When the Delhi High Court decided in 2003 whether the International Cricket Council could claim publicity rights in the World Cup, the answer came down to one word: persona. The court read it as meaning an individual human being. A tournament is not one.
That ruling, in ICC Development Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, still answers the question in the headline. The court held that publicity rights can only belong to people, not to events or organisations. Stretching them to non-living entities, it said, would violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. India ties publicity rights to privacy, and privacy belongs to human beings. The U.S. went the other way. In White v. Samsung, a court said commercial identity can reach beyond humans.
No statute, only case law
India has no special law on personality rights. These are the rights that stop someone from using a person’s name, face, voice or signature for profit without permission. Courts have built the doctrine case by case, drawing on constitutional rights, media law and intellectual property. Celebrities also rely on trademarks to guard their names, autographs and slogans.
Other cases show how far the rights go. Singer Daler Mehndi’s company, DM Entertainment, sued Delhi shops that sold “Son Toys” dolls with his turban, beard and clothing, which played his songs and were billed as “Daler Mehndi dolls.” The court held that a person can assign publicity rights to a company, and the company can then enforce them.
The dead fare worse. In Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition over a film about a late actor. It held that privacy and publicity rights cannot be enforced by successors, and that a film drawing on information already in the public domain did not infringe any posthumous right. The court added that it would rehear the matter if the plaintiff could show the actor’s publicity rights passed to his family. In the U.S., by comparison, California recognizes such rights for 70 years after death and Indiana for 100.
Deepfakes in court
The current wave of cases is about AI. Cricketer Abhishek Sharma went to the Delhi High Court after his photo, together with one of his manager, was altered with AI tools. The court said it sees “every day” that “there is a thin line between defamation and personality rights,” adding that “it is in a flux.” It reserved the matter until July 9 because some questions needed clarifying.
Actor and MP Ravi Kishan fared differently. He won interim relief over obscene AI-generated content. Sharma’s case was delayed because his lawyers had not produced screenshots of the offending links.
Celebrities usually go for a “John Doe” order, a suit against unnamed defendants that directs internet providers and platforms such as Meta, Google and X to take down offending links. Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, who protected his line “Jhakaas,” Jackie Shroff, who secured “Bhidu,” and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan have all won such orders.
Sources
- AI Deepfakes Got Him 29 Lakh Fake ‘Resignation’ Views — What Are Personality Rights In India?
- Personality Rights In India And Beyond: Privacy, Publicity, And Posthumous Protection
