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.
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. In Gautam Gambhir v.
While AI-generated prompts streamline our daily lives, they also pose significant privacy risks. The more streamlined and personalized the responses, the more data is stored in databases, which AI then draws on to create future responses. This data can range from personal to general information. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
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. Moreover, both in the EU and the US, privacy laws also come into play alongside intellectual property protections.
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 The media believes that it is their fundamental right to capture and publish all information about celebrities about matters of “public interest” or “public concern” that arise from the “Freedom of the Press” guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.
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.
In response to these threats, many popular personalities have started trademarking their names to protect their goodwill and reputation from being misused by technology. However, the existing legislations do not seem fully equipped to address the complexities of the advent of artificial intelligence in the media.
In August, the Constitution and Human Rights Division of the High Court of Kenya issued a decision on the question of image rights and its relationship with privacyrights and data protection laws in Kenya. Background The Petitioner, Wanjiru was an alumna of the respondent, Machakos University. Paragraph 31].
This grants celebrities to capitalize on their brand value and at the same time protect it under the realm of privacyrights. Celebrity rights are in a way paradoxical in nature are they form a combination of publicity, personality and privacyrights.
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 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 ).
[iii] Provisions in Indians Laws Trademarks Act, 1999 does not make any exact provision for publicity rights, but its definition of ‘Marks’ contains names within its ambit. Going ahead in this fast-forwarding world, publicity rights concerning sports in India will develop and can reach a high of excellent dominance like European countries.
The book structure can be divided into four parts, with the first three analysing the overlap of patents, copyright, and trademarks, with other IP rights, respectively. There is one titled “Overlaps between Copyright, Rights of Publicity, and PersonalityRights” authored by Tyler T.
For example, Amul is as famous for its quirky print advertisements, as it is for its products. While such acts were prevalent for some time now, they did not necessarily infringe the rights of any party involved in it. PersonalityRights. The right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity ”.
on 07 March 2025 (Bombay High Court) The plaintiff, a notable Hindi film director, filed the suit against the defendants seeking reliefs against the violation of his privacy and personalityrights by the defendants film title Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar.
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.
Introduction Personalityrights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacyright. Celebrities value these rights since their names, images, or even voices may be inappropriately used in commercials by various businesses to increase sales.
Raghuram Jaisukhram Chandrani the plaintiff (a descendant of late Jalaram Bapu) had claimed that Jalaram Bapu’s right to privacy and publicity would be violated if the defendants made a film about his life. Here, there was no discussion if privacy survives an individual’s death. In Akshaya Creations v. Relying on Puttaswamy v.
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 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.
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.
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? 19 further provides the fundamental right to ensure the freedom of speech and expression of an individual.
Brands have been active on social media in recent years, trying to imbue their content with human like personality that endears customers to them rather than just putting out traditional advertising. When they do that, they open themselves up to accusations of unauthorisedly infringing on the athlete’s personalityrights.
An interim order issued by a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court recognised the right to be forgotten (RTBF) as a subset of the fundamental right to privacy. Previously , the right had been discussed in the context of individual’s names appearing in judgments. Merck Sharp and Dohme v.
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.
Right To Publicity- A Constitutional Right The right of publicity stems from the right of privacy. But right to privacy only came to be recognised as a fundamental right in the year 2017 in the case of Justice K.S. In another case of Indian Performing Rights Society v. Puttaswamy (retd.)
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