Personality rights refers to right of persons related to their personality which are protected under the Right to privacy as it is considered to be the property of a person. It is most importantly used by celebrities and people use their names, photograph, voice etc to increase the growth and publicity of the business. In a Supreme Court Judgment on 2017 it was said that personality rights are derived from the common law principle of tort of “passing off” like in UK. Through this judgment rights were evaluated to the position of constitutional rights and it was said that every individual has a right to control their life and how they want to portray their image to the world, which also means an individual can permit or prevent their name from being used in public.[1]

Position in India

There is no legal statue that protects personality rights in India, but it comes under Article 21 of the Constitution and is also protected through various significant judgments. One of the most important judgments which protected personality rights was a 2003 Delhi High Court Judgment in the case of ICC Development (International) v. Arvee Enterprises, which held “The right of publicity has evolved from the right of privacy and can inhere only in an individual or in any indicia of an individual’s personality like his name, personality trait, signature, voice. etc. An individual may acquire the right of publicity by virtue of his association with an event, sport, movie, etc”.[2]

Personality rights include two aspects:

• Right of publicity

Right to publicity is a intellectual property right which grants protection against misappropriation of name, voice, picture for commercial benefits to the other person. Right to publicity is also known as celebrity rights. As the image of celebrities is of intrinsic values, it is important for celebrities to safeguard their image in front of the society in keep up their name. In the case of  Titan Industries Limited v. M/S Ramkumar Jewellers[3] the Delhi High Court observed that when the name or image of a famous personality is used without their permission, the issue is not that people should not use the name of that famous personality for commercial purposes, but the only issues which lays is that the name of that famous personality should be used with their permission as they have a right to control when and where their name should be used.

• Right to Privacy

Right to privacy which is inferred from right life and liberty under section 21[4]. All citizens have a right to safeguard the privacy of their own and their family. No one can publish any persons personal thing without the consent of that person. There are four rights which are protected under the right to privacy[5]:

1. Right to avoid public disclosure of private rights.
2. Right to intrude upon a person’s isolation and to prevent some sort of prying in person’s private affair
3. Avoid fake light and publicity
4. Curb misappropriation of the name and likeness of an individual

In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that it is important to strike  a balance between right of publication and right to privacy. Nothing can be published without the consent of the concerning individual unless in information is based on public records. 

Conclusion

Right to personality consists of two aspects which are right to publicity and right to privacy, which are commonly used for protection of celebrity’s name and image. Name of celebrities are often used for commercial purposes for the benefit of someone’s business, if any such use is without the consent of that person is considered to be illegal. Though personality rights are not included under any legal statute, it is now being recognised through various judgments.

Recommendations

1. A proper provision should be formed protecting personality rights and laws regarding personality rights should be made strict in order to prevent misuse of person’s identity by another
2. There is a fine line between privacy and publicity, there should be regulations which restrict media from invading privacy of celebrities.

By

Avantika Singh
3rd Year, BBA LLB (Hons.)
Symbiosis Law School, Pune

---

[1] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.

[2] ICC Development (International) v. Arvee Enterprise, 2003 (26) PTC 245.

[3] Titan Industries Limited v. M/S Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).

[4] The Constitution of India, 1950; Art. 21.

[5] T Vidya Kumari. Celebrity Rights as a form of Merchandise- Protection under the Intellectual Property Regime, 9 JIPR 120, 122 (2004).