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.
On top of that, as the case demonstrates, the public domain may receive other threats from an aggressive extension of the scope of personalityrights. 2] Tribunale di Palermo, decided on September 15, 2017 and published on September 21, 2017. [3] 15 B.C.). 4] Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (T.A.R.)
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.
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? 2017), a restaurant was using a tagline called ‘by Gautam Gambhir’ without any authorization.
We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so it’s a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyrightlaw etc. The Court delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected.
Weve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so its a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyrightlaw etc. The decision by Punjab and Haryana High Court is also notable for explicitly stating that one needs to be a celebrity to be able to claim personalityrights.
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