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, the order was brief and did not specify any statutory or common law basis for the protection of personalityrights, merely citing Titan Industries as precedent. For example, can personalityrights be viewed as an extension of the right to privacy? FX Networks and Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods.,
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 personalityrights specifically. and includes both commercial and non-commercial aspects.
Introduction Personalityrights 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.
Starting from an Actor promoting tourism advertisements to a cricketer promoting daily life snacks, we live in a celebrity-driven economy. Every day we come across many such influencers and celebrities endorsing products wherein the personality of an individual is traded either by validation or without. PERSONALITYRIGHT.
Considering the same, the Courts have started providing remedies under the scope of personalityrights wherein protection is granted against the unauthorized use of names, images, voice, likeness, dialogues or traits of popular celebrities. To be honest, under the current system, the scope of protection is limited.
Recently, a copyright infringement suit had been filed before the District Court, Trivandrum, against Facebook India. Being his sole legal heir, the copyright in these works is held by Sweety Priyanka Vempati Ravi Shankar. The Right to Integrity. Celebrity Rights as Property? Image from here.
[Thanks to Aditi, Khushi and Sudhanshu for the case summaries] Here is our recap of last weeks top IP developments including summary of the posts on the ANI vs OpenAI copyright case, CGPDTMs office being moved to Delhi, and exemption under Section 107A of the Patents Act. Highlights of the Week ANI vs OpenAI: Indias Copyright Act is outdated.
Here is our recap of last weeks top IP developments including summaries of the posts on Lemleys and Hendersons paper on AI Terms of Use Restrictions, CGPDTM order on the removal of a patent agent, Delhi HC order on disclosure of a PhD and Public Interest Need in PersonalityRights cases. Anything we are missing out on?
In this context of international and EU legal obligations to protect cultural rights, the EU has set a legal imperative to protect the public domain. This results in violating the principle of the numerus clausus of intellectual property rights and a significant distortion in the implementation of EU law in the country.
We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so we have a fair sprinkling of cases dealing with copyright, patents, trademarks, competition law etc. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) v. Both suits were filed before the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act. Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v.
1] And since, the creator, consumer and subject of the content are distinctly different-the potential lack of empathy or misapprehension by the consumers towards the subject, based on the creators potrayal, necessitate a discussion of the subjects privacy and personalityrights.
Marico had sought injunction on Alpinos advertisement alleging generic disparagement of oats. on 5 December, 2024 (Delhi HC) The suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff, passing off the services as those of the plaintiff.
According to Wanjiru, Machakos University infringed her intellectual property rights, image rights, right to privacy and human dignity by using her photograph (taken by the university during Wanjiru’s graduation) in advertising and marketing of the computer packages courses it offers.
ANI vs OpenAI: Why Delhi High Court Has Jurisdiction While OpenAI has argued that the DHC does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by ANI, a close look at the Copyright Act and CPC says otherwise. Read the post for more details. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims for infringement, passing off, and damages were rejected.
Unless with his/her consent, the right to control the commercial use of his/her own identity should be exclusively theirs. Image Sources : Shutterstock] Protection Under Copyright Act, Licensing & Contractual Issues for the Celebrities A celebrity is a well-known person.
Merely put, it is an individual’s right to handle the commercial use of their name, image, individuality and personal brand. Publicity, such as character, reputation and personal brand, will be protected under various statutes, such as the Copyright Act 1957 and the Trade Marks Act 1999. iv] The Copyrights Act, 1957. [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? However, Indian law has indirect references for the protection of publicity rights. Additionally, Sec.
Tejas Misra explains why and how these seemingly innocuous posts may infringe on the shooter’s personalityrights. The plaintiff argued that it has obtained assignments and exclusive control over copyrights of several music labels. It was argued that the defendant was illegally telecasting these films over Youtube.
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, copyright law etc. While delineating the rights of the parties, the Court held that R.D Thus clarifying that copyright in the screenplay exists independently of the copyright in the film.
With further ado, here’s what I found in Novembers: Database Protection in India: Since Prof Basheer’s 2005 post about the inaccurate implication of the theft of data as copyright infringement, to 2023, not much seems to have changed. The issue has often arisen in the context of protecting confidential information through copyright law.
Bentley Systems Inc & Anr vs Pnc Infratech Limited & Ors on 13 May, 2024 (Delhi High Court) The plaintiff instituted the present copyright infringement suit against the defendant for continuing to use the plaintiff’s software after the expiry of its license. the Court restrained defendant no. M/s Vans Inc.
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. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to hear appeal against the Single Judge order in the Sushant Singh Rajput personalityrights case.
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 is Part II of the two-part post on the recent Bombay High Court (BomHC) order in the case of Arijit Singh v. Legal precedents like Midler v.
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.
When AI relies on extensive datasets, questions around the ownership, control, and protection of both personal and IP-related data become critical. AI’s capacity to generate content, inventions, and insights from this data intensifies concerns, not only about ownership but also about copyright and trade secrets. State of Tamil Nadu.
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.
Adyasha notes that while the Copyright Act deems the producer of a film as its author, that doesn’t imply that author and copyright owner would necessarily remain the same perpetually. Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. Not obtaining the author’s consent might lead to heavy penalties. Other Posts.
the Bombay Court recently took a pro-publicity and -personalityrights stance in an ex-parte ad-interim order concerning the unauthorized use and cloning of Indian artist Arijit Singh ’s voice by multiple defendants. In essence, Arijit Singh lamented a troubling array of violations of his publicity and personalityrights.
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.
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. To read these, along with a round up of IP developments around the country, and world, read on below.
This conceptual confusion hides the real interest at stake: the creation of a new form of pseudo-intellectual property (in this case, a pseudo-copyright) that would attribute to the Italian State the power to exclusively control the commercial use of cultural heritage images. 106), the instrumental use and reproduction (art.
Opposing the claimants’ arguments, Ravensburger challenged the cross-border application of Italian law, alleging that the claims conflict with article 14 of Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive since they attempt to unlawfully impose property assertions on public domain works. 633/1941, l.
About the 2nd Edition As stated in the preface to the 1st edition of the book, the idea behind the book’s theme at large, stems from a question by one of Wilkof’s students on how laws address the intersection between copyrights and trademarks and the ensuing realisation by him about the general lack of secondary sources on this issue.
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.
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., InRaja Pocket Books v.
Image Rights Alright—But Can They Trump Established Rights and Doctrines? Image from here The Delhi High Court’s recent interim injunction concerning Anil Kapoor’s personalityrights throws up an important question- should such orders protecting personalityrights overlook the established principles and doctrines?
In light of the ongoing dispute between the makers of the motion picture “Main Ladega” and the National Boxing Championship over the alleged use of the latter’s logo in the film, SpicyIP intern Sumedh Gadham discusses whether such use would amount to trademark or copyright infringement. & Ors. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. &
In a “Jhakaas” (a slang for fantastic) news for the actor Anil Kapoor, Delhi High Court granted the actor an interim injunction against use/ misuse of his personalityrights. Image from here Image Rights Alright—But Can They Trump Established Rights and Doctrines? But, ‘safety’ against what?
Image from here [Part II] The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet…… The Show Must Go On? “It Protects Them From Exploitation” The Claim : Capitalizing on celebrities’ identity subjects their personalityrights to potential abuse and jeopardizes their career and livelihood.
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