Open Access Research Article
THE EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE OF CELEBRITY RIGHTS: PRIVACY, PUBLICITY, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Published Paper
Article Details
THE
EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE OF CELEBRITY RIGHTS: PRIVACY, PUBLICITY, AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AUTHORED BY - SNEHA ACHANKUNJU[1]
ABSTRACT
Digitalization is changing the
creative world opportunity for some and threat to others. The ever-evolving
media sector gives birth to almost new terms every day. Traditional
intermediaries, such as film studios or record labels, have become
comparatively lesser scalable than online platforms, which have replaced these
intermediaries in many cases, such as in the case of Spotify or Netflix. These
two platforms have the best mutual cooperation, giving recognition to the
studios and labels as far as huge investment is required to launch a new artist
or film. Along with the acceleration of digital media, on the other hand, is
another significant issue; the need to protect celebrities and public figures
from unfair scrutiny. A celebrity's public image enjoys significant worth, but
this often will not be honored with their right to publicity and commercial
exploitation of their identity. In order to fund their fight against these
claims, celebrities in law may derive use from something called "celebrity
rights." These rights can be enforced under trademark law and copyright
law, and by way of passing off. Thus, there is a necessity to define celebrity
rights in intellectual property law and to provide protection from any harms
that may arise.
1.
INTRODUCTION
To be a celebrity is the reward for
having achieved something through talent or intelligence. Such developments
make it more likely that the exposure of or detriment to the celebrities’ right
of privacy will be caused by third parties, particularly through online
intermediaries. Legal enactments that infringe or restrict the celebrities'
right of publicity or control over the commercial use of their identity are
also topical. They are made public by unauthorized means in a defamatory or
misleading way, putting them in a false light. Such unauthorized representation
has been made in terms of their photography for the commercial advertisement.
So, it becomes imperative to recognize formally these celebrity rights within
the scaffolding of intellectual property law (IPR) and getting them
damage-free. There is scope under several rights for celebrities against IPR
violations such as the 'right to publicity', and 'right to reproduction',
'right to distribution', 'right to rental', and 'right to lending' and 'personality
rights' among others. However, in most cases of violation, a celebrity's rights
can be categorized into three broad categories:
(i)
Personality/Moral Rights
(ii)
Privacy Rights
(iii)
Merchandising/Publicity Rights
2.
WHO IS A CELEBRITY?
In India, the law of copyright does
not attach any special meaning to the word 'celebrity,' although one may give
reference to Article 2 (qq) of the law defining an artist. This artist could
trace a broad definition-anybody that acts, sings, plays a musical instrument,
dances, and entertains-amongst them, acrobats, jugglers, conjurers, snake
charmers, and speakers. But not all artists would be classified as celebrities,
and not everyone who qualifies as a celebrity is an artist.
Section 38 of the Copyright Act
reserves a right specifically to performers with respect to the performance
under the broader heading of copyright. This right works for fifty years from
the commencement of the calendar year during which the performance takes place.
The rights of a performer under section 38 clause 3 are infringed if during the
continuance of those rights any one without consent records or reproduces the
performance in any form, either auditory or audiovisual, and this is subject to
the provisions of section 39[2].
3.
REQUISITE TO SAFEGUARD CELEBRITY RIGHTS
Celebrity rights are primarily for
commercial reasons and are, therefore, licensed and granted to celebrities. In
the modern advertising world, the celebrity image has a lot of value in terms
of money. Recognizing this asset in law would mean that it would be treated
like other intellectual property and thus taxed like any property. Such
arrangements would place control over the use of celebrity images into the
hands of the people, while ensuring that celebrities receive monetary compensation
for any income generated from their fame. Another thing is that advertising
rights are inheritable, thus allowing the celebrity's children to benefit from
the celebrity fame created during the lifetime of the celebrity. In addition,
the rights protect the performer in a few ways:
i.
Alleviating insecurity on the part of the performers in
fear of technological unemployment in cases such as replacement of live music
with recorded music
ii.
Stopping bootlegging
iii.
Managing exploitation of artists who might otherwise
struggle to manage their own situations independently.
4.
OBLIGATIONS AND REMEDIES
Trademark
Trademark registration has two key
implications when it comes to celebrity rights. First, registering a mark that
represents a specific aspect of a celebrity’s personality signals that the
celebrity is willing to license or authorize the commercial use of their
personality for certain goods or services. Second, it enables celebrities to
protect these aspects of their personality from unauthorized use. Unlike the
tort law or the Trade Practices Act of 1974, trademark registration provides a
unique avenue for safeguarding a celebrity’s personality[3].
In India, celebrities and their business partners may receive some protection
under trademark law, although its scope can be limited. According to Section
2(1) of the Indian Trademarks Act, 2000, any sign that distinguishes one
person’s goods and services from another, including names, designs, numbers,
and the form or packaging of products, can be registered as a trademark. Indian
courts have also extended trademark protection to film titles, characters, and
names[4].
The first case involving the commercialization of characters in India was Star
India Private Limited v. Leo Burnett India Pvt. Ltd[5],
but character merchandising remains an area that requires further development
in Indian law.
Copyright
There are murky waters regarding
which aspects of celebrity rights may find protection under copyright law. In
the case of Sim v. Heinz & Co. Ltd.[6]
the court stated that copyright will not protect a person's voice, likeness, or
other personal identifiers. Copyright creates property rights which are
exclusive yet limited, permitting celebrities to license the reproduction,
adaptation, sale, or display of, for example, a photograph taken of them by
others[7].
To bring a copyright claim, the burden is on the claimant to show such
ownership as well as prove that a copy of the image exists. Ownership is
generally the single biggest hurdle that celebrities encounter when they claim
copyright over photography. If adaptations of selected works are original, they
fall under copyright law, at least for some famous authors. Indian intellectual
property law has provided for protection for the past 45 years for sketches,
drawings, and artistic works in general. Section 14 grants copyright owners the
exclusive right to authorize the reproduction of a work in any manner,
including converting a two-dimensional work into a three-dimensional one and
vice versa. The Indian courts have extended this protection to cover fictional
characters classified as artistic works. For example, in Raja Pocket Books v.
Radha Pocket Books[8], the
copyright protection of a character called Nagraj, a snake king from a
children's comic book, was upheld. On the flip side, in India copyright law
does not protect a name or photograph of any celebrity.
Passing off action
Passing off actions are not only
applied to many facets of personality merchandising, where a person's name,
likeness, or performance traits are being used without obtaining a proper
authorization, but also involve a passing off claim, protecting the goodwill or
reputation of one person against injury caused by the misrepresentation of
another. Generally, passing off actions will prevent the illegal utilization of
goodwill or reputation by celebrities. Also, it may mislead consumers and
suggest that a celebrity has approved some products. It can also be about
unauthorized use of the persona of a celebrity and, in this case, could attract
liability. Celebrities often have the sole right to commercially exploit their
personae. Personality rights thus have a scope in India for only those
characters or individuals whose public recognition becomes independent.
In Mirage Studios v. Counter Feat,
although popularly referred to as the Ninja Turtle case[9],
the court referenced Australian cases such as Children's Television Workshop v.
Woolworths Ltd[10]and Fido
Dido Inc. v. Venture Store[11]on
the fact that passing off applies where the public is led to be misled
regarding the nature or quality of goods sold. In this case, Ninja Turtle, the
first applicant owned the copyright for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle characters
and licensed their reproduction display on merchandise. The first defendant
sold human turtle figurines bearing resemblance to those characters but altered
the drawings using the turtle concept. Thus, the verdict was entered against
the defendant in favor of the applicant. Thus, in Hogan v. Koala Dundee[12],
the action was filed by the protagonist, creator, and owner of Crocodile Dundee
against two tourist shops merchandising Australian-themed clothing and accessories.
The complainant alleged that the defendant used the name "Dundee" and
images of a koala dressed in clothing similar to that of the hero in the
complainant's film, which wore a sleeveless shirt, hat, and knife. In this
case, the court acquitted the accused on the grounds that a claim of
misrepresentation or illegal appropriation of imagery ordinarily associated
with the complainant was not any good. The same reasoning followed in Hogan v.
Pacific Dunlop[13], a case
in which the applicant took exception to a shoe advertisement using the film
Crocodile Dundee as a reference. The court held that, in order for a false
representation to succeed, it had to establish the existence of a commercial
relationship between the applicant and the goods or services of the defendant,
this did not exist here. In Henderson v. Radio Corporation Pvt Ltd[14],
the plaintiffs, who are ballroom dancers of professional standing, objected to
the defendants' use of their photograph on the cover for a release entitled
"Strictly for Dance" under an allegation of infringement. The court,
however, held that that the plaintiffs' reputation and professional standing
did not support the claim.
There are also policies to ensure
breaches of data protection falling within the "Advertising damage"
category, which includes defamation, copyright or trademark infringements, and
unauthorized use of a person's name, voice, or likeness. The insurance takes
care of infringements of privacy rights in advertising or personal injury cases[15].
UK law establishes beyond civil liability that it is an offence to hire or sell
a recording, known to have been made without adequate consent, to import it for
trade use or to possess it with a view to dealing unlawfully with it. Equally
criminal is the act of public performance or playing of a recording by the
artist where he or she knows or has reason to believe that the rights over the
recording have been infringed[16].
5.
MORAL/PERSONALITY RIGHTS
In defining a person, there must be
an interplay of personality in forming the identity, with any predictable
behavior being an extension just within a trim fold of society. The effects
that each individual’s personality has upon society extend profoundly according
to their own personal strengths. These very constitutional rights of
personality are buttressed by Hegelian property, personality attributes extend
into an appurtenance of the personality. In the same vein, personality
attributes extend into the appurtenance of social effects[17].
The Tolley v. Fry[18]
case dealt with the question of whether the association of a popular golfer's
image with the advertisement of Cadbury chocolates was legitimate. The
plaintiff claimed that their use of his image implied consent on his part to
allow his likeness to be used to advertise Cadbury for payment, thus injuring
his status as an excellent golfer for promotional purposes. The court found
that the defendant's actions were likely to cause defamation and injury. From
then on, a paradigm shifts on the issue occurred, and celebrities are setting
claim on seemingly contradicting rights- the right to privacy and the right to
publicity.
6.
PRIVACY RIGHTS
The fame of Warren and Brandeis with
the privacy doctrine has been a great factor in giving shape to the rights of
celebrities. They stood for the idea that the essence of personal freedom is
the right of all individuals to be left alone[19].
There is much curiosity about celebrities and any minor detail of life with
them; this yearning for truth is often a detrimental exposure that inserts an
intense state of insecurity.
In Cohen v. Herbal Concepts Inc[20],
a picture of plaintiff Cohen and her baby on the label of a cosmetic product
was made without any permission or consent. The defendant argued that the
plaintiff's face was not identifiable from the photo. However, the court
favored the plaintiff and awarded damages, holding that Cohen's right to data
protection was violated. In the latter case, Barber v. Time Inc[21],
a photographer took a picture of Mrs. Dorothy Barber while she was giving birth
without getting her consent, forcibly entering her hospital room
notwithstanding her protests. Ms. Barber sued Time Inc. for invading her
privacy and won her case, with the court awarding her damages. Thus, the court
ruled that the media could report facts peculiar to the private lives of
individuals but could be held liable for reporting such facts as they infringe
upon the right of privacy. The press may report whatever they wish to report,
though they can still be sued for the breach of someone's privacy rights even
if that report did not constitute defamation. Such instances allow celebrities
to institute legal proceedings against violations of privacy or breaches of
data. The public character of celebrities leads people to imagine them as their
personal friends and consequently to engage in their entire lives with
excessive curiosity-from major personal issues right down to trivial details
like clothing or cosmetics. There is no natural transaction of information
during this exchange between celebrities and the public, for celebrities do not
know their audience personally. This is the reason why celebrities do their
best in keeping their private data safe because spilling the beans brings about
confusion, embarrassment, and even insecurity. Recently, a variety of MMS
scandals concerning different celebrities have flooded the media. A few cases
that are worth mentioning are as follows: A bathroom video of tennis player
Sania Mirza, a hot video of Bollywood diva Kareena Kapoor Khan with her former
boyfriend; as well as Kabir Singh actor Shahid Kapoor[22].
Watching these videos was a very interesting experience for the common man, but
the effect on the people in the video was highly humiliating and
psychologically challenging because they had to feel uncertain in their very
own private spaces. There was a case petitioned in the Indian Supreme Court
concerning the constitutional validity of Section 499 of the IPC, disapproving
the Kareena-Shaheed photo incident. It emphasized a need to strike a balance
between the public interest and defamation, ensuring that freedom of expression
through the media is not exceeded[23].
Prosser says that even such press
reports can violate confidentiality because they isolate or expose private,
shameful details that could offend sensitive individuals. In these cases,
defamation rather than intellectual property protections would probably be the
best source of redress regarding the violations. Violations of the private
lives of celebrities are among the most sacred human rights violations.
In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
v. Union of India[24],
the court ruled, "Every individual should have the right to control his
own life as to how he is to be presented to the outside world, including the
commercial use of their identity." This ruling also means that people
should not be able to prevent others from exploiting their image, name, and
other personal aspects for commercial purposes without their consent. Beyond
economic reasons for this right, it is also a matter of maintaining individual
autonomy and personal dignity by preserving an individual's definition of
themselves without external interference. The right of publicity protects one's
self-definition from being manipulated in such a manner that would allow others
to create their views and values associated with a person.
7.
PUBLICITY/MERCHANDISING RIGHTS
The right of publicity is one thing:
a trademark, copyright, or law of data protection is quite different from it,
but also appears to be similar in many ways[25] .
This is the inalienable right of any person to regulate the use of his identity
in commercial terms[26].
It is public rights or merchandise rights that enable persons to have the
economic benefit of the name and fame. This requires, however, proof of the
fact that fame has commercial value. There is also a similarly found definition
of an unfair commercial practice, intellectual property theft, or fraud, in
that someone uses a star's fame in order to sell something.
In Midler v. Ford Motor Co. &
Others[27],
an ad agency sought to use one of Bette Midler's songs for a commercial of Ford
cars. However, while the agency had secured licensing for the song itself, Ms.
Midler declined to allow use of her rendition. The agency then approached Ula
Hedwig, who used to be a backup singer with Midler, to record the same song
with instructions to imitate Midler as closely as possible. Ms. Midler then
sued once the commercials aired. However, while Defendants argued that they
didn't really make use of Bette Midler's name, voice, or likeness but used Ula
Hedwig's voice, thus complying with the provisions of the Civil Code, the court
also ruled out any claims that the Civil Code had displaced the common law on
the privacy and publicity rights. The court found that the advertisement in
question by the defendants had purposedly intended to tie it up with an element
of Midler's identity which is protected by the right to publicity. Such right
entitles a performer or public figure to exclusive control of commercial use of
his name or likeness or even other personal attributes. Though it is still
evolving, especially in countries like India, it is a different kind of public
or private rights from those existing to cover personality distortion. With
recording technology and digital manipulation having developed into very
effective tools that make it possible for unauthorized exploitation of
celebrity images, there also loom such issues as unauthorized use and
defamation.
Publicity, for example, can be
expounded in terms of Locke's Labor Theory, which asserts that a person holds
the rights to all that he produces with all his hard work, time, and talent. In
the same way, the reputation and fame of a celebrity would be the product of so
much hard work, and thus no one else should enjoy deriving profit from it.
Hence, such cases as that of Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg Co.[28]
and cases like the unapproved use of 50 cent pictures in ad mentions proves
this. Internationally, there are differences in jurisprudential approaches of
courts on the issue, but this right to publicity is still considered to be
underdeveloped in most jurisdictions. According to Nimmer and William Prosser,
great legal scholars, the rights concern is subdivided into four categories
intruding upon seclusion or another person, public disclosure of private and
embarrassing facts, false light publicity, and appropriation of one's name for
another's benefit.
8.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CELEBRITY RIGHTS
Arguments in favor of publicity
rights are myriad; for example, the most direct is usually termed the
"natural rights of property justification," which argues for the
right as something based on the claim that one's identity, property in itself,
must be controlled solely by that one[29].
Rights to protect celebrities derive from twofold justifications-the moral and
the economic. One such moral justification bases itself on John Locke's labor
theory, which contends that a celebrity deserves acquiring benefits from his or
her fame since labor had put so much into the production of a valuable persona,
and without the celebrity rights protection, individuals will never have an
incentive to develop such highly valuable identities, hence the eventual loss
to society[30]. One
form of moral justification was based on the reality of unjust enrichment,
being that companies should not derive profits from the likeness of a celebrity
unless that celebrity is compensated. The last moral justification that
concerns privacy laws states that a celebrity has the right to associate freely
with brands and products of their choice for all associations against their
will, as these could be harmful to their reputation, dignity, and economic
value.
The right of publicity has at least
two major economic justifications. The first one, which is the classical in
copyright theory, is the incentives argument: a celebrity will not be
stimulated to create a valuable persona if he or she cannot reap the benefits
of using his or her identity, fame, or likeness. Whereas the second of the
economic justifications is more in tune with the Lanham Act, this one deals
with consumer protection. It holds that if a celebrity is prevented from
exercising control over his or her image, other persons may use it to confuse
the public into believing that a celebrity is endorsing products or services that
he or she actually has no knowledge, association, or connection with. The
argument is intended to address consumer confusion under section 43a of the
Lanham Act.
The images that celebrities base
their survival on are reputations and goodwill, and as such, their protection
becomes vital; however, with the advancement of fame, there comes media
intrusion into their lives, which is generated by that bi-directional
intruder-the media. The extreme interest exhibited by the public in the lives
of celebrities leads to an imbalance-from the celebrities' end of the concern
to manage the personal information that can be embarrassing or can be subjected
to public exploitation.
The greatest scandal that MMS
(Multimedia Service) has produced of late could be genuine as a leak or mainly
fake intended to exploit a celebrity through monetary gain. While often
creating a significant public sensation, such MMS scandals are a boil for
exploitative opens and defamations. The Supreme Court recently posed the
controversy on the MMS scandal of Shahid Kapoor and Kareena Kapoor while
examining the constitutional viability of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court reckoned that the Kareena-Shahid picture was under inappropriate use
and underscored the need to cloak a public interest-at-defamation exercise with
assurance that the term of expression for newspapers is not able to be extended
beyond limits[31].
Though publicity is covered under
that broad interpretation recognized as Article 21, however, the right is not
absolute; reasonable restrictions may be imposed in public interest under
Article 19(5). The Constitution has a provision to protect the rights of the
Indian people under Article 19. 'Freedom of speech and expression' in Article
19(1)(a) also endows its citizens with the right to gather and disseminate
information[32]. The
Supreme Court has interpreted Article 19(1)(a) in broad terms to state that a
component of this freedom is the non-interference right to receive and share
information and ideas[33].
Celebrities have consistently
challenged the media, claiming that the press misuses this freedom under the
guise of reporting in the public interest[34].
Some even argue that having spent almost their entire life in public,
celebrities have forfeited their right to privacy. This waiving, however, is
not absolute, and some areas of the lives of celebrities which fall under the
personal and certain professional aspects can be retained private.
Indeed, the right to privacy is an
inestimable right by which every individual is entitled to safeguard some of
their personal information and not allow the media to refer to or exploit it in
the name of public interest. The issue of privacy rights keeps transforming
under circumstances, such as the developments owing to the Aadhaar Card issue, raising
the larger issue of whether privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution. Though the Supreme Court had earlier held that privacy
is not a fundamental right, this matter is likely to be settled by a nine-judge
bench, of which a smaller bench shall view the case on Aadhaar[35].
This active debate emphasizes the need for safeguarding celebrities' privacy
rights because the present statutory provisions in India concerning the
safeguard of celebrity publicity rights remain ambiguous and incomplete.
9.
CONCLUSION
It has become increasingly important
to protect the rights of celebrities in today's digitalized world, given the
rampant trespass by the media, unlawful exploitation, and misuse of their
persona. Privacy and publicity rights of celebrities do not only protect their
dignity in the private aspect but also secure the commercial values of one's
identity. Various legal doctrines, including John Locke's labor theory and
economic justifications, support the notion that celebrities should control the
use of their image, likeness, and name. There has been progress in protecting
those rights through intellectual property, privacy, and data protection laws;
however, challenges remain, especially in growing countries such as India, where
there are really developing frameworks.
As the Supreme Court of India
contemplates more issues relating to the right to privacy, like the Aadhaar
case, it is self-evident that there is a need for clearer legal protection for
celebrity rights. The healthy interplay of free speech and the protection of
the private life of individuals is certainly required by the ever-increasing
debates on the way the media shapes public perception and goes on to exploit
these individuals under the so-called public interest. All these considerations
reaffirm the need to constantly fine-tune the legal provisions to cater well to
the complexities of celebrity rights in today's societal setup.
[1] Author is a masters student in
intellectual property law at Christ University, Bengaluru
[2] B. Banerjee, Celebrity rights: A
legal overview, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/1139-Celebrity
Rights.html
[3] Black Hilary May, The role of
Trademark law in the protection of celebrity personality, Media & Arts Law
Review, 7(2) (2002) 105, 106.
[4] Titus Advocates 2008, Indian
guide: Character merchandising in India, https://www.asialaw.com/
[5] Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo
Burnett India (Pvt.) Ltd., (2003) 2 B C R 655
[6] Sim v. Heinz & Co. Ltd., 1
WLR 313 1995
[7] M Prather, Celebrity copyright
law, http://www.ehow.conabout_6461739_celebrity-copyright-law.html
[8] Raja Pocket Books v. Radha
Pocket Books, 1997(40) DJR 791.
[9] Mirage Studios v. Counter Feat
Clothing Co. Ltd., (1991) FSR 145
[10] Children's Television Workshop
v. Woolworths (NSW) Ltd.,(1981) RPC 187
[11] Fido Dido Inc v. Venture Stores
(Retailers) Pty Ltd., (1988)16 IPR 365
[12] Hogan v. Koala Dundee, (1988)12
IPR 508
[13] Hogan v. Pacific Dunlop, (1989)
12 IPR 225.
[14] Henderson v. Radio Corporation
Pvt. Ltd., 1969 RPC 218
[15] R.S. Gibson, California and
International celebrity and employee invasion of privacy,
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7567
[16] Hart, Linda Fazzani& Clark,
Palgrave Law Masters: Intellectual Property Law, 4th edn, Palgrave MacMillan,
Hampshire England, 2006
[17] A. Datta, Celebrity rights: A
legal overview, http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article31.html
[18] Tolley v Fry, (1931) 1 All ER
Rep 131
[19] Louis Brandeis & Warren
Samuel, The right to privacy, Havard Law Review, 4(5) (1890),
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacybrandwarr2.html
[20] Cohen v. Herbal Concepts Inc
(1984) 63 Ny.2d 379
[21] Barber v Times Inc, 348 Mo. 1199
(Mo. 1942).
[22] Sex, lies and MMS: Bollywood talking,
http://www.digihelp.com/pub/indian-mms-scandals.asp.
[23] Kareena-Shahid photos not in
good taste: SC, http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041218/nation.htm#3
[24] (Civil) No 494 Of 2012
[25] Mccarthy J Thomas, The Spring
1995 Horace S Manges Lecture: The Human Persona as Commercial Property: The
Right of Publicity, Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts, 19 (1995) 131.
[26] Keller Bruce, Condemned to
repeat the past: The reemergence of misappropriation and other common law
theories of protection for intellectual property, Harvard Journal of Law &
Technology, 11 (2) (1998) 401.
[27] Midler v. Ford Motor Co &
others, (1988) 849 F.2d 460(9th Cir).
[28] Edison v Edison PolyformMfg Co,
(2005) 5 SCC (J) 5
[29] J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights
of Publicity and Privacy (2d ed. 2014).
[30] Anurag Pareek and Arka Majumdar,
“Protection of celebrity rights- The problems and solutions” 11 JIPR 415-423
(2006)
[31] Shahid-Kareena photo not in good
taste SC, available at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041218/nation.htm#3
[32] M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 988 (5th ed. 2008)
[33] In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj
Narain., AIR 1975 SC 865, 884, the apex court held that Art 19(1)(a) not only
guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it also ensures and comprehends
the right of citizens to know, the right to receive information regarding
matters of public concern. Similar ratio was drawn in cases like Secretary,
Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association
of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236 and Association of Democratic Reforms v. Union of
India, AIR 2001 Del 126.
[34] Pareek & Majumdar,
Protection of Celebrity Rights, Anurag Pareek & Arka Majumdar, Protection
of Celebrity Rights- Problems and Solutions, 11 J. INTELLEC. PROP. RIGHTS, 418
(2006) [hereinafter Pareek & Majumdar, Protection of Celebrity Rights].,
[35] FE Online | New Delhi | Updated:
July 19, 2017 3:24 PM Aadhaar card case in Supreme Court: 5 important questions
the case will seek to answer
Article Information
THE EVOLVING LEGAL LANDSCAPE OF CELEBRITY RIGHTS: PRIVACY, PUBLICITY, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Authors: SNEHA ACHANKUNJU
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/10
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.