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
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following contribution by Danish Katfriends Jakob Plesner Mathiasen and Thit Nymand Nisbeth (both Gorrissen Federspiel) on the interplay between AI, deepfakes, and personalityrights in the form of image/publicity rights. The lights dim, and the film rolls. Think again.
The jurisprudence concerning publicity rights for living individuals has been previously examined here , here and here. Let’s see what the various case laws pertaining to the posthumous survival of celebrity rights have held. In 2010, in Kirtibhai Raval v. Can publicity rights survive after a celebrity’s death?
From Big-B Baritone to Anil Kapoor’s Jhakaas, the life of Personalityrights : Since Shouvik’s 2010 post about Amitabh Bachhan’s concern over the use of his voice to sell Gutka (an addictive substance), we have come to a long way! Sounds “Jhakaas!” see also Sourav Ganguly vs Tata Tea ).
[Delhi High Court] On September 20, the Delhi High Court granted relief to film actor Anil Kapoor against the unauthorised use of his image, name, voice, and other traits of his persona for monetary gain, reinforcing his personalityrights. Sarl a A Sarogi , where the Court affirmed the position on descendability of publicity rights.
the Apex Court held that one of the inherent aspects of the right to privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is the right to prevent others from using the person’s name or likeness without his consent for advertising or non-advertising purposes. State of T.N., Entertainment Pvt.
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