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
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.
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.
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.
Explaining why and how such seemingly innocuous posts infringe on the shooter’s personalityrights, we are pleased to bring to our readers this post by SpicyIP intern Tejas Misra. Moreover, these advertisements may also lead many viewers to misconstrue the message as an endorsement of the brand by the athlete themselves.
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.
Challenges emerge when AI systems not only retain data but also process and potentially share it with third parties without consent, placing data privacy at the forefront of AI governance. When AI relies on extensive datasets, questions around the ownership, control, and protection of both personal and IP-related data become critical.
The Vidya Drolia case laid down certain conditions for non-arbitrability of disputes and stated that grant and issue of patents and registration of trademarks were exclusive sovereign or government functions, thus making them non-arbitrable. Merck Sharp and Dohme v. SMS Pharmaceuticals [Delhi High Court].
In recent first-instance rulings, copies of David by Michelangelo and Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci were prevented from being freely used on a board game, a magazine cover page, and an advertising commercial (see also DeAngelis/Giardini here ; Dore/Caso here and here ).
In the Tribunale di Firenze’s decision, while the reference to the constitutional norm seems to represent a mere rhetorical exercise, the content of the exclusive right would be traceable in the provisions of the Cultural Heritage Code. 106), the instrumental use and reproduction (art. 107) and the concession fees and reproduction fees (art.
She notes that the most controversial provision in the new Bill is the re-introduction of revisionary powers of the Central Government to direct the CBFC Chairman to reexamine an already certified film. Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. Thematic Highlights. Other Posts.
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. Under this Act, Sec.
After reviewing similar relevant cases and precedents, the court dismissed the suit, ruling that celebrity rights cannot be granted or recognized without regard for the actual concept of The Right to Privacy.
Notably, Monsanto’s matter had several layers including the State Governments seeking to regulate IP licensing fees, and the Indian seed companies who previously licensed technology from Monsanto, refusing to pay royalties to Monsanto. However, the Government later withdrew these guidelines. Sounds “Jhakaas!”
[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.
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.
In this month’s edition, he looks into topics including the Plant Variety Registry, different tales of/ takes on personalityrights, and multiple leaks of key documents and their contribution in law-making. The court held that puffery in advertisements is allowed as long as the assertions made are reasonable. and Ors. ,
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.,
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