Challenges in the use of personality rights

Abstract

This article throws light on the evolving concept of personality rights in respect of the intellectual property in India. It highlights the nexus between the privacy, publicity and commercial benefits with key judicial rulings. It also examines the challenges in balancing personality rights with freedom of expression.

Introduction:

Personality rights have synonyms like publicity rights or celebrity rights, that protects the individual’s unique identity and allow full control over the commercial use of his name, image, voice or likeness. These rights help an individual to prevent others from using his identity without his permission for commercial use and also to secure his privacy. These rights are important as more people are gaining public recognition and it balances the dignity and privacy with the commercial interests tied to a popular person’s own image or reputation like a celebrity or public figure. It basically grants a person access to protect his privacy about themselves as they wish and stop others from using image or name without prior permission.

Protection of publicity rights under India

There are no such specific laws for the governance of the personality of an individual but there have been efforts to recognise them till then the courts use different approaches to tackle these issues by applying the concepts of constitutional rights, trademark and copyright laws.

Initially the courts focused on the right to privacy in cases such as R Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 (Auto Shankar Case)[1] where the Supreme Court held that people have the right to publish information from public records but that should not expose the private life details without the consent of the person being involved and the right to privacy is not explicitly present in constitution but it seems as the need of the hour. This case is marked as the foundational stone in the personality-based interests even though personality was not explicitly used.

Later, courts began to draw a clearer distinction between privacy rights and publicity rights particularly in cases where a person’s identity was being exploited for commercial gain. For instance, in ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises[2] (2003) the Delhi High Court recognised that personality rights include the right to control how an individual’s identity is commercially used and that unauthorised use could amount to unfair exploitation.

Thus, the evolution of personality rights in Indian jurisprudence reflects a very broader interpretative approach by the judiciary rooted in constitutional values such as human dignity, autonomy and protection from the exploitation. The absence of express statutory provisions has not been prevented courts from developing these rights through case law particularly as issues involving media, advertising and digital identity continue to emerge.

Character Merchandising:

Many people usually are attracted to the products that are associated with their favourite celebrity without even bating an eye about the major business behind it. And India being a large consumer market fuels these markets which are worth billions of dollars. When there is a usage of actual names and images of these celebrities it creates a legal dispute which is known as personality merchandising as privacy laws can create a conflict. There are uncertainties in the Indian courts as there are no specific laws that govern the publicity rights.

Background and Literature Review

Globally these personality rights are derived from either the right to privacy or property or both. In India, there is no such statutory law that is specifically governing personality rights of the people rather they are recognised through the judicial pronouncements and by reading together constitutional protections under the Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and protections under Tort law, Copyright law and The Trademark Act.

The Landmark cases such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)[3] and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1995) [4] provide a constitutional foundation. Foreign jurisdictions like the US and Germany offer more robust, statutory and case based protections due to the early and prominent recognition for these rights.

Legal Framework in India

• Right to Privacy: Recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy, forming the bedrock for protection against unauthorised use of personal data and identity.
• Right of Publicity: Allows individuals (especially celebrities) to control commercial use of their persona e.g., name, image, likeness, unique attributes often enforced through civil suits and injunctions.
• Other Relevant Laws: The Trademark Act protects distinctive personal attributes as trademarks copyright law only indirectly covers creative outputs, not persona tort of passing off prevents commercial misrepresentation.
• Notable Cases: Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) [5]affirmed the right of celebrities to protect their persona from unauthorised commercial use. The scope was further expanded in Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India (2023)[6] recognising protection for unique mannerisms and style as part of one’s persona.

Challenges

• Digital Misappropriation: Digital platforms have made it easier to misappropriate and commercially exploit persona (e.g deep fakes, unauthorised endorsements, cybersquatting).
• Ambiguous Boundaries: Indian law remains fragmented as judicial doctrines often balance personality rights against free speech and public interest.
• Overlap with Copyright and Trademark: Personality rights and IP overlap but are distinct personality rights protect the individual’s identity and not the creativity itself.

Conclusion:

Personality rights are vital for both protecting individual autonomy and navigating the commercial landscape of identity. For India, judicial doctrine recognises and protects these rights but leaves key questions scope, enforcement and exceptions open. Legislative clarity and harmonisation with global norms may be needed to realise their full potential while respecting freedom of expression.

References:

1. NUJS Law Review. “Rethinking Personality Rights in India.”
2. IPR Journal, Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. “Protection of Personality Rights in India: Issues and Challenges.”
3. TBALaw.in. “Personality Rights in India: Laws, Cases, and Privacy Issues.”
4. Drishti IAS. “Personality Rights.”
5. WIPO. “Personality Rights.”
6. NLUA Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. “Intellectual Property and Protection of Personality Rights in the Digital Context.”
7. Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences. “Upholding Personality Rights in India: Insights from Indian Judicial Precedents.”
8. The CUSB Journal of Law and Governance. “Personality Rights in India: Legislation—A Need of the Hour.”
9. Wikipedia. “Personality Rights.”
10. https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E2FEFB25-578D-448C-9EA9-54266BE2475A.pdf

[1] R. Rajagopal and Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632

[2] ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises (2003)

[3] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

[4] R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1995)

[5] Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012)

[6] Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India (2023),