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
Deepfakes, capable of mimicking a person’s likeness and voice with near-perfect accuracy, have transcended their initial novelty to become potent tools for misinformation, deception, and exploitation. The codification of personalityrights could be one way to deal with the misuse of deepfake technology.
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 decision is likely to influence future legal standards on personalityrights and the application of emerging technologies.
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. Copyright and trade secrets are the two main aspects with which data privacy laws are concerned. Rajagopal v.
PV Sindhu’s Olympics Victory: How Non-Sponsors Skirt the Law by ‘Congratulating’ Athletes. In a guest post , Satchit Bhogle covered the issue of infringement of personalityrights. The post covers the prevailing precedents on the matter. The last date for applying is August 25, 2021. Other Developments.
The second edition offers revised, or wholly rewritten chapters to the overlaps discussed in the first edition so as to reflect recent developments, as well as to include new chapters (the overlap between privacy and copyrightlaw; privacy and secrecy; trademarks certification marks and collective marks; and IP and traditional knowledge).
In India, most notably videos of the popular TV personality Rajat Sharma were seen circulating online where he was seen spreading misinformation, damaging his reputation as a credible journalist. The journalist sought a permanent injunction, contending the wrongful use of AI infringed IP and personalityrights.
The current statute provides protection of these celebrity rights under trademark law, copyrightlaw as well as passing off action for infringing the said rights. PersonalityRights: Personality is an attribute through which an individual is recognized in the society, depending upon the talent they possess.
Spadika Jayaraj discussed a case where the Delhi High Court dismissed a suit by a media house accusing copyright infringement on its database of users. The issue has often arisen in the context of protecting confidential information through copyrightlaw. Sounds “Jhakaas!” see also Sourav Ganguly vs Tata Tea ).
On top of that, as the case demonstrates, the public domain may receive other threats from an aggressive extension of the scope of personalityrights. 15 B.C.). As an additional remark, this is particularly true in a situation like the one under consideration, where the work is significant for humanity at large.
The book, a follow on edition from the 2012 1st edition of Overlapping IP Rights is once again a masterclass in thinking through the oft under discussed spheres of overlaps in IP, this time with additional subject areas and updated developments. Here the author points out an interesting anomaly while discussing the US laws.
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.
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Jakub Wyczik (University of Silesia in Katowice) on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the application of copyright subsistence criteria. Data is any representation of information that can be processed. The whole world is data.
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, copyrightlaw etc. The Court delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected.
Further, the Court specifically addressed the use of social media platforms by citizens to voice their grievances and stated that such use during a crisis can in no way be termed misinformation and it noted that it would treat any clampdown on free exchange of information as contempt of court. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
The issue involved in the case was whether the use of names and images of sportspersons to create digital player cards is a violation of their privacy and publicity rights. Issues Pertaining to the Use of NFTs in Copyright Firstly, there is no legislation to regulate the NFTs in India.
Weve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so its a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyrightlaw etc. The decision by Punjab and Haryana High Court is also notable for explicitly stating that one needs to be a celebrity to be able to claim personalityrights.
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