Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When the identity of a famous personality is used without their consent or authorization, it may not only lead to commercial detriment to the concerned individual but also impact their right to live with dignity.”
“Sonu Nigam Singh’s actions could not be considered innocent, and the misrepresentation caused among members of the general public was not a matter of coincidence and thus his conduct was ex facie dishonest and reeked of mala fide.”
The Court observed that many accounts on YouTube channels and Meta’s social media platforms are using modern day technology to modify the voice, image, likeness etc. of Sadhguru to garner more views and subscribers to piggyback on his name and reputation.
The name “Karan Johar” is solely associated with Respondent 1, Karan Johar and forms a germane part of his personality and brand name and thus, has the economic right to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion.
“Merely because the Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’) certificate is obtained for the film, the same does not restrict the applicant’s right to take action against the film for violation of his rights.”
Making AI tools available that enable conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without their permission constitutes a violation of their personality rights and such tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice, which is a key component of their personal identity and public persona.
The Court sought response from a content creator for a YouTube video titled “Jackie Shroff Is Savage (*) Jackie Shroff Thug Life” and viewed that restricting such creative expressions stifles freedom of expression, potentially deterring the public from exercising their right to free speech due to fear of legal repercussions.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Amitabh Bachchan for protection of his publicity rights against the fake Kaun