Kerala Tourism Department has found itself at the center of a heated debate after using an AI-generated version of Leonardo da Vinci's iconic Mona Lisa for its Onam festival campaign titled 'State of Harmony.' The digitally altered masterpiece shows the famous portrait adorned with traditional Indian elements including a bindi, jasmine flowers in her hair, gold ornaments, and a kasavu sari, transforming the Renaissance icon into a Kerala-styled figure.
While many viewers praised the creative cultural makeover of the world's most famous painting, legal experts and academics have raised serious concerns about the moral rights of the original artist and the ethical implications of digitally altering historic artworks. The campaign, designed to promote Kerala's iconic Onam festival running from August 26 to September 5, has inadvertently ignited a broader discussion about intellectual property rights and cultural appropriation in the digital age.
R.S. Praveen Raj, Senior Principal Scientist at CSIR-NIIST in Thiruvananthapuram who specializes in intellectual property management, strongly criticized the alteration. "Such modifications raise important questions," Raj explained. "No artist would want their work mutilated or altered, even after death. It's not just about economic rights—moral rights also stand. For instance, can we alter Poonthanam Namboodiri's poems today as we wish? The issue with the Mona Lisa is that we cannot trace any legal heirs of da Vinci to raise a concern. But does the absence of heirs give us the right to alter his work?"
Raj pointed to Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, which recognizes the moral rights of authors and gives them authority to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work if it affects their honor or reputation. He emphasized that the confusion lies in understanding what happens to these rights after an author's death, noting that globally, moral rights are recognized and protected under the Berne Convention from the moment of a work's creation, even without copyright registration.
The legal expert warned that allowing unchecked alterations could set a dangerous precedent. "If this becomes acceptable, any work could be mutilated at will. Courts need to clarify these grey areas," he stated, expressing concern about the broader implications for artistic integrity and cultural heritage preservation.
However, Advocate Satish Murthi, an intellectual property rights attorney at the Supreme Court, offered a contrasting perspective on the controversy. According to Murthi, the Mona Lisa belongs to the public domain and can be legally altered by anyone. "Da Vinci died in 1519, and copyright typically lasts for the author's lifetime plus 60-70 years. His economic rights expired centuries ago," Murthi explained. "Moral rights are personal rights and cannot be exercised once neither the author nor their legal heirs are alive. Hence, portraying Mona Lisa in a kasavu saree is not mutilation but embellishment. No one, not even the Louvre, holds copyright over it."
Murthi cited contemporary examples to support his argument, referencing Tamil actor Dhanush who recently objected to an AI-generated alternative climax of his film 'Raanjhanaa.' "In such cases, the author is alive and has a point. But for centuries-old works like the Mona Lisa or Tagore's writings—now in the public domain—anyone can reproduce or reinterpret them," he argued.
The Supreme Court attorney also highlighted similar reinterpretations that exist worldwide, noting how films routinely take liberties with history and literature, from Christopher Nolan quoting the Bhagavad Gita in 'Oppenheimer' to countless cinematic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi. He pointed out that Raja Ravi Varma's paintings and Rabindranath Tagore's poems are freely adapted without legal challenges, emphasizing that unless a living author or their heirs object, such works can be legally used, altered, or reimagined.
Murthi acknowledged that governments could potentially intervene if an altered work is reproduced in a derogatory or misleading manner. "In this case, the Italian government can ask their Indian counterpart to withdraw such images," he noted. "Here, the Kerala Tourism campaign simply presented a cultural version of Mona Lisa. There's nothing offensive or unlawful about it."
Tourism Secretary K. Biju defended the department's decision and expressed no regret about using artificial intelligence to recreate the famous image. "The picture was created solely as part of our Onam tourism campaign to attract international visitors to Kerala," he stated. "We specifically chose the Mona Lisa because it is instantly recognizable across the world. If it has sparked debate or discussion, it only shows that our marketing strategy—known as moment marketing—has been effective."
The original Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo da Vinci between 1503 and 1506, is widely believed to depict Lisa Gherardini and is considered a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance. The portrait is currently housed at the Louvre Museum in Paris and remains one of the most visited and studied artworks in history. The Kerala Tourism Department's digital transformation represents just the latest example of how artificial intelligence technology is being used to reimagine classical art for modern marketing purposes, though it has certainly proven to be one of the most controversial applications to date.
