This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
However, its specific emphasis on protecting certain elements of the whole scheme of copyrighted content, such as fictional characters and the distinctive personas they embody, has been a focal point, contributing substantially to the discourse surrounding the ever-expanding ambit of copyrightability as well as personalityrights.
Through various proceedings from the Court of law, Publicity rights are inherent in Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [i] i] In principle, the Delhi High Court has recognized publicity rights in the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises (2003). [ii] iv] The Copyrights Act, 1957. [v]
Donjinshiisa self-published fan bookthatuses the existing manga characters violating the personalityrights of the characters as was established in the famous caseof V.T. Leo Burnett (India) Private Limited (2003) 27 PTC 81 The post IP Issues in The World of Japanese Sequential Art – Manga first appeared on IIPRD. Napster, Inc.,
5] Conversely, the Brazilian system is primarily rooted in personalityrights, particularly human dignity as a constitutional basis to the Brazilian constitutional order, which is expressed by four different fundamental rights: (i) freedom, (ii) equality, (iii) physical and psychological integrity, and (iv) dignity stricto sensu. [6]
Thus, the Defendant did not have the liberty to exhibit the Plaintiff being subjected to sexual abuse, as shown in graphic detail in the film.The Delhi High Court court held that a celebrity could protect his/her life and image as a “constitutional right”. Arvee Enterprises in 2003.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content