Remove 2015 Remove Ownership Remove Personality Rights
article thumbnail

Advent of AI Voice Generation and Threat to Personality Rights

IP and Legal Filings

The development of Artificial Intelligence, from being able to create edited photos to now generating deepfake videos that cannot be distinguished from real videos, has created an imminent threat to intellectual property rights and personality rights specifically. and includes both commercial and non-commercial aspects.

article thumbnail

Personality Rights In India : A Statutory And Judicial Analysis

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction Personality rights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacy right. Celebrities value these rights since their names, images, or even voices may be inappropriately used in commercials by various businesses to increase sales. Puttaswamy v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Evolution of Personality Rights in India

IP and Legal Filings

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 personality rights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.

article thumbnail

Manu Bhaker’s Olympics Victory: Do Brands Violate Publicity Rights by Putting out Congratulatory Posts?

SpicyIP

Explaining why and how such seemingly innocuous posts infringe on the shooter’s personality rights, we are pleased to bring to our readers this post by SpicyIP intern Tejas Misra. Personality Rights: Publicity or Privacy? Building onto this development, in 2015, the Madras High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v.

Branding 105
article thumbnail

Traditional Tattoos on the Red Carpet: Continuing the Conversation of Collective Ownership

IPilogue

These events point to two prevalent issues within the current legal framework: First, that current intellectual property laws do not properly acknowledge collective ownership over shared culture within Indigenous communities and second, whether tattoo designs have the potential to be protected through copyright laws. Of note, in DRG Inc.

Ownership 102