What are Personality Rights?

Personality rights—often referred to as the right of publicity or image rights—encompass an individual’s legal right to protect and control the commercial exploitation of their persona. In many jurisdictions, these include a person’s name, likeness, voice, signature, image or other unique identifiers closely associated with the individual. While India does not have a dedicated statute for personality rights, courts have repeatedly affirmed the principle that an individual should have the right to control and profit from the commercial exploitation of their identity.

Although the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”) primarily governs rights in creative works, certain provisions—especially regarding photographs, cinematograph films, and performer’s rights—have implications for the protection of a person’s identity. Recent legal actions by high-profile figures like Anil Kapoor, Karan Johar, and Amitabh Bachchan illustrate how Indian celebrities are increasingly turning to personality rights claims and related legal principles to safeguard their personal and commercial interests.

With the growth of digital media and an increasing celebrity culture, questions about unauthorized commercial use of someone’s identity have come to the forefront. Legal practitioners and scholars are grappling with where personality rights fit within the existing copyright and trademark framework. This article provides a broad overview of personality rights in India, their legal foundations, and how they intersect with copyright law.

Recent disputes—such as the Bombay High Court’s order restraining the release of Shaadi Ke Director: Karan Aur Johar, alongside suits filed by Anil Kapoor and Amitabh Bachchan—showcase how Indian celebrities are increasingly invoking personality rights to combat unauthorized use of their identity.

Nature and Scope of Personality Rights

Personality rights typically cover two main aspects:

1. Right of Publicity: Protects the commercial aspect of an individual’s persona. It prevents unauthorized use of one’s name, likeness, or distinctive attributes for commercial gain.
2. Right to Privacy: Guards against unwanted intrusion into personal life and exploitation of personal characteristics.

In jurisdictions like the United States, personality rights are well-established, sometimes under statutory law (e.g., in California) or via common law (e.g., New York). In India, no exclusive personality rights statute exists; courts have interpreted these rights using a combination of constitutional provisions, tort law (passing off), trademark law, and—indirectly—provisions of the Copyright Act.

In India, personality rights are enforced through a patchwork of legal doctrines—including privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, trademark or “passing off” actions, and, in some instances, the Copyright Act. Courts have broadly recognized that well-known personalities have an economic interest in their public image and that its unauthorized commercial exploitation constitutes a legal wrong.

Key Elements of Personality Rights

• Identifiability: The individual must be identifiable through the alleged infringing act (e.g., image, voice, distinctive style).
• Commercial Exploitation: The usage typically involves a commercial advantage or endorsement without permission.
• Harm or Misappropriation: The individual suffers harm—either financial or reputational—due to unauthorized exploitation of their persona.

Personality Rights in the Indian Legal Context

Constitutional Underpinnings

While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, personality rights may be inferred from:

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which the Supreme Court has interpreted broadly to include the right to privacy.
• Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression), which sometimes conflicts with an individual’s personality rights when a person’s name or likeness is used in media or advertising.

Judicial Recognition

Indian courts have recognized the concept of personality rights primarily in cases involving celebrities and sports personalities. A few notable examples include:

1. ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003): The Delhi High Court acknowledged the right to protect a celebrity’s persona from unauthorized commercial exploitation.
2. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012): The court granted an injunction against the misuse of well-known actress’s images for commercial advertisements without authorization.
3. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. (2017): Though concerning trademark usage, the court recognized that an unauthorized commercial association with a well-known sports personality can amount to passing off.

These decisions reflect the Indian judiciary’s evolving stance toward personality rights, although no single statute consolidates these rights.

Overview of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957

Before examining how personality rights intersect with copyright law, it is important to understand the broad contours of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”):

• Subject Matter: The Act protects “original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works,” cinematograph films, and sound recordings.
• Rights Conferred: Copyright owners enjoy the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and communicate the work to the public.
• Authorship and Ownership: The creator of a work is typically deemed its first owner unless the work is created under employment or a contract that transfers ownership.
• Moral Rights (Section 57): The Act provides authors with the right of attribution and the right to protect the integrity of their work.

Personality rights do not appear explicitly in this statute. The Act primarily deals with creative and original works rather than protecting an individual’s name, likeness, or personal attributes. Nevertheless, certain provisions are indirectly relevant to personality rights disputes—especially when a person’s image, voice, or performance is captured and reproduced.

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 confers exclusive rights to creators of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematograph films and sound recordings. Key aspects relevant to personality rights include:

• Artistic Works (Sections 2(c) & 13): Photographs are protected as artistic works.
• Cinematograph Films (Section 2(f)): Producers generally own copyright in films, while actors have certain performer’s rights over their own performances (Sections 38–39A).
• Moral Rights (Section 57): Authors have the right to claim authorship and to object to any distortion or mutilation of their work.

Notably, no direct section addresses the commercial use of an individual’s persona. Nonetheless, disputes over unauthorized reproduction of a person’s identity in copyrighted material often use performer’s rights or arguments rooted in tort law, trademark law, or privacy rights.

Intersection of Personality Rights with the Indian Copyright Act

Use of Images and Photographs

• Photographic Works: Under Sections 2(c) and 13(1)(a) of the Act, a photograph is a copyrightable “artistic work.” The photographer (or employer, if done under a contract) generally owns copyright in the photograph. However, the person depicted does not automatically hold copyright unless they themselves took the photograph or otherwise contractually secured rights.
• A celebrity might own the copyright (or license it) in specific photographs. Unauthorized reproduction or manipulation of such photographs could infringe copyright.
• ·  Where the photographer owns copyright, the celebrity may still object to commercial usage that implies endorsement, using personality rights or a passing off claim.
• Misappropriation of Likeness: Even if a photographer or copyright holder has legal rights in the photograph, commercial use that exploits the recognizable face or persona of an individual—particularly a celebrity—can invite liability under personality or publicity rights claims. Indian courts typically address such misappropriation through tort law (passing off) or constitutional privacy rights rather than the Copyright Act alone.

Audiovisual Works and Cinematograph Films

• Ownership vs. Performer’s Rights: In cinematograph films, producers typically own copyright. Actors or performers may assert performer’s rights under the Copyright Act (Sections 38–39A), which grant them certain economic and moral rights in their performances. These are akin to personality rights but limited in scope to performances (e.g., film, TV shows, live events).
• Performer’s Consent: A performer has the right to consent or refuse the fixation (recording) of their performance. Using an actor’s performance without permission may lead to a performer’s rights infringement. While not synonymous with personality rights, performer’s rights can help prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person’s performance.

Moral Rights vs. Personality Rights

·  These protect authors from distortion of their work but do not fully address commercial misappropriation of personal identity.

·  Nonetheless, moral rights can sometimes be used in reputation-based claims, especially if the misuse tarnishes the celebrity’s image.

Moral Rights under Section 57 of the Act allow authors to:

1. Claim authorship of the work, and
2. Object to distortion or mutilation of the work if it prejudices their honor or reputation.

Although moral rights partially overlap with the notion of protecting one’s personal dignity, they are tied to creative works rather than a broader right in one’s persona. Consequently:

• Personality Rights protect the individual’s personal attributes (e.g., face, name), allowing them to control commercial uses of their identity.
• Moral Rights protect the integrity of the work (e.g., an author’s painting, a director’s film).

Hence, while moral rights may offer some protection for an individual’s reputation, they do not fully address commercial exploitation of someone’s persona, which is the core of personality rights.

Landmark Judicial Developments

Case Law Illustrations

1. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012)
   • Facts: Ramkumar Jewellers used the images of a well-known Bollywood actress in their advertisement without permission.
   • Outcome: The Delhi High Court recognized that such unauthorized usage violated the actress’s right to control commercial exploitation of her persona. The injunction clarified that personality rights could be enforced even though Indian law does not have a separate statute for them.
2. ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003)
   • Facts: Arvee Enterprises used certain aspects of the identity of cricket players in promotions.
   • Outcome: The Delhi High Court held that advertisers cannot capitalize on an individual’s popularity without authorization. Though couched largely in terms of trademark and passing off, the court acknowledged the underlying concept of publicity rights.
3. Rajnikanth v. Varsha Productions (2015) (Madras High Court)
   • Facts: The producer planned to use a look-alike of the famous actor Rajnikanth in a movie, capitalizing on his mannerisms and style.
   • Outcome: The court observed that the actor’s personality carries commercial value and is deserving of protection. Although no direct personality rights law was cited, the principle of preventing unauthorized exploitation of one’s persona was reinforced.

Implications

These decisions collectively indicate that Indian courts are prepared to stretch existing legal frameworks (copyright, trademark, passing off, privacy) to protect individual persona. In many instances, the Copyright Act is invoked to address unauthorized usage of someone’s image or performance; however, the ultimate relief often rests on broader grounds of unfair commercial exploitation and the principle of natural justice.

Recent High-Profile disputes related to personality rights

Anil Kapoor’s Legal Action

In August 2022, veteran actor Anil Kapoor moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection against unauthorized use of his name, image, signature, dialogue delivery, and the iconic exclamation “Jhakaas.” He alleged that multiple individuals and businesses were exploiting his persona across social media platforms and merchandise without his permission.

• Court’s Response: The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining anyone from misusing Kapoor’s personality traits. The Court recognized Kapoor’s commercial and proprietary interest in his identity—demonstrating continued judicial acknowledgement of personality rights.
• Significance: This action reinforced how Indian celebrities can invoke their right to publicity and reputation. Kapoor’s move also highlighted that even catchphrases or signature gestures (closely linked to an actor’s persona) may be protected from unauthorized commercial use.

Karan Johar’s Concern Over Name and Persona

While not a traditional actor like Anil Kapoor, Karan Johar—a famous director, producer, and television personality—has increasingly become a public brand in his own right. According to media reports from 2022–2023, Johar expressed concerns about unlicensed merchandise and fan-made content that might mislead consumers into believing he endorses certain products.

• Legal Position: Johar has hinted at the possibility of taking legal measures against those leveraging his brand name “Karan Johar,” the acronym “KJo,” or distinctive catchphrases he uses in his talk shows (e.g., “Toodles!” from his reality show appearances). While formal lawsuits have been less public than in Kapoor’s case, Johar’s stance underscores how directors and producers—no less than actors—can assert personality rights to protect their public persona.
• Overlap with Copyright: As a producer under his banner (Dharma Productions), Johar also wields copyright ownership over cinematographic works. If unlicensed clips or images from his shows or films are used to exploit his image, copyright law (alongside personality rights arguments) could form part of his legal strategy.

Karan Johar: Bombay High Court Stalls Film Release

In a notable development reported by the Times of India, the Bombay High Court issued an order stalling the release of a film titled Shaadi Ke Director: Karan Aur Johar over alleged personality rights violations.

• Case Background: The film’s title and promotional materials seemingly invoked Karan Johar’s name and persona without authorization, suggesting a potential misleading association or endorsement by the renowned filmmaker.
• Court’s Observations: According to media coverage, the court found that the film’s content was likely to violate Johar’s personality rights and privacy, thereby granting an injunction to halt its release.
• Legal Basis: Though specific details of the court’s reasoning have not been made fully public, it appears that common law passing off principles and Article 21 privacy considerations were central. Additionally, any unauthorized use of Johar’s name or stylized persona for promotional advantage could amount to misappropriation of his identity.

Significance of This Order

• Publicity Rights in Titles: Courts are increasingly sensitive to film or media titles that co-opt a celebrity’s name or persona, recognizing it can create a false impression of endorsement or approval.
• Enforcement Trend: The injunction highlights the judiciary’s willingness to proactively protect celebrities from harm to their commercial or reputational interests. It also indicates that producers and creators must exercise due caution when referencing real-life public figures.

Amitabh Bachchan’s Suit for Personality Rights

In November 2022, iconic actor Amitabh Bachchan filed a suit in the Delhi High Court to safeguard his name, image, voice, and personality attributes from unauthorized commercial exploitation. The suit addressed individuals who had been using the actor’s persona on social media, mobile apps, and various promotional campaigns.

• Court Orders: The Delhi High Court recognized Bachchan’s celebrity status and granted interim relief, restraining any entity from using his photographs, voice snippets, or dialogues without authorization.
• Implications: Bachchan’s case reflects the broad application of personality rights in India. It confirms that voice and dialogue delivery (hallmarks of Bachchan’s persona) may be protected. This highlights a natural extension of performer’s rights—where a celebrity’s distinctive voice can be considered part of their identity, falling under the umbrella of personality rights.

Practical Challenges and Enforcement

Lack of a Dedicated Legal Regime

India lacks a dedicated personality rights statute. Litigants and courts rely on:

• Passing off under trademark law: By analogy, using another’s persona amounts to deception or an implied endorsement.
• Tort of Misappropriation: Though not deeply rooted in Indian jurisprudence, some judgments have recognized it.
• Right to Privacy: Read into Article 21 of the Constitution, but more oriented towards personal dignity than commercial exploitation.

These fragmented legal bases can make enforcement unpredictable and outcomes highly fact-specific.

Overlap with Other IP Rights

• Copyright vs. Trademark: While copyright often covers artistic or audiovisual works, trademark law may cover names, logos, or distinctive phrases. Personality rights may overlap both domains, leading to complex disputes if a celebrity’s name is trademarked (e.g., sports personalities or actors).
• Territorial Limitations: Copyright protection is territorial, and so is any recognition of personality rights. This creates conflicts in global advertising campaigns or online usage that transcends borders.

Valuation and Licensing of Rights

From a practical standpoint, celebrities and influencers often license their personality rights for endorsements. However, the value of such rights can be disputed, and no statutory valuation formula exists in India. Contracts typically include clauses stating how a brand can use the celebrity’s image, voice, or video clips, effectively circumventing statutory ambiguity.

The Way Forward: Need for a Clear Framework

Legal scholars and industry stakeholders have advocated for either judicial guidelines or legislative interventions to clarify the scope of personality rights. Potential reform avenues include:

1. Dedicated Statutory Recognition: Introducing a new chapter or section within the Copyright Act or an entirely separate Personality Rights Act that explicitly confers publicity rights.
2. Model Guidelines: Issuing non-binding guidelines through the legislature or a regulatory body to standardize how courts adjudicate personality rights disputes.
3. Harmonization with Data Protection Regimes: With digital media and data-driven advertising, personality rights might align with data protection laws (e.g., proposed Personal Data Protection Bill) to regulate unauthorized use of personal data or images.

Given the rapid expansion of digital content and social media, it is likely that the judiciary will face more such personality rights cases. A comprehensive legal framework could reduce litigation uncertainty and protect both creative freedom and individual interests.

Fragmented Legal Landscape

Because India lacks a dedicated personality rights statute, celebrities and other public figures must piece together claims under:

• Common law tort (misappropriation of likeness, passing off)
• Trademark law (if they have registered a name or logo)
• Constitutional rights (privacy, Article 21)
• Copyright Act (where images, videos, or performances are involved)

The result is case-specific litigation rather than a uniform set of legal principles.

Impact of Digital and Social Media

The rise of influencer culture, memes, fan pages, and user-generated content complicates enforcement. A single unauthorized post or video clip on social media can go viral within hours, making it difficult to track and proactively enforce personality rights. Moreover, the borderless nature of the internet and social platforms creates jurisdictional challenges.

Calls for Legislative Intervention

Legal experts, noting the success of high-profile injunctions, advocate for either:

• A stand-alone Personality Rights Act, or
• Amendments to the Indian Copyright Act or Trade Marks Act that clarify the scope of image/publicity rights.

Such reforms would offer predictability for both celebrities and businesses—balancing the protection of individual persona with freedom of expression and fair use considerations.

Conclusion

Personality rights, though not firmly codified in India, have found judicial acceptance through common law principles, constitutional interpretations, and indirect reliance on provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. While copyright law does not explicitly address commercial exploitation of an individual’s persona, certain adjacent provisions—such as performer’s rights and moral rights—intersect with the protection of personal identity.

From Anil Kapoor and Amitabh Bachchan securing injunctions to Karan Johar preventing the release of Shaadi Ke Director: Karan Aur Johar, Indian courts continue to champion personality rights against commercial misappropriation and reputational harm. While the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 remains focused on creative works, its performer’s rights provisions can sometimes bolster personality-rights arguments.

As the entertainment, sports, and digital marketing industries continue to grow, the economic value of a recognizable persona is substantial. Courts in India have demonstrated a proactive stance in safeguarding individuals against unauthorized exploitation, but the absence of a dedicated statute creates a patchwork of legal remedies. Looking ahead, legislative clarity—either through an amendment to the Copyright Act or a specialized law on personality rights—would provide a more coherent and predictable framework for all stakeholders.

In sum, while personality rights remain partially protected under Indian law, the full potential of such rights—particularly in preventing misappropriation of one’s name, image, or likeness—awaits more definitive statutory acknowledgment. Until then, passing off, privacy rights, and performer’s rights within the broad ambit of the Indian Copyright Act and the Constitution will continue to be the primary avenues for legal recourse.

Nevertheless, the absence of a dedicated statute forces celebrities to rely on multiple overlapping legal pathways—including constitutional privacy, trademark/passing off claims, and limited copyright protections—to safeguard their identity. The Bombay High Court’s recent decision to stall the film using Johar’s name underscores that judicial recognition of personality rights is growing stronger. Yet, the increasing frequency of such disputes indicates that legislative clarity may be the more enduring solution, paving the way for a well-defined legal regime around publicity and personality rights in India.