Personality rights

From Justice Definitions Project

Personality Rights

Personality rights are rights designated to protect, control, and profit from the image of a person and the likeness of the person. The personality rights consist of two facets: first, the publicity rights which involves an individual’s right to control the use of their identity for commercial gain, and second, right to privacy which involves an individual’s entitlement to control their personal information.[1] Both of them are intrinsically linked and protect the identity of a person from misappropriation and commercialization without their consent.

Official Definition/ Relevant Legal Provisions

Term as defined in legislation(s)

Personality rights are not explicitly defined in a particular legislation rather their recognition can be traced to a patchwork of statutes that combined together, along with judicial pronouncements, provide an understanding of personality rights.

Personality rights in India find their base in the constitutional principles of human dignity and liberty as provided for under Articles 19(1) and 21.[2] The term "celebrity" is not defined under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, and there is no specific definition or direct provision under any of the country's intellectual property laws that directly addresses personality rights.[3] In this context, public figures must rely on the existing legal structure to protect their interests.[4]

Under the Copyright Act, Section 2(qq), the “performer” is defined as a person who recognizes economic and moral rights, like that of actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and all the other entertainment groups,[5] but that, in many senses, narrows down its capability to embrace broader fame connotation. The Act provides writers and performers with the right to attribution-that is, the right to be credited or ascribed the authorship of their work and the right to integrity-that is, protection against harm to their work that might damage their reputation. Section 57 grants moral rights to authors to claim authorship and remedies against distortion or alteration of their work that prejudices their honor or reputation, even after the transfer of copyright.[6] Similarly, moral rights are granted to performers through Sections 38, 38A, and 38B of the Copyright Act, with provisions for rights to attribution and integrity by preventing such unauthorized use as would be damaging to their reputations.[7]

Under the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, personality rights get partial protection as Section 14 restricts the registration of trademarks on personal names without the permission of the individual or his legal representatives, in case the person has been dead for less than 20 years.[8] Moreover, Section 2(m) defines the term "trademark" that includes "names", and so celebrities can also get their names registered to prohibit others from commercially using them without their permission.[9]

Beyond the provisions of the statutes, personality rights are also protected under common law remedies that include the torts of passing off, disparagement, libel, and slander in defense against the misuse or misappropriation of a public figure's identity.

Term as defined in case law(s)

In India, the protection of personality rights has evolved through various judicial pronouncements which have shaped the existing terrain, recognizing the commercial value of a person's identity and granting relief against unauthorized exploitation.[10]

Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers

In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the Delhi High Court defined a celebrity as "a famous or well-known person" whose identity many people recognize. In fact, the right to publicity has been held to permit celebrities control over the commercial use of identity. It demands clear identification for unauthorized use and does not require proof of deception.[11]

Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi & Others

Significantly, in this case, publicity rights were that of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan. With the same precedent, the Delhi High Court, in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi & Others, granted an injunction restraining the unauthorized use of Mr. Bachchan's persona to promote goods, reaffirming the right to publicity established in Titan Industries.[12]

ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises

Courts have also associated the right of publicity with privacy. In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, the Delhi High Court established publicity rights as an extension of privacy rights to protect attributes like names, signatures, and personality traits. The court ruled that no entity can monopolize a persona, and any unauthorized commercial use is unlawful.[13]

Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Production

Similarly, in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Production, the actor Rajinikanth approached the court for protection against the unauthorized use of his name, caricature, and style in the film 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth'. The Madras High Court held that a right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution is available, and injunctive relief is warranted because unauthorized use of a person's identity harms their reputation and personality.[14]

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors

Technological advancements are throwing up newer challenges to the rights of personality, especially with the advent of deepfakes. In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors, the Delhi High Court restrained the use of AI-generated deepfake content featuring the actor for-profit and reiterated that making commercial use of one's identity without consent violates rights in personality.[15]

Swami Ramdev v. John Doe(s) & Ors

Building on this approach, the Delhi High Court in Swami Ramdev v. John Doe(s) & Ors passed a sweeping John Doe order to curb the misuse of his identity through AI-generated deepfakes, impersonation accounts, and false endorsements. The Court directed immediate takedown of misleading AI content, removal of e-commerce listings implying endorsement, restraint on the commercial use of “Ramdev” and “Baba Ramdev,” and prohibition of deepfake videos and voice-cloned material. Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that such content was protected parody, drawing a clear distinction between satire and unauthorized commercial exploitation.This decision demonstrates that personality rights in India are no longer confined to traditional defamation. They now extend to digital impersonation, commercial misappropriation, and AI-generated identity theft.[16]

Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP

The jurisprudence expanded further in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, where Bombay High Court expanded the definition of personality rights to encompass auditory identity and protection against AI voice cloning. The court held that a celebrity’s voice is a "key component of their personal identity," ruling that the unauthorized synthetic replication of an artist’s vocal style, technique, and mannerisms via generative AI tools constitutes a violation of their persona. Crucially, this judgment linked personality rights to the Right to Livelihood (Article 21) and the Moral Rights of Performers (Section 38B of the Copyright Act), recognizing that "digital doppelgängers" created by AI pose a direct economic and reputational threat to the original creator.[17]

D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House

Trademark law has also been used in providing remedies in cases involving personality rights. In D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, when dolls imitating likeness and songs of Daler Mehandi were sold without his authorization, the plaintiff sought relief regarding false endorsement and passing off. Despite the absence of specific legislation on personality rights, the court relied on trademark law, recognizing the commercial value of Mehndi’s persona, provided relief under the principles of passing off and false endorsement.[18]

Components of Protection under Personality Rights

Right to Publicity

The right to publicity gives a person, especially a celebrity, the right to control the commercial use of their name, and image. Although it is not defined in law, courts have acknowledged this right as an extension of the right to privacy. It protects against unauthorized endorsements, misuse of celebrity images, and commercial exploitation of a person's rights.[19]

The Delhi High Court in the case of Titan Industries v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewelers, declared that a well-known person's name cannot be utilized for advertisement purposes without their approval. The objection is not the commercialization rather is the agreement of the personality whose personality is being used. The court added further, "the right to publicity is the capacity to restrain the way one's identification is put to commercial use.”[20]

Right of Identity

The rights of personality ensure that a person's identity cannot be misappropriated, falsely endorsed, and/or identity is stolen. In the recent advent of the technological age, the attention of the court has been attracted regarding these developing issues' legal implications as well.

The Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India & Ors., expanded the understanding of personality rights in India to include not only the physical attributes of individuals, including name and image, but also their unique mannerisms, catchphrases, and other elements that are intrinsically tied to their identity. The court recognized that in the modern era, influencers capitalize on their personal brands, and celebrities secure endorsement deals that enhances the value of their identity. More persuasive power in control over consumer behavior can be had by a recognizable face or voice, which makes it a highly coveted asset in the advertising industry.[15] The commercialization of the distinguishable features can garner its wrongful use as well. Unauthorized use, misrepresentation, or overexposure can damage an individual’s brand, resulting in both financial losses and personal harm.[21]

Duration

In India, there is no specific statute that prescribes the duration of publicity or personality rights.In Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay, the Madras High Court clarified that the reputation of a person that they earned during their respective lifetime cannot be inherited or passed down as a movable or immovable property. Instead, it extinguishes once their life comes to an end.[22] Further, in Krishna Kishore Singh v Sarla A. Saraogi, the court faced the question if the commercial celebrity rights should also be extinguished post their death. The court relied on Puttaswamy and recognized the inextricable link between the right to privacy and the right to personality,[23] and held that as the right to privacy extinguishes with the concerned person, similarly the right to publicity also ends.[24]

However, there appears to be a distinction drawn by the courts between privacy-based personality rights and the commercial protection of a well-known personal name. In the case of Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr. v. Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors. , the court held that the unauthorised use of the registered “TATA” and “TATA Trust” trademarks, as well as the name and photograph of the late Mr. Ratan Tata, was prohibited for any purpose whatsoever, including the awarding of awards. The court held that Mr. Ratan Tata’s name had acquired the status of a well-known personal name or mark with substantial goodwill and commercial value, warranting protection under trademark law and principles of passing off. Notably, this was not based on the survival of personality or publicity rights post-death, but on preventing deception, misrepresentation, and unauthorised commercial exploitation of goodwill. This judgment therefore supports the view that while publicity and personality rights extinguish upon death, the commercial value of a well-known personal name may continue to receive protection in India.[25]

Exceptions

Under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, ‘parodies’ may not amount to copyright infringement in case they are a critic or review of an original work of another artist.[26] Thus, parody and satire may be considered protected forms of expression even if they involve aspects of a person's persona.[27] However, in Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, the court laid down a three-factor test to determine the validity of a parody:[28]

a. the quantum and value of the matter taken in relation to the comments or criticism;

b. the purpose for which it is taken;

c. the likelihood of competition between the two works.

Additionally, in Digital Collectibles Te Ltd. v Galactus Funware Technology (P) Ltd., the court clarified that the right to publicity is only to the extent of restraining false endorsements and advertisements. The right does not include facts or certain information related to celebrities that is available in the public domain.[29]

Recent jurisprudence further illustrates this balance. In Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., the Delhi High Court refused an injunction against YouTube videos featuring edited clips of the actor with “Thug Life” captions, viewing them as humorous tributes that enhanced public perception rather than commercial misappropriation or harm.[30] Similarly, in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023) and Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022), courts carved out exceptions for mimicry, parody, and satire, distinguishing them from exploitative deepfakes or false endorsements.[31] Even in 2025 cases involving AI misuse (e.g., Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. John Doe and Raj Shamani v. John Doe),[32] injunctions were granted against objectionable commercial/AI content, but parody, memes, and satire were explicitly exempted to protect Article 19(1)(a) rights.[33]

Remedies

Personality rights in India are protected by trademark law, copyright law, and actions for passing off. Each affords different relief to protect the identity and goodwill of a celebrity from unauthorized commercial exploitation.[34]

Trademark protection

Trademark registration has a dual benefit for celebrities. On one hand, it is a declaration of a willingness to authorize the licensing or assignment of aspects of their personality for merchandising within specific goods or services. On the other hand, it is a proactive means of preventing unauthorized use of their persona. Unlike the tort of passing off or other statutory remedies, trademark registration offers prospective protection.

Personal names, designs, numerals, and packaging that identify goods or services can be registered as trademarks under Section 2(1) of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 2000.[35] The Indian courts have granted trademark protection to film titles, characters, and names. In Star India Private Limited v. Leo Burnett India (Pvt) Ltd, the principle of character merchandising was accepted, although this branch of law was not developed.[36]

Copyright Protection

The scope of protection for celebrity rights under copyright law is less certain. Courts have generally found that copyright does not extend to a person's voice, likeness, or persona identifiers. What copyright law protects is the right of a celebrity to grant permission for reproducing, selling, or deriving images where a copyright exists in the image.[34] However, ownership issues often arise with photographs, as photographers typically hold the copyright. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 protects sketches and drawings, along with other artistic works, under Section 14. Section 14 provides exclusive rights to reproduce or transform such work. Courts have even extended copyright protection to fictional characters.[37]

Passing Off Action

The tort of passing off applies when a person's name, likeness, or persona is abused and so harms his reputation.

Unlicensed exploitation of a celebrity's good will or fame for the purpose of promoting products or services through endorsement is addressed under this remedy. Passing off also embraces "wrongful appropriation of personality" to recognize a proprietary interest in the commercial use of the celebrity's identity. Indian courts recognize personality rights in character misrepresentation or merchandizing cases; however, the jurisprudence is still growing.[38]

International Experience

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

Article 14(1) of the TRIPS Agreement grants performers the right to prevent particular acts, such as the recording of their performance on a phonogram, the reproduction of such recordings, or the broadcasting of live performances.[39] Article 14(5) permits an extension of the protection period from 20 to 50 years.[40] Unlike other intellectual property agreements, TRIPS has a strong enforcement mechanism that enables Member States to be taken to the WTO's dispute resolution system for adjudication.[41]

WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)

The WPPT is designed to strengthen and harmonize the rights of performers and phonogram producers. It balances the rights of performers and producers with the public interest, particularly in education and research while recognizing the developments in technology.

Article 5 provides performers with moral rights, allowing them to be recognized as performer, barring exceptions. Performers also enjoy economic rights, including those related to unfixed performances (Article 6), reproduction (Article 7), distribution (Article 8), rental (Article 9), and making fixed performances available (Article 10). Unlike TRIPS, the WPPT grants performers an "exclusive right to authorize" rather than a "possibility of preventing" actions.[34]

Rome Convention

The Rome Convention does not afford actors secondary use rights comparable to those provided to films under Article 19, where secondary use requires equitable remuneration. The Convention was the first to recognize "neighboring rights," covering performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasters. Membership was limited to UN members already party to the Berne Convention of 1886. It does not address moral rights, offering no protection for the moral rights of celebrities.[42]

United States of America

The first recognition of the right to control one's name and likeness in the U.S.A. was through New York enacting Sections 50 and 51 of its Civil Rights Act in 1903, where it prohibited the use of a person's identity without their authorization.[43] Though violations were considered to only misdemeanors. In Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., the judiciary recognized the personality rights of individuals and were identified as being a part of privacy that carries commercial significance.[44]

United Kingdom

There is no right to publicity in the UK, but it is protected in law through a number of statutory protections. The list includes Copyright protection of photographs, videos, and films under the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988, Trademark protections for names, slogans, voices, and likenesses under the Trade Marks Act of 1994 and related EU directives, and GDPR's safeguards against misuse of personal data.

In addition, civil actions for passing off enable public personalities to claim damages for false endorsement or merchandising as done in Robyn Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd.[45]

Canada

Canadian common law gives only limited recognition to personality rights. In Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., it was accepted that an unauthorized use of a marketable likeness that implied endorsement should be sufficient to state a claim. Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps, however, greatly expanded this right to include name and image.[46]

France

France does not explicitly recognize personality rights though it can be claimed through a patchwork of legal frameworks. Article 9 of the French Civil Code and Article 8 of the ECHR provide the right to privacy and personality rights, among which is the right to one's image, which can be read into them.[47] The use of a person's image without his or her permission is forbidden unless it is in respect of a public figure and for factual reporting. This right subsists posthumously for 20 years, and enforcement is available to heirs. A landmark case on the issue is Raimu, where the court ruled in favor of an actor's widow whose image was being used in a commercial without their permission.[48]

References

  1. ↑ Samarth Krishnan Luthra and Vasundhara Bakhru, 'Publicity Rights and the Right to Privacy in India', 2019 31(1) National Law School of India Review National Law School of India Review, 125, 125-126 https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=nlsir#:~:text=INTRODUCTION,*
  2. ↑ Constitution of India 1950, Art 19(1), 21
  3. ↑ Vikrant Rana, Nihit Nagpal and Akif Abidi, 'Personality rights from Amitabh Bachchan to Sushant Singh to Anil Kapoor: Indian and Global View Point' (Bar and Bench,3 Nov 2023)https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/personality-rights-amitabh-bachchan-sushant-singh-anil-kapoor-indian-and-global-view-point
  4. ↑ Agnes Augustinian, 'PROTECTION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES' (2023) 1(1) IPR Journal of MNLU Nagpur 44,44-45
  5. ↑ The Copyright Act 1957, Section 2(qq)
  6. ↑ The Copyright Act 1957, Section 57
  7. ↑ The Copyright Act 1957, Section 38,38(A),38(B)
  8. ↑ The Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 14
  9. ↑ Vaishnavi Joshi, 'PERSONALITY RIGHTS: Yes, They Exist!'(Mondaq, 22 June 2022) https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1204760/personality-rights-yes-they-exist The Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 2(m)
  10. ↑ Srishti Singhania, Krrishan Singhania, Manas Adhangle and Shikha Ved, Understanding Indian Laws Protecting Personality Rights, June 2024, Available at: https://bwlegalworld.com/article/understanding-indian-laws-protecting-personality-rights-522552
  11. ↑ Titan Industries Ltd. v M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del)
  12. ↑ Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110
  13. ↑ ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003(26) PTC 228 Del
  14. ↑ Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Production, 2015 (62) PTC 351 (Madras)
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life and Others, CS (COMM) 652/2023
  16. ↑ Swami Ramdev v. John Doe(s) and Ors, 2026
  17. ↑ Arijit Singh Vs. Codible Ventures LLP and Ors., 2024 COM IPR SUIT (L) NO. 23443 of 2024
  18. ↑ D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, MANU/DE/2043/2010
  19. ↑ Poorva Sharma, The Jurisprudence of ‘Privacy’ in Personality vis-a-vis Publicity Rights, Sept 2024, Available at: https://www.calj.in/post/the-jurisprudence-of-privacy-in-personality-vis-a-vis-publicity-rights
  20. ↑ Naik Naik & Co., 'The Living Dead: Looking At Posthumous Celebrity Rights Across Jurisdictions' (Naik Naik & Co.,Oct 2024) https://naiknaik.com/2024/10/21/the-living-dead-looking-at-posthumous-celebrity-rights-across-jurisdictions/?utm_source=mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_content=contentmaxviews&utm_campaign= Titan Industries Ltd. v M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del)
  21. ↑ Dr. (Prof.) Sunanda Bharti, 'Image Rights Alright—But Can They Trump Established Rights and Doctrines? Should They?' (SpicyIP, 1 Oct 2023)https://spicyip.com/2023/10/image-rights-alright-but-can-they-trump-established-rights-and-doctrines-should-they.html
  22. ↑ Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2642
  23. ↑ Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997
  24. ↑ Dr Pratima Narayan ' Beyond the Grave: Exploring the Legality of Posthumous Publicity Rights' (SCC Online, 24 Oct 2023)https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/24/beyond-the-grave-exploring-the-legality-of-posthumous-publicity-rights/#fnref26
  25. ↑ SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154
  26. ↑ Copyright Act 1957, Section 52
  27. ↑ The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 52
  28. ↑ Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, (1996) 16 PTC 329
  29. ↑ Digital Collectibles Pte Ltd v Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited (CS(COMM) 108/2023
  30. ↑ Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie ... vs The Peppy Store & Ors., 2024 CS(COMM) 389/2024
  31. ↑ Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India & Ors , 2023 CS(COMM) 652/2023 and I.A. 18237/2023-18243/2023 Amitabh Bachchan vs Rajat Nagi & Ors , 2022 CS(COMM) 819/2022
  32. ↑ Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. 2025  CS(COMM) 956/2025 Raj Shamani v. John Doe 2025 CS(COMM) 1233/2025
  33. ↑ Constitution of India 1950, Art 19(1)(A)
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 Tabrez Ahmad and Satya Ranjan Swain, 'Celebrity Rights: Protection under IP Laws,' (2011) 16(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 7, 7-16https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/11021 https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/295578
  35. ↑ The Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 2(1)
  36. ↑ Star India Private Limited v. Leo Burnett India (Pvt) Ltd, 2003(2) BOM CR 655
  37. ↑ The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 14
  38. ↑ Intellepedia, 'Personality Rights in India – Part II' ( bananaip, 26 June 2019) https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/personality-rights-india-publicity-rights-law/
  39. ↑ Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1995 , Art 14(1)
  40. ↑ Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1995 , Art 14(5)
  41. ↑ https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2b_e.htm
  42. ↑ Andrew Dickinson, 'Privacy and Personality Rights in the Rome II Regime – Not Again?,' (ConflictofLaws.net, July 2010) https://conflictoflaws.net/2010/privacy-and-personality-rights-in-the-rome-ii-regime-not-again/ https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/289757
  43. ↑ New York Civil Rights Law of 1903, Section 50 and 51
  44. ↑ Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc, 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953)
  45. ↑ Robyn Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (T/A Topshop) [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch).
  46. ↑ Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1973) 40 D.L.R. (3d) 15 (Ont. C.A.) Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd, 1977 CanLII 1255 (ON SC)
  47. ↑ French Civil Code 1804, Art 9 European Convention on Human Rights 1950,Art 8
  48. ↑ T.G.I. Paris, Ord. Ref., 27-2-1970, Jcp 1970, ii, 16293.
Retrieved from "https://www.lawandjusticewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Personality_rights&oldid=11914"