The prevalence of celebrity culture and the ease with which people can exploit celebrities’ personal qualities have increased in today’s time, thanks to technological and media advances. This has resulted in numerous unlicensed commercial exploitations of a celebrity’s personality rights. If we examine the evolution of common laws or traditional natural law, we will see that recognized personality rights are inherent and unalienable to comprehend personality rights in India. These rights primarily comprise the right to privacy and publicity, which prohibit the commercial exploitation of a person’s name, voice, likeness, or other intangible personal characteristics without that person’s consent or just compensation. These personality rights are supported by Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, elements of trademark law, copyright law, and advertising law are all relevant. For instance, the Trademark Act of 1999 regards a person’s name as a part of their “mark,” while the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 has “Performers’ Rights” on the same lines.
The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) established a Code of Self-Regulation to address these issues after acknowledging well-known individuals’ potential misuse and exploitation in advertising.
The court addressed the subject of defending a person’s personality rights, particularly those of celebrities, from illegal use and exploitation in the case of Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions. The court issued an injunction in his favour for the defendant’s unauthorized use of public figure Rajinikanth’s likeness. This decision fits into a larger trend since other well-known individuals, including Daler Mehndi, Barkha Dutt, and Gautam Gambhir, have also successfully sued those who had improperly utilized their likeness, image, or other personal characteristics. However, a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in Amitabh Bachchan’s favour marks a significant advancement in defending those rights in India. The first “John Doe order,” which applies to both known and unidentified defendants, has been issued by Indian courts. This means that everyone who may be involved in the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s personality is subject to the injunction, including unnamed parties. Celebrities can more easily protect their rights against any third party, thanks to the order’s broad scope, especially in the unorganized sector where violations are more frequent due to recent significant expansion. Notably, this order may affect the Indian intellectual property rights system, particularly concerning personality rights. It is difficult to predict its effects fully, but it may establish a new precedent and create a compelling legal framework for protecting celebrities’ rights.
People’s personality rights have come under growing attack in recent years, particularly by print and digital media like newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio shows.
People are now more susceptible to abuse due to the digital age’s widespread usage of technology and social media platforms. One can argue that celebrities’ identities are valuable for product promotion and should be safeguarded from commercial use. Influencer marketing works and celebrity endorsements are common, so regulating such rights to prevent exploitation is important.
Endorsements can make celebrities richer than their careers. Unauthorized celebrity endorsements devalue their efforts and endorsing parties’ investments. This raises important considerations regarding how far we should defend these rights. It is important to note that the Delhi High Court recently held that an actor’s right to privacy, right to publicity, and personality rights are not inheritable and cease with the artiste’s demise. Considering these elements, it could be advisable to enact a statute for celebrity rights given the unique characteristics of their rights.
In the above context, it can be said that celebrity rights involve privacy. Celebrities struggle to live a regular life because of paparazzi intrusion. Information should be accessible without violating privacy. Even when reporting the truth about celebrities’ private lives, the media might be sued for invasion of privacy. In the days following Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on the news channel “Aaj Tak” for broadcasting vivid photographs of the late actor’s body and information about his cause of death. In its order, the authority stated that news should not be reported in a way that invades the privacy of the deceased or sensationalizes a tragic event. Avoiding such situations and combining public interest with privacy rights is crucial.
It’s possible that celebrity rights are protected by trademark laws; however, it is not certain. Authorities believe that trademark or copyright laws may not cover these rights.
A distinct legal structure may be needed to defend celebrity rights in the digital age. Trademarks identify goods and services from distinct companies. Fitting celebrity rights into this framework may be difficult and compromise other rights. Given these factors, it may be wise to create a celebrity rights statute to recognize their uniqueness and protect their identities and privacy in endorsements and marketing. This is still debated and requires careful attention from lawmakers and professionals as our legal landscape evolves.
Akash Bag is Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Adamas University, Kolkata. Anwesha Ghosh is Research Scholar, Department of Law, School of Legal Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda.
