.png)
The terms celebrity or famous personality connote recognition, notoriety and can even be understood as an accolade for achievement. Though by definition, celebrity means “the state of being famous”. Celebrities could be members of a royal family who inherited fame, athletes and artists who have prodigious talent or skill, even entrepreneurs and innovators who are creative and intelligent and politicians who are courageous and path-breaking.
Just as there isn’t one kind of celebrity or a single path to attaining celebrity status, there is no exclusive approach or method of categorizing and protecting celebrity rights. Broadly celebrity rights fall in two categories:
Publicity rights : to shield image from unauthorized commercial use, falling under the scope and ambit of inter alia intellectual property, contract law;
Privacy : the right to be free from unwanted intrusion, engaging the domains of inter alia fundamental rights, data (personal sensitive information), technology, media laws.
In India alone there are multiple statutes that lend credence to celebrity / personality rights and attempt to protect them:
The Constitution: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards not just life but also personality rights. Article 19 plays a significant role in granting individuals the freedom of speech and expression, as demonstrated in the case of R Raja Gopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994).1 This case highlighted that the Right to Privacy encompasses two distinct dimensions: ability to pursue legal action for violations of privacy, and the constitutional acknowledgment of the Right to Privacy.
In the case of Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Production (2015)2, the Madras High Court heard a lawsuit initiated by actor Rajinikanth to safeguard his personality rights. Despite the absence of comprehensive codification in India, the courts duly acknowledged these rights in their rulings, encompassing elements such as the right to be forgotten.
Intellectual Property Rights / Copyright: safeguards the rights of authors, performers, encompassing celebrities, granting them authority over the reproduction, distribution, and public presentation of their creations.
Trade Marks and Domain names: Individuals who unlawfully utilize a name or misrepresent it, whether for profit or otherwise, can be held liable. Conversely, defense may be invoked if the actions were carried out under a genuine belief without malicious intent. If a Registrant of a domain intentionally seeks to exploit or damage the reputation of that person or entity for unjust gain, it constitutes cyber-squatting. Numerous precedents like Arun Jaitley, Madhuri Dixit.
Information Technology Act: the IT Act prohibits morphing, prevents companies engaged in electronic media distribution from violating the confidentiality of individuals, including public figures and celebrities.
The Indian Penal Code: this legislation deems certain behaviors as criminal offenses that could intrude upon an individual's privacy, including stalking, trespassing, and defamation.
Tort And Passing Off: passing-off is a legal remedy available for the tort of misappropriation of personality or celebrity rights.
Apart from these statutes, various self-regulatory protocols have been formulated by industry organizations like the Advertising Standards Council of India. These protocols delineate standards for media entities regarding the treatment of celebrity images and likenesses.
The right of publicity belongs solely to the individual, who has the exclusive right to profit from it. Established in ICC Development (International) Ltd v. Arvee Enterprises.3 In Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor and Ors.4 the court emphasized the serious repercussions of distortion, endangering public image and exposing an individual's private life to the public without adequate scrutiny. It was underscored that meticulous consideration is essential to safeguard the image and name of any celebrity, as these rights are enshrined in the Constitution.
Recent Jurisprudence
The Indian courts have time and again protected the personality rights of celebrities. In a recent case of Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.5 the Court issued an order, restraining various entities from using Plaintiff’s name, voice, or image without his consent for commercial purposes. The court recognized celebrity status and observed that it is essential to balance freedom of expression of others with a celebrity’s rights to personality, publicity and moral integrity.
In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors6 the Court issued an injunction safeguarding the personality rights of Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor. It prohibited multiple entities from exploiting his image, name, voice, or other facets of his persona for financial purposes without his authorization. While freedom of speech allows for commentary as satire and critique, when such expressions cross the boundary and harm or jeopardize the individual's persona and associated elements, it is deemed unlawful.
Another case which highlighted the issue of celebrity rights and privacy issues is Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan and Anr. v. Bollywood Time & Ors.7 The Court prohibited several YouTube channels from distributing, posting, or circulating videos or any fabricated material concerning the mental and physical well-being of Aaradhya Bachchan (daughter of Abhishek and Aishwarya Bachchan) in contravention of contravened the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules.
Conclusion
In today's digital age, where information disseminates rapidly and its outreach is amplified, the intersection of publicity and privacy rights present intricate challenges. Striking a balance between the desire of public figures to manage their image and their right to personal privacy remains a formidable task amidst this evolving landscape. Protecting personality rights cannot be fully addressed by existing intellectual property rights systems. The unique nature of personality rights presents compatibility issues with gaps in laws governing copyright, passing off, and trade marks. As a distinct legal concept, personality rights can neither be accommodated nor protected within existing statutory framework of fundamental rights and intellectual property laws. The inherent nature of celebrity and personality rights is dynamic, which demand a progressive and flexible approach from the Judiciary as well as an evolving and informed approach by the Legislature.
By:- Daksh Kumar, Partner at Kochhar & Co.
Follow LexTalk World for more news and updates from International Legal Industry.
Comments