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
Codible Ventures LLP that has initiated a judicial discussion on the protection of artists’ personalityrights against the unauthorised use of their voices by AI tools. This decision is likely to influence future legal standards on personalityrights and the application of emerging technologies.
The Supreme Court has again ruled on the protection of the personalityrights of deceased celebrities. Analyzed in conjunction with the previous Dalí judgment, this new ruling may introduce some uncertainty as to the post mortem scope of protection of such rights. The Supreme Court’s opinion.
Recently, the courts have also recognized the commercial right over one’s personal data as a part of intellectual property rights. These commercial rights, also known as personalityrights, seek to protect the personal data of celebrities from potential misuse. State of Tamil Nadu.
In fact, there exist several legal implications within Intellectual Property law (“IP”), such as the common law principle of personalityrights. A personalityright is a proprietary right to recreate one’s self-identity using a person’s name, likeness, image and personality.
The top two entries will be awarded with some cash prizes and also with a chance to be published on the blog! The unauthorized commercial exploitation of Late Ratan Tatas name and image was also recognized as a violation of personalityrights. vs Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors.
The decision mirrors the recent order, in a summary judgment, of the Civil Court of first instance of Venice (Tribunale civile di Venezia) in the Vitruvian Man (Uomo Vitruviano) case commented on by Giulia Dore on this blog. 106), the instrumental use and reproduction (art. 107) and the concession fees and reproduction fees (art.
Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. In this guest post , Sangita Sharma analyses the law around comparative advertisements in India. She contends that the ‘fair’ and ‘honest’ use thresholds under Section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act should come to the rescue of such advertisements. Other Posts.
However, the prevalence of unauthorized use of renowned person names in advertisements has become a concern. Many companies exploit renowned person identities without obtaining proper consent, leading intellectual property experts to advocate for the safeguarding of image rights through registration under Intellectual Property laws.
The Court held that the use of the Google Ads program undisputedly qualifies as advertising, which falls under Indian trademark law. The petitioner contented that Jayalalithaa’s personalityrights and her family’s privacy rights should be protected and that the productions may be incorrect and misleading.
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?
Other Posts Call for Submissions: Indian Journal of Law and Technology [Volume 21] and IJLT Blog (Submissions on Rolling Basis) NLSIUs Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) is inviting submissions for Volume 21 of the Journal and the IJLT Blog, on a rolling basis.
As time passed, several developments happened on this front and there were brilliant posts on the blog, e.g. by Mrinalini Kochupillai , Prof. (Dr.) While there has always existed an arguable case for personalityrights in India, the winning stakes have gotten higher and clearer over the years. Trivedi , Mr. Essenese Obhan.
[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.
Here are our summaries of the blog posts published last week along with the summaries of some interesting orders from different courts. vs Acko General Insurance on 10 November, 2023 (Delhi High Court) The dispute pertains to the use of the plaintiff’s artistic work “Humanity” by the defendant in one of its advertisement hoardings.
From an in-depth discussion on the terms of copyright and translations in India to the recent UK Supreme Court’s order regarding the patentability of inventions by an AI, we had some engaging posts on this blog this week. The court held that puffery in advertisements is allowed as long as the assertions made are reasonable. and 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.
In recent times, the Delhi High Court has been spewing out decisions involving the PersonalityRights of celebrities. We had the Anil Kapoor decision last year and similar rulings followed in 2024 dealing with the rights of Jackie Shroff , Vishnu Manchu , Arijit Singh. Bharti, Aditya, Aarav, Praharsh and Yukta).
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., 2007, I, no. 125, pourvoi no.
Look no further as we present to you the SpicyIP Weekly Review, highlighting the discussions that took place on the blog along with other IP news. Image Rights Alright—But Can They Trump Established Rights and Doctrines? Wondering what IP developments took place last week? Should They? Read the post by Prof.
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