Leonardo da Vinci’s enigmatic painting, the Mona Lisa, is Kerala Tourism Department’s choice for the Onam special campaign named ‘State of Harmony’.  The AI-generated work shows the iconic portrait with a bindi, jasmine flowers in her hair, gold ornaments and a kasavu sari. 

While many viewed it as a creative makeover of the world’s most famous painting, legal and academic experts have raised concerns over the moral rights of the original artist. Leonardo da Vinci painted Mona Lisa between 1503 and 1506. The portrait, widely believed to depict Lisa Gherardini, is considered a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance and is housed at the Louvre Museum in Paris.

“Such alterations raise important questions,” says R S Praveen Raj, Senior Principal Scientist at CSIR–NIIST in Thiruvananthapuram, who specialises in intellectual property management. “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 Nambudiri’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?” he asks.

Raj points out that Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, recognises the moral rights of authors, giving them the authority to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work if it affects their honour or reputation. “The confusion is about what happens after an author’s death. Globally, moral rights are recognised, and the Berne Convention protects a work from the moment of its creation, even without a copyright registration,” he says.

He warns that allowing unchecked alterations sets a dangerous precedent. “If this becomes acceptable, any work could be mutilated at will. Courts need to clarify these grey areas.”

However, Advocate Satish Murthi, an IPR attorney at the Supreme Court, takes a different stance. According to him, the Mona Lisa belongs to the public domain and anyone can alter it as they wish.

“Da Vinci died in 1519, and copyright typically lasts for the author’s lifetime plus 60–70 years. His economic rights expired centuries ago. 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,” says Murthi.

He cites examples of modern disputes where moral rights were exercised by living authors, such as Tamil actor Dhanush, who recently objected to the 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.”

Murthi also points out that similar reinterpretations exist worldwide. “Films take liberties with history and literature, from Christopher Nolan quoting the Bhagavad Gita in Oppenheimer to countless depictions of Mahatma Gandhi. Likewise, Raja Ravi Varma’s paintings or Tagore’s poems are freely adapted. Unless a living author or their heirs object, such works can be used, altered, or reimagined.”

At most, he says, governments can 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,” says Murthi. “Here, the Kerala Tourism campaign simply presented a cultural version of Mona Lisa. There’s nothing offensive or unlawful about it.”

Meanwhile, a press statement from the Department of Tourism announced that the image is part of the Onam campaign, encouraging visitors to attend during “Kerala’s iconic festival starting August 26 and concluding on September 5 on Thiruvonam day.” Onmanorama contacted Minister for Tourism Mohammed Riyas and Tourism Secretary K Biju for a comment. An update will follow once their responses are received.