By Dr S. Krishnan and Akash Prajapati
In a world where fame travels faster than fact and digital footprints outlive their owners, a celebrity’s identity has become both the greatest asset and most vulnerable possession. From Amitabh Bachchan’s iconic baritone to Anil Kapoor’s exuberant Jhakaas every voice, expression and gesture carries immense commercial and emotional value. Yet, in an era dominated by AI-generated deepfakes, viral reels and unauthorised brand endorsements, the line between admiration and appropriation is rapidly blurring.
Personality rights protect the commercial and dignitary interests of individuals in their identity, including their name, image, voice, likeness and reputation. While these rights are not expressly codified in Indian law, they have evolved through judicial interpretation, often intersecting with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), particularly copyright, trademarks and passing off. This article examines the conceptual overlap between IPR and personality rights, their legal recognition in India, and the challenges arising in the digital age.
The rapid commercialisation of identity in advertising, social media and digital platforms has brought personality rights into sharp legal focus. Celebrities, public figures and even private individuals increasingly seek protection against the unauthorised exploitation of their persona. Although personality rights are distinct from traditional IPR, they often operate within the IPR framework, leading to doctrinal overlaps and legal complexities.
Concept of Personality Rights
Personality rights refer to an individual’s right to control the commercial use of attributes of their identity, including: Name, photograph or likeness, voice, signature, personal style or mannerisms
These rights are grounded in privacy, dignity and autonomy and, in India, derive constitutional support from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
Although personality rights are not traditionally classified as intellectual property, they intersect with IPR in significant ways. Both regimes seek to protect intangible interests and prevent unauthorised exploitation. However, their philosophical foundations differ. IPR is primarily utilitarian, encouraging creativity and innovation through exclusive rights, whereas personality rights are centred on the individual, emphasising autonomy and dignity.
Despite these differences, Indian courts have frequently relied on IPR doctrines to protect personality rights because of the absence of a dedicated statutory framework. Consequently, Indian courts have relied on trademark law, copyright law and the common law tort of passing off to enforce personality rights.
Personality Rights and Intellectual Property
Personality rights intersect with IPR in several ways.
Trademark Law
Trademark law provides one of the most effective tools for protecting personality rights. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, names, symbols and even images can be registered as trademarks if they are capable of graphical representation and possess distinctiveness. Celebrities often register their names or signatures as trademarks to prevent unauthorised commercial use.
Even without registration, courts have protected celebrity personas through the doctrine of passing off, which prevents misrepresentation leading to consumer confusion. In D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), the Delhi High Court restrained the unauthorised sale of dolls resembling singer Daler Mehndi. The court recognised that a celebrity’s persona has commercial value and that misleading consumers into believing there is an endorsement amounts to passing off.
Trademark-based protection therefore enables courts to address false endorsements and unfair commercial gain, effectively extending IPR principles to safeguard personality rights.
Copyright Law
Copyright law protects original literary, artistic, musical and cinematographic works. While it does not protect personality itself, it frequently intersects with personality rights because photographs, films and recordings capture an individual’s likeness or voice.
A key limitation is that copyright vests in the creator of the work, not necessarily in the person depicted. For example, a photographer owns the copyright in a photograph, even though it may prominently feature a celebrity. This can lead to conflicts where copyrighted material is used commercially without the consent of the individual concerned.
Indian courts have attempted to balance these competing interests by recognising that, although copyright ownership exists, it cannot be exercised in a manner that violates an individual’s privacy or personality rights, particularly where commercial exploitation occurs without consent.
Judicial Recognition in India
Indian courts have played a pivotal role in shaping personality rights jurisprudence:
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu — recognised privacy as part of Article 21.
- ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises — clarified that personality rights are personal to the individual and cannot be transferred in the same manner as property rights.
- Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022) — explicitly recognised personality rights and granted protection against unauthorised commercial exploitation.
The Delhi High Court also granted sweeping interim injunctions protecting Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan from unauthorised AI-generated videos, fake merchandise and impersonation, ordering platforms such as Google and YouTube to remove infringing content and disclose the identities of offenders. Similarly, Karan Johar, Akkineni Nagarjuna and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar secured protection against deepfakes, fake social media profiles and misleading endorsements, while the Bombay High Court extended relief to Asha Bhosle, whose distinctive singing style and voice were replicated by AI platforms. These judgments mark a new phase in which courts explicitly treat a celebrity’s name, voice, image and digital likeness as proprietary rights deserving immediate legal protection in the age of emerging technologies.
Digital Challenges and Emerging Concerns
The rise of AI, deepfakes and virtual influencers has intensified concerns over the misuse of identity. Existing IPR frameworks are often inadequate to address:
- AI-generated likenesses
- Posthumous personality rights
- Cross-border digital violations
Technological advances have amplified both the value and the vulnerability of personality rights. Social media platforms, influencer marketing and digital advertising have made identity-based monetisation commonplace. At the same time, technologies such as artificial intelligence, deepfakes and voice cloning pose unprecedented risks.
AI-generated content can replicate a person’s likeness or voice without consent, often in highly realistic ways. Existing IPR frameworks struggle to address such misuse because AI-generated outputs may not fit neatly within traditional definitions of authorship or infringement. Similarly, questions surrounding posthumous personality rights — whether and how a deceased individual’s persona may be commercially exploited — remain largely unresolved in Indian law.
These challenges highlight the limitations of relying solely on traditional IPR doctrines to protect personality rights in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
Need for Dedicated Statutory Framework
The absence of comprehensive legislation governing personality rights in India has created uncertainty and inconsistent application. While judicial intervention has provided interim solutions, case-by-case adjudication lacks predictability. A dedicated statute could:
- Clearly define the scope of personality rights.
- Specify permissible and impermissible uses.
- Address digital and AI-related misuse.
- Clarify the duration and posthumous applicability of such rights.
Such a framework would also help harmonise personality rights with existing IPR regimes and constitutional freedoms.
Challenges Ahead
Personality rights represent a significant evolution in the protection of intangible interests, reflecting the growing economic and social value of individual identity. Although not traditionally classified as intellectual property, personality rights in India have been enforced through IPR doctrines such as trademark law, copyright law and passing off. Judicial decisions have progressively recognised these rights as integral to dignity, privacy and autonomy under Article 21.
However, the increasing commercialisation of identity and the challenges posed by digital technologies expose the limitations of the current legal approach. As identity becomes a tradable asset in the modern economy, the law must evolve to ensure that individuals retain control over their persona. A coherent statutory framework governing personality rights would provide clarity, balance competing interests and strengthen India’s intellectual property and constitutional landscape.
(Dr S. Krishnan is an academician and experienced journalist based in Jaipur. Akash Prajapati is a Project Executive at Cognus Technology, Jaipur)
