Protection Of Celebrity And Personality Rights In India: The Need For Stronger Safeguards

Introduction

In this era of social media, content media and AI-generated deep-fakes, the likelihood of a celebrity's Identity and name has grown at an increasing rate. The illicit use of a public figure's name, image or voice ranging from advertising commercials to manipulated videos is not only a violation of an individual's right to live with dignity but also their right to privacy. These rights are seen as fundamental rights in India that the Constitution of India has guaranteed to everyone in the country. Unauthorised usage of someone's name, image or voice is a theft of their hard-earned commercial value built over the years. Although the Indian Court have recognised celebrity and their personality rights in certain cases but there still persists a lack of statutory regulation that results in uneven enforcement. With the passage of time the entertainment and sports industries of India are growing globally, therefore creating a robust need for dedicated statutory regulations to safeguard the personality rights of celebrities.

What are Personality Rights and Why does it matter ?

Personality Rights,also known as right of publicity is defined as an individual's right to control the commercial use of their Identity which encompasses their , image , likeness , voice , signature and any other distinguishable feature. There are two reasons that create the need for statutory regulations for safeguarding personality rights, which are as follows:-

• For preserving the privacy and dignity of an individual
• For preserving the commercial value that an individual has built through skill, hard work and public engagement.

In India, these rights are guaranteed to everyone under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ( Protection of Life and Personal Liberty ). As established in K.S. Puttuswamy v/s UOI¹ , right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 14, 9 and 21 of the Constitution².The decision mandated that privacy is an integral part of one's right to life and personal liberty. 

Curent Indian Legal Provisions

There are certain provisions that indirectly help in safeguarding. There are some sections of Copyright Act, 1957and Trade Marks Act, 1999 that can indirectly be used to safeguard and protect aspects of personality rights even though they lack explicit mention of "personality rights". So now the question that will ponder one's brain is How does this existing legislations helps in safeguading one's personality rights. Lets learn this succinctly -

1. How does Copyright Protects Celebrity Identity -

Copyright acts like a sheild to protects one's creative work which celebrity's utilizes to restrict someone from using their photos, songs, or videos without permission. The same can even be used indirectly to protect certain aspects of personality right .

The key sections of Copyright Act, 1957³ that matters are-

a)Section 14 - It defines Copyright, which encompasses the exclusive right to reproduce and communicate works like photographs , films , sound recordings ,etc . If a celebrity has a copyright in any of these then they can bar others from their unauthorised commercial use.

b)Section 17 and Section 18 - Both these sections help in understanding the general rule of Copyright regarding the author and owners of Copyright, respectively. Section 17 establishes the author as the first owner of Copyright in a work and every owner has their own ability to assign rights which can even cover celebrity images.

c)Section 37 and Section 38 - Both these sections deal with the rights of broadcasting organisations and performers, respectively. S 37 gives broadcasting organisations special rights to control the reproduction and dissemination of their broadcasts, even for the use of sound or visual recordings of the broadcast. While section 38 gives performers a special right related to their performances such as acting, singing or playing music which helps in prohibiting the recording and usage of the performance in any way. 

d)Section 57 - The section establishes the author's special rights also known as moral rights. Using this right, the author can claim authorship and can restrict or claim damages for any unauthorised use, distortion, mutilation or any act that could harm their honour or reputation.

2. How the Trade Marks Act Protects Celebrity Identity -

The key sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999⁴ that matters are - 

a)Section 2(1)(m) - The section defines 'mark' to encompass names, signatures and images. So indirectly one celebrity's name or signature can be registered as their own trademark .

b)Section 14 - The section deals with the use of names and representations of living persons or recently deceased persons. It prohibits the registration of a trademark application that falsely suggests a connection with a living person or a recently deceased person. This is directly relevant to protecting celebrity names from any unauthorised use.

c)Section 27 - The section essentially states that an unregistered trademark does not give the owner the right to sue for infringement. They emphasise the importance of registration. But additionally it also preserves one's right to sue for "passing off" which is when someone misrepresents their goods or services as those of another which causes confusion among consumers and potentially damages the reputation of the individual whose Personality has been used. 

• The Takeway -

While examining these relevant provisions of these Acts, one thing that remained constant and acted as a prerequisite was the registration of their specific work to claim any sort of infringement. While these sections are effective for safeguarding specific IP assets like performances, photos, logos , designs but they don't extend their protection to the Identity of an individual, an Identity that required years of hard work and effort to form. These current frameworks subtly assume that a person will register every aspect of their Personality that could be valuable like name , signature , photo , voice , recordings and even their choice and likeness. This is not only expensive and impractical but registrations are also only valid for a certain span of years and require renewal. But by its intrinsic nature the Personality of an individual is not time-bound therefore, why should the rights associated with it remain time-bound? On observing these provisions of these respective Acts , I see that the laws laid down here are essentially work-oriented , protecting commercial or artistic creations. Because of this indirect and disorganised protection, claimants are forced to fit their complaints and grievances into unrelated statutory boxes making enforcement difficult and occasionally difficult to understand from a legal standpoint. As a result the unauthorised illicit use of personality attributes mostly goes unpunished and it brings actions it is required to connect with the requirements of these 'indirectly-related' provisions.

Challenges in the Digital Era

Due to a lack of dedicated codification , the misuse of celebrity personalities has escalated in the digital era. Challengeslike Deepfake Technology , Social Media Memes , Inflencer Marketing and Virtual Reality. Lately a video went viral on social media platforms showing Actress Rashmika Mandanna in an elevator but it seemed to be attempting to objectify her body parts . Later on it was discovered that the video was morphed and originally did not feature her at all. Despite being completely fabricated , the video went viral on social media before it could be flagged which caused reputation harm and emotional distress. The harm caused by this was immediate which is significant is highlighting that current laws are indirect and fail to protect Identity as a whole . Cases like this highlight the urgent need for legal tools to address menaces like this.

Key Indian Case Laws

There are case laws which help in understanding the repercussions caused due to the Gaps in the Current legal framework -

• Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions⁵: Shivaji Rao Gaikwad popularly known as Rajnikanth is a renowned actor who brought an injunction suit against the release of film named "Main Hoon Rajnikanth" which used the plaintiff's name , caricature , dialogues etc. Without his deriving his consent. Plaintiff argued that the production house unauthorisedly used the actor's name resulting in the exploitation of his Goodwill and could mislead the crowd in believing his connection with the film. The Court here recognised that when a person is clearly identifiable , it is unnecessary to prove falsity , confusion or deception to restrain such unauthorised use and therefore granted injunctive relief, emphasising that unauthorised commercial use of a celebrity's Identity amounts to infringement of their personality rights. The case acts as a precedent and highlights the importance of statutory regulations for protection of personality rights but acknowledges the same. 
• Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea Ltd.⁶: In this case, the famous cricketer Sourav Ganguly faced trouble when it came to his knowledge of the use of his name in a marketing campaign by Tata Tea Ltd., in which they were providing postcards in tea packets, using which one can congratulate Sourav Ganguly. This was done without acquiring the cricketer's consent, and a false notion was spreadamong the crowd about his association with the brand. By using this tactic to advertise their product Tata Tea gained popularity. Later, the Court ruled in Sourav Ganguly's favour holding that his reputation and popularity were part of his IP
• Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co.⁷: The case reveals the vague approach to personality rights. Delhi HC in this case rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit against the restaurant owned by another person with the same name which used a signature slogan used by Gautam Gambhir despite him being a famous cricketer. The Court gave the reasoning relying upon principles of "passing-off grounds", that there was insufficient evidence of trueconfusion or misrepresentation. The ruling highlights two major issues:- 
  1. Lack of a legislative framework for personality rights which forces the Court to depend on principles from trademark law
  2. Absence of a clear rule to specify the parameters to cause confusion among people so as to qualify as "misleading".

This all makes the protection of a celebrity's Identity uncertain and hard to predict.

International Models for Guidance

1. California Code, Civil Code CIV § 3344⁸- The law laid down here provides one of the most explicit frameworks for safeguarding personality rights through its statutory "right of publicity". The section prohibits unauthorised commercial use of an individual's name , voice , signature, photograph and even their likeness. The law helps individuals in claiming both damages and statutory penalties thereby offering restraint against exploitation and recognising the economic value of Identity in commercial value.
2. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991⁹- Came into force in 1994 in Canadian Province of Quebec , The Article 3 of this Code affirms that every individual holds personality rights inherently and therefore includes fundamental protection such as right to life , the right to inviolability and integrity of one's body and right to respect of one's name , reputation and privacy. These rights recognise that a person's Identity both physical and social is sacrosanct . The law acknowledges that unauthorised use or violation can cause not only personal harm but also reputation and economic damage. Additionally Article 36(5) of the code considers usage of one's name , image , likeness or voice as invasion of privacy of a person for a purpose other than that for which they gave their consent .
3. European Union – GDPR - The General Data Protection Regulation of the EU empowers individuals and gives them control over their personal data which includes[10] name, photograph and video. This law offers robust safeguards that intersect with personality rights by regulating the processing , storage and distribution of personal data. Though not directly GDPR protects aspects of an individual's Identity and reinforces the principle of consent and restrains unauthorised use of personal data.
4. What India Can Learn - India can draw valuable insights from these international frameworks on personality rights. The codification of such rights would clearly define the scope of protection for individuals, including digital likeness and AI-generated representations. It will help injured party provide legal remedies for unauthorised commercial use and may help deter future exploitations. The drafters can even balance personal and public interests by incorporating valid exceptions for new reporting , satire and other socially valuable uses. 

Conclusion

The name , image, and persona of a celebrity are significant assets that they have built through hard work over the years.But in the current digital era, India , the world's fastest-growing major economy, lacks a dedicated statutory regulation to protect one's identity and personality rights. There only exist provisions such as the Copyright Act and Trade Mark Act which provide indirect protections, making personality rights susceptible to misuse especially on social media and AI platforms which can cause irreparable harm to one's hard-earned reputation. India urgently requires unambiguous, directly dedicated codified legislation by drawing valuable insights from California's right of publicity, Quebec's civil code, and the EU's GDPR. IP laws were drafted with the intention of safeguarding both tangible and intangible works, and personality rights follow the same logic . In addition to that, profit in such cases is generated by attracting large audiences, which creates opportunities for others to exploit the same appeal for their own benefit and commercial gain. The existence of dedicated formidable protections would guarantee that individuals have complete control over their Identity in both the physical and virtual world, preserving their privacy, dignity, and commercial value.

References

• Statutes & Legal Provisions
  1. The Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
  2. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India).
  3. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty.
  4. California Civil Code, Section 3344 – Right of Publicity.
  5. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991, Articles 3 & 36.General Data
  6. Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union, 2016.

• Case Laws
  1. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
  2. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 15835.
  3. Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea Ltd., (2003) Calcutta High Court (Unreported).
  4. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8078.

• Secondary Sources & Commentary
  1. Centre for Law & Policy Research. (2021, December 8). JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA - South Asian Translaw Database - PRIVACY. South Asian Translaw Database.  https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors
  2. Supreme Court Observer. (2022, August 23). Judgment of the Court in plain English (I) - Supreme Court Observer.  https://www.scobserver.in/reports/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy-judgment-of-the-court-in-plain-english-i/
  3. European Commission. (2023). Data protection explained. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-explained_en

Footnotes

1. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India, 2019 (1) SCC 1

2. Centre for Law & Policy Research. (2021, December 8). JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA - South Asian Translaw Database - PRIVACY. South Asian Translaw Database. https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors

Supreme Court Observer. (2022, August 23). Judgment of the Court in plain English (I) - Supreme Court Observer. https://www.scobserver.in/reports/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy-judgment-of-the-court-in-plain-english-i/

3. India – Copyright Act, 1957

Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957

(India). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act%2C_1957.pdf

4. India – Trade Marks Act, 1999

Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999

(India). https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2249/1/A1999-47.pdf

5. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158.

6. Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea Ltd., C.S. No. 361 of 1997, Calcutta High Court.

7. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co., CS(COMM) 395/2017 & IA No. 6797/2017, Delhi High Court

8. California, U.S. – Civil Code § 3344

Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 (2025). 

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/

9. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991 (1991). https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/ccq-1991

10. European Commission. (2023). Data protection explained. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-protection-explained_en

khuranaandkhurana.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.