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
However, this article will discuss the reasoning of the court with respect to relief claimed by the Plaintiff against a creator of a YouTube video who compiled the interviews of the plaintiff and depicted his personality as ‘thug life’ The plaintiff contended that such videos portrayed him in a derogatory manner. million views.
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.
Due to the extent of unlawful activity associated with the petitioner’s name and personality, the court granted a restraining order on 25 th November 2022 against various people and companies. What are Publicity Rights? For instance, in Titan Industries Ltd.
Started in 2018, the 2nd edition of Overlapping IP Rights (OUP) was brought to completion in 2023 by his co-editor, the inimitable Prof Neil Wilkof, along with Prof Irene Calboli who came on as a co-editor following Prof Basheer’s demise. The jurisdictions analysed are the US, UK, and the European Union.
The counsel on behalf of Mr Bachchan alleged that the defendants were violating the famous actor’s ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ which have been recognised earlier by the court in Titan Industries Ltd. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.
Both suits were filed before the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act. Further, given that the 2012 amendment does not have a retrospective effect, the Court held that the amendment has no effect on the legal position. Recognition of non-human inventors, AI and its implications for India.
The defendant began using ‘Zoly’ in 2012, which the plaintiff argued could mislead consumers due to phonetic similarity. The Court found that the competing marks were similar and rejected the defense that ‘Jolly’ was a common name, ruling it was distinctive in hardware.
He came out New Year's Eve in 2011, going into 2012, and says “New Year's Eve is a really special time for me because it's the day I really came into my own.”. Supporting Pride month means supporting LGBTQIA+ individuals and seeing them as authentic people deserving of civil rights and protections.
When it comes to celebrities and other public figures, the laws across Canada have established various personalityrights to protect these individuals from the exploitation of their image or likeness. For instance, in Hay v Platinum Equities Inc.
Recent court decisions have clarified the scope of copyright in film screenplays, personalityrights, and underlying works concerning content creation and licensing in broadcasting. 485 (2012) [2] [link] [3] [link] [4] Broadcasting Rights and Fundamental Rights, IJCRT, Vol 12, Issue 3 (2024) [5] MANU/DE/1061/2011 [6] RDB and Co.
While copyright is distinct from other forms of intellectual property by focusing on personalrights, its primary role is to manage and protect knowledge. Everything was going well until 2012 when University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), and Taylor & Francis Group (UK), as well as Cambridge University Press India Pvt.
[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 Court further held that the 2012 amendment has radically changed legal framework pertaining to rights of authors and has granted right to claim royalties for every occasions where their work is communicated to the public. The Peppy Stores & Ors.
ABSTRACT There has been a dramatic increase in the commercial use of celebrity personalities by people not authorized to do so compared to the earlier times. Protecting personalityrights has become a growing problem in India due to deepfakes, morphed pictures, etc. Interesting right? Puttaswamy v.
T Series And Another vs M/S Dreamline Reality Movies on 22 February [Punjab and Haryana High Court] The case concerned the adaptation of late Jaswinder Kaurs biography into a cinematographic film and deals with interplay of copyright with personalityrights. The Judgement was passed by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur.
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