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
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.
Jokes aside, the title of today’s post is “Your Face, is My Case,” because we’re talking about likeness and image rights, sometimes collectively referred to as “personalityrights.” Student athletes are allowed to fully control their personalityrights and make money licensing them.
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.
Such an interpretation allows for a patentee to claim a right to prohibit another party’s export of allegedly infringing goods, thus going beyond what the statute actually offers. This judgment concerned the classification of payments under end-user license agreements (EULA). Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Pvt.
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.
Tejas Misra explains why and how these seemingly innocuous posts may infringe on the shooter’s personalityrights. The plaintiff company owned the copyright of several films and these were not licensed to any party. This and much more in this SpicyIP Weekly Review.
PPL, claiming ownership over public performance rights via assignments from music labels, alleged infringement after its representatives discovered unlicensed use of its repertoire. The plaintiff submitted that it was the owner of the mark and later by assignment and then by seeking a license it is now a permitted user of the mark.
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. Speaking of late movie stars, one may wonder about the posthumous enforcement of celebrity rights.
Case Study 2- Cristiano Ronaldo (6) In mid-June of 2015, Cristiano Ronaldo sells his image rights to Peter Lim, who is the owner of Mint Media Company and opposing La Liga club Valencia.
This will potentially impact the copyright licensing landscape insofar as filmmakers will have to enter into dedicated agreements to claim protection for works not listed within the scope of Section 17. The Court delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected.
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 Peppy Stores & Ors.
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.
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.
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. ,
Views expressed here are personal.] Ex Parte Orders on PersonalityRights Courts lately have been passing a slew of ex-parte ad interim orders against Generative Artificial Intelligence (‘gen AI’ ) models for training their models using the voices of celebrities, and for producing output that reciprocates the celebrity’s voice.
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.,
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?
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