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.
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 Personalityrightsrefer 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.
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
However, its specific emphasis on protecting certain elements of the whole scheme of copyrighted content, such as fictional characters and the distinctive personas they embody, has been a focal point, contributing substantially to the discourse surrounding the ever-expanding ambit of copyrightability as well as personalityrights.
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. PersonalityRights: Publicity or Privacy? It can include their face, voice, characteristics and distinctive qualities or attributes.
Typeface’ refers to the particular design of letters, numbers, marks and symbols. What we colloquially refer to as ‘font’ is actually the typeface as font changes with the size, italic, bold, and style. Shivam is a recent graduate of the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. Before we begin, let me lay down the glossary for this post.
Citing the agreement, the defendant requested the suit to be referred to an arbitration. The petitioner contented that Jayalalithaa’s personalityrights and her family’s privacy rights should be protected and that the productions may be incorrect and misleading. Durga Trading Corporation was clarified in this case.
She argues that the law should broaden the definition of serious comparative advertisement (where the owner of the mark advertises his product reference to his competitor’s product based on scientific study) by allowing multiple comparisons. In this guest post , Sangita Sharma analyses the law around comparative advertisements in India.
which refer to a person’srights to name and image. On top of that, as the case demonstrates, the public domain may receive other threats from an aggressive extension of the scope of personalityrights. Setting aside the private international law aspects, the case deserves examination on two main grounds.
PPL, claiming ownership over public performance rights via assignments from music labels, alleged infringement after its representatives discovered unlicensed use of its repertoire. To address this, the appellant proposed amendments, primarily removing references to treatment and refining claim language.
[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).
Cesar Ramirez-Montes, Digital User Rights in the Mexican Supreme Court Potential for global South to think of exceptions/limitations as user rights, using Mexico as a point of reference. Authors’ rights are designed to protect that intellectual and emotional bond.
The Court analysed the jurisprudence of comparative advertisement, ‘overall effect’ test and referred to multiple case laws to conclude that the act of the defendants mislead and disparage plaintiff’s products due to strong association of blue colour with plaintiff’s products within the public. emphasizing on person skilled in the art.
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.
T Series And Another vs M/S Dreamline Reality Movies on 22 February [Punjab and Haryana High Court] The case concerned the adaptation of late Jaswinder Kaurs biography into a cinematographic film and deals with interplay of copyright with personalityrights. On April 15, the Delhi High Court in Hershey’s v.
. “It Protects Them From Exploitation” The Claim : Capitalizing on celebrities’ identity subjects their personalityrights to potential abuse and jeopardizes their career and livelihood. Many uses may actually enhance the celebrity’s cultural relevance and value.
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