viral trends online, this expression cannot come at the risk of violating privacy, consent and personality rights of any individual. While the judiciary has recognised Personality rights and new challenges due to the overconsumption of Generative artificial intelligence and its easy access. The current copyright law can be considered inadequate, therefore emphasising the need for changes and modifications in the existing copyright framework, as balancing creativity with consent and privacy is essential for responsible innovation.
Authored by: Ms. Vedika Suradkar
Ms. Vedika Suradkar is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student in the 7th semester at the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Aurangabad.
Leave a Reply