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.
It has cratered into a fireball of litigation that doomed the restaurant chain (e.g., It’s so complicated that the judge made an appendix recapping the status of dozens of claims: This post focuses on a sliver of the sprawling litigation empire. Because copyrightlaw lets me, I’m reproducing the dog treats recipe below.
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. You can read our posts on the report here , here , here , here and here.
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).
Delocalization by brute force: Seen online in other areas where companies don’t bother to localize TOS, just comply with US law which is home country law; that solves the problem for them and they wait for litigation if it materializes. International law and EU law are models. Technological solutions?
International Variations: Similar rights exist in other countries, often referred to as “personalityrights” or “rights of persona.” Right of Publicity v First Amendment And, like copyright infringement, Right of Publicity is also subject to First Amendment defenses.
are typically objected to on the grounds of personalityrights (publicity rights, celebrity rights, by other names), privacy and (to a limited extent) defamation. This is coupled with a dismal lack of awareness of rights (especially of the non-economic kind) available under copyrightlaw amongst authors in India.
The decisions in the first category, i.e., Top 10 IP Cases/Judgements (Topicality/Impact) reflect those that we thought were important from a topical point of view and were covered by the media in some way owing to the importance of parties litigating or the issue being considered or for impact on industry and innovation/creativity ecosystem etc.
The decisions in the first category , i.e., Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Topicality/Impact) reflect those that we thought were important from a topical point of view and were covered by the media in some way owing to the importance of parties litigating or the issue being considered or for impact on industry and innovation/creativity ecosystem etc.
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.
Akshat is a practicing litigator working at Saikrishna and Associates. He did his LLM from Berkeley Law in 2023 specialising in IP and Tech law. Image from here [Part II] The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet…… The Show Must Go On? His previous posts can be found here.
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