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 Bombay High Court order of 7th March 2025, making the interim injunction in favour of Karan Johar absolute, has added more fuel to the fire of the debate over personalityrights protection. However, it has become more common to uphold these rights without thoroughly reasoning each decision, and this case is an example of that.
However, the order was brief and did not specify any statutory or common law basis for the protection of personalityrights, merely citing Titan Industries as precedent. For example, can personalityrights be viewed as an extension of the right to privacy? In Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. &
Codible Ventures LLP , marking a big step in the protection of artists’ personalityrights against the unauthorised use of their voices by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Second , in different places, the Court has used the language “Personalityrights and right to publicity”.
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. Moreover, both in the EU and the US, privacy laws also come into play alongside intellectual property protections.
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.
While AI-generated prompts streamline our daily lives, they also pose significant privacy risks. 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. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
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 - Publicity rights play an important role in India based on the culture of celebrity worship and the importance of the name, image, and likeness of sports, television and media personalities, political figures, musicians, etc. In India, the right to publicity is recognised as a part of the right to privacy.
Introduction Although there isn’t a clear legal definition of “privacy,” some legal experts define it as a human right that each and every person has simply by virtue of their existence. The right to privacy must, in other words, be evaluated case-by-case. In the 1962 Kharak Singh v.
Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on the repudiations against personalityrights, Govt. Michael Madow, Akshat Agrawal in this three part post lists out where the justifications for these rights fall flat. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review.
Introduction The media believes that it is their fundamental right to capture and publish all information about celebrities about matters of “public interest” or “public concern” that arise from the “Freedom of the Press” guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.
In response to these threats, many popular personalities have started trademarking their names to protect their goodwill and reputation from being misused by technology. However, the existing legislations do not seem fully equipped to address the complexities of the advent of artificial intelligence in the media.
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?
Codible Ventures LLP and Others , the Bombay High Court addressed a legal dispute of infringement of personalityrights through the use of AI. The boundaries of these rights are being pushed in new ways as AI systems now have the ability to create believable images, voices, signatures, photograph and even personae.
In August, the Constitution and Human Rights Division of the High Court of Kenya issued a decision on the question of image rights and its relationship with privacyrights and data protection laws in Kenya. Background The Petitioner, Wanjiru was an alumna of the respondent, Machakos University. Paragraph 31].
Comparing the approaches of the Courts vis a vis personalityrights and the right to livelihood, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Aditya Bhargava. Comparing the approaches of the Courts vis a vis personalityrights and the right to livelihood, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Aditya Bhargava.
This grants celebrities to capitalize on their brand value and at the same time protect it under the realm of privacyrights. Celebrity rights are in a way paradoxical in nature are they form a combination of publicity, personality and privacyrights.
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).
This is a putative class action lawsuit against a people search company for allegedly misusing publicity and personalityrights by displaying images contained in yearbooks. Related posts : “ Amazon Can’t Force Arbitration of Minors’ Privacy Claims Based on Alexa Recordings–BF v. The Ninth Circuit affirms in a memorandum opinion.
It is also a question without an easy answer, given the conflicting rights and interests that come into consideration and require to be fairly balanced. Just a few days after CNIL , however, the CJEU ruled once again on the territorial scope of injunctions relating to the protection of rights online.
The book structure can be divided into four parts, with the first three analysing the overlap of patents, copyright, and trademarks, with other IP rights, respectively. There is one titled “Overlaps between Copyright, Rights of Publicity, and PersonalityRights” authored by Tyler T.
The judicial reasonings ignored copyright legal provisions, applying cultural heritage law and taking a long-arm approach to cherry-picked legal norms (such as personalityrights) to give significant leeway to the Italian government and cultural institutions to decide whether and to what extent reproductions of cultural heritage can be used freely.
On the one hand, there are privacy and data protection concerns, as this is a particularly intrusive form of data processing. As a next step, the SPC Provisions enumerate certain activities that infringe the personalityrights and interests of natural persons. Likewise, many regulatory ventures focus on security.
This unauthorized usage may also give rise to breaches of confidence or violations of privacy. While economic interests can be quantified and compensated monetarily, non-economic concerns such as privacy violations, damage to reputation, and mental distress may not be entirely redressed through financial means.
The journalist sought a permanent injunction, contending the wrongful use of AI infringed IP and personalityrights. These uncanny and exact replications of celebrity voices and visuals lead to a world of problems not just from a privacy point of view, but in general IP as well. With AI, this aspect has been eradicated.
[iii] Provisions in Indians Laws Trademarks Act, 1999 does not make any exact provision for publicity rights, but its definition of ‘Marks’ contains names within its ambit. Going ahead in this fast-forwarding world, publicity rights concerning sports in India will develop and can reach a high of excellent dominance like European countries.
When it comes to celebrities and other public figures, the laws across Canada have established various personalityrights to protect these individuals from the exploitation of their image or likeness. PRIVACYRIGHTS In Canada, individuals have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court ruled that the tattoo artist did in fact own the copyright in his tattoo design; however, he was limited by the personalityrights of the person he tattooed. Notably, Belgian copyright law includes a statutory right to privacy , which includes the right to control your image.
However, these rights can be limited by the tattoo bearer’s personalityrights, as seen in some legal cases in Belgium. Personal use, parody, and incidental inclusion are common defenses. EXCLUSIONS AND DEFENSES TO IP INFRINGEMENT Several defenses exist for IP infringement in tattoos.
Personal Branding. What is Right of Publicity? Who is affected by the Right of Publicity? PersonalRights vs. Property Rights. The implications of the Right of Publicity. The two rights are often confused because they both relate to the control of an individual’s name and image.
PersonalityRights. Also referred to as publicity rights, it is defined as the right of a person to his/her own personality and provides for the right to control commercial use of one’s human identity. Indian courts have over time recognized personalityrights of celebrities in different judgments.
on 07 March 2025 (Bombay High Court) The plaintiff, a notable Hindi film director, filed the suit against the defendants seeking reliefs against the violation of his privacy and personalityrights by the defendants film title Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar.
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.
Introduction Personalityrights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacyright. 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]
Factual Background The case at hand involved the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction against the defendants to restrain them from using the name/likeness of the late actor unauthorizedly through the release of the impugned film amounting to infiltration of personalityrights, violation of free trial, passing off et al.
Among the many grounds was the court’s refusal to afford post mortem protection to personalityrights of the actor. The plaintiff censured the defendants for violating privacy, right to publicity, free and fair trial, also invoking the Ashok Kumar jurisdiction of the court. Brief facts. Court’s reasoning.
Raghuram Jaisukhram Chandrani the plaintiff (a descendant of late Jalaram Bapu) had claimed that Jalaram Bapu’s right to privacy and publicity would be violated if the defendants made a film about his life. Here, there was no discussion if privacy survives an individual’s death. In Akshaya Creations v. Relying on Puttaswamy v.
Image from here Voice Clones and Legal Tones: The Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Posthumous PersonalityRights By Julia Anna Joseph and Snehal Khemka Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), a game-changing phenomenon in modern day life creates art, plans daily tasks, analyzes data, generates music, and much more.
There has been immense activity surrounding the jurisprudence of celebrity rights in India with numerous judicial pronouncements in recent years. In a recent development, the High Court of Delhi confirmed that the publicity rights of individuals are not inheritable and extinguished with the death of the individual/celebrity.
In fact, there exist several legal implications within Intellectual Property law (“IP”), such as the common law principle of personalityrights. A personalityright is a proprietary right to recreate one’s self-identity using a person’s name, likeness, image and personality.
The Supreme Court has again ruled on the protection of the personalityrights of deceased celebrities. Analyzed in conjunction with the previous Dalí judgment, this new ruling may introduce some uncertainty as to the post mortem scope of protection of such rights. La entrada A blow to image rights?: Ricardo López Alzaga.
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