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.
Codible Ventures LLP and Others , the Bombay High Court addressed a legal dispute of infringement of personalityrights through the use of AI. The suit also involved a claim for the violation of his moralrights under Section 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957. In a recent judgment in the case of Arijit Singh v.
Neela Film”), issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants, including websites, e-commerce platforms, YouTube channels and ‘John Doe’ parties, restraining them from infringing the copyright and trademark of the makers of the popular Hindi television sitcom “Taarak Mehta Ka Oolta Chashma” (“TMKOC”).
TRADEMARKS AND TATTOOS Tattoos can also intersect with trademark law. For example, if a tattoo features a recognizable brand logo or slogan, it could infringe on the trademark holder’s rights. MORALRIGHTS AND TATTOOS Moralrights protect artists’ personal and reputational interests.
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 copyright law; 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.
From Big-B Baritone to Anil Kapoor’s Jhakaas, the life of Personalityrights : Since Shouvik’s 2010 post about Amitabh Bachhan’s concern over the use of his voice to sell Gutka (an addictive substance), we have come to a long way! Speaking of late movie stars, one may wonder about the posthumous enforcement of celebrity rights.
Introduction Personalityrights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacy right. Celebrities value these rights since their names, images, or even voices may be inappropriately used in commercials by various businesses to increase sales. Puttaswamy v.
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.
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. Living in an era where influential personalities are reverenced, fortifying PersonalityRights from any such misuse is a must. PERSONALITYRIGHT.
Among the many grounds was the court’s refusal to afford post mortem protection to personalityrights of the actor. I shall specifically be dealing with the contention around publicity rights. Thereby the court is acknowledging the enigmatic nature of this right- as both property and moralright.
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, copyright law etc. The Court delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected. Bolt Technology v. First, in Toyota v.
Alleging infringement of his moralrights, misappropriation of his personalityrights, defamation, unfair competition, and passing off, Manchu filed the present suit seeking directions from the Court to take down the content by these Youtubers and John Doe(s).
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