One of the most interesting cases, Eastwood v. National Enquirer, Inc.[23]in which the National Enquirer ran a cover story dealing with Eastwood’s’ alleged love triangle, the actor filed a suit in which he claimed the story to be false and that the publishers had used his name and likeness without his consent. The Court observed that the story did not come within the ambit of press freedom but bordered on the realm of commercial exploitation.[24]With some subsequent decisions, it was settled that the celebrities should be in a position to claim compensation in case of their unlicensed portrayal under the ‘right of publicity’.
While there is No per se recognition of legislation concerning personality rights, the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court have been reasonably active in recognizing and enforcing this right. The Right of Publicity also stems from the Right of Privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution to prevent others from using a person’s name or likeness without his consent for commercial purposes. The current regulatory framework under current laws in India is insufficient to curb the blatant use of various aspects of commercial persona, image or likeness of a person.
[1] V K Ahuja, Law relating to intellectual property rights, (2nd ed. 2013).
[2] G.B.Reddy, Intellectual Property Rights and the Law, (9th ed. 2012).
[3] Paul Goldstein.(1993), Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines, Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellectual Property, Vol.3 at p. 173.
[4] Warren and Brandeis.(1890), The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review, Vol.4 at p. 193.
[5] Nimmer.(1954), The Right of Publicity, Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol.19 at p. 203.
[6] Hoffman.(1980), Limitations on the Right of Publicity, Bull. Copyright Society USA III, Vol.28 at p. 111.
[7] Supra note 5 at p. 204.
[8] Prosser.(1960), Privacy, California Law Review, Vol.48 at p. 383.
[9] 433 US 562 (1977).
[10] 376 US 255 (1964).
[11] 385 US 374 (1967).
[12] (2003) SCC OnLine Del 2.
[13] (2012) 12 SCC OnLine Del 2382.
[14] See Bela Lugosi v. Universal Pictures Cal., 603 P 2d 425 (1979) at p.172.
[15] 555 F. Supp. 1188 [S.D.N.Y] (1983), See also Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1971) 5 C.P.R (2d) 30.
[16] Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys Inc., 227 F 2d 619 (2000) at p.624.
[17] Supra note 9.
[18] Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, 202 F 2d 866 (1953) at p.217.
[19] Supra note 12.
[20] (1970) 1 SCC 248.
[21] (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[22] Id.
[23] 149 Cal. App. 3d 409 (1983).
[24] Id. at p.426.
great article!