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, this article will discuss the reasoning of the court with respect to relief claimed by the Plaintiff against a creator of a YouTube video who compiled the interviews of the plaintiff and depicted his personality as ‘thug life’ The plaintiff contended that such videos portrayed him in a derogatory manner. million views.
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. Drop a comment below to let us know.
on 7 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Image from here In a trademark and personalityrightsinfringement suit, the plaintiffs, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Tata Sons, sought relief against the defendants for unauthorized use of the well-known trademarks TATA and TATA TRUSTS, as well as the well-known personal name and image of Late Ratan N.
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. Suno admits usingcopyright music to train its AI model but claims it as fairuse.
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 copyrightinfringement, to 2023, not much seems to have changed. Speaking of late movie stars, one may wonder about the posthumous enforcement of celebrity rights.
There is no question of fairuse as although it is not commercially beneficial but it is neither limited to private use. However, the US Court has held Napster [2] , which was a file-sharing platform as well, guilty of infringingcopyrighted materials and was denied the defence of fairuse.
Introduction Intellectual property laws are generally divided into industrial property and copyright. While copyright is distinct from other forms of intellectual property by focusing on personalrights, its primary role is to manage and protect knowledge. certain acts that do not constitute copyrightinfringement.
[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. Universal City Studios LLC and Ors v. DotMovies.Baby and Ors. Warner Bros.
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. It clearly establishes that AI cannot be used to exploit celebrity personas for profit, emphasising the need for ethical use of technology.
Somewhat related to a claim of copyrightinfringement (and often preempted by such a claim – more on that later), is the claim for Right of Publicity. While sometimes available to any individual , Right of Publicity is typically aimed at protecting the name or likeness of famous individuals. 3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.
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.
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