Digital Identity Ownership in India: Comparing Celebrity and Civilian Rights

Credits: The amicus qriea

INTRODUCTION

Personality rights reflect individual autonomy, specifically, the ability to control how one’s name, image, and identity are used commercially in an AI-driven 24-hour online world. While personality rights in India initially emerged due to trademark infringement, these protections have predominantly been granted to individuals with celebrity status. Personality rights are a person's ability to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, and other distinctive aspects of their identity.

In today's digital landscape, social media platforms have transformed ordinary citizens into content creators and influencers. This has led to an urgent reassessment of the traditional celebrity-centric approach for granting personality rights. A question that comes to mind is - Whether influencers or social media personalities come under the ambit of celebrities and should be granted personality rights or not?

Early Recognition Through Trademark Law and Watershed Moments

A pivotal development, occurred in the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003), where the Delhi High Court substantially addressed personality rights for the very first time, recognising the entities could have commercial rights in their persona. However, the first significant case concerning personality rights was of D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) where, the court held that the unauthorized use of Daler Mehndi's persona created a false impression of endorsement and invoked trademark law provisions.

The landscape transformed dramatically with the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). which unanimously recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right inherent in Article 21, significantly strengthening the constitutional foundation for personality rights protection. The Puttaswamy judgment was a watershed moment for privacy rights in India. By declaring privacy a fundamental right, the Supreme Court provided a robust constitutional basis for individuals to control their personal information and identity. This ruling has profound implications for personality rights, as it implicitly recognizes an individual's right to control the commercial exploitation of their name, image, likeness, and other distinctive aspects of their identity.

Celebrity-Focused Interpretations

The celebrity-centric trend of personality rights reinforces the idea that public recognition is a necessary condition for legal protection. The precedent for celebrity personality rights was firmly established in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012). The case involved the unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan's images in jewellery advertisements. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that such use constituted both passing off and the violation of publicity rights, clarifying that celebrities have the exclusive right to commercialize their own identity.

This interpretation was further reiterated in the case of Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (2015), where actor Rajinikanth protected his personality rights against an unauthorized biopic. Notably, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in this case, explicitly stated that personality rights are primarily granted to celebrities, emphasizing that “when the identity of a famous personality is used in advertising without their permission, the complaint is not that no one should commercialize their identity but that the right to control when, where and how their identity is used should vest with the famous personality.”

Furthermore, a case to ponder in this context is Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi (2021), concerning the rights of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput's father to control his son’s biopic and publicity rights posthumously. The Delhi High Court, while recognizing personality rights, emphasized that such rights must be balanced against freedom of expression. The court noted that personality rights cannot be absolute and must be considered in the context of public interest and free speech.

The emergence of celebrities as the sole beneficiaries of personality rights in the country reflects a complex interplay between the constitutional protections and commercial interests of each and every individual. However, the practical application of personality rights predominantly favours those with established public personas, as seen in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life where the court ruled in favour of the Actor, prohibiting the unauthorised use of his voice, image and other attributes.

Broadening Interpretations Beyond Traditional Celebrities

A significant expansion occurred in Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions (2011), where the Delhi High Court acknowledged that personality rights extend to political figures and public personalities.

In the case of Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors. (2022), the Delhi High Court extended personality rights protection to a renowned cardiac surgeon in the context of social media impersonation. Interestingly, the court deemed Dr. Shetty a “celebrity” to grant him personality rights, highlighting the continued reliance on celebrity status as an essential for granting protection to individuals, which seem unfair to an extent.

The Courts have repeatedly struggled to establish a consistent definition of “celebrity” for granting personality rights, resulting in arbitrary designations to extend protection. Despite constitutional foundations suggesting universal application, courts have maintained a distinction between celebrities and ordinary citizens, requiring “celebrity status” as a prerequisite for protection.

The continued reliance on celebrity designation raises fundamental questions: Why should personality rights protection depend on celebrity status when the constitutional right to privacy applies universally? Shouldn’t all citizens have equal control over the commercial exploitation of their identity in the up-and-coming digital age, where individuals' entire lives are digitalised and put on social media ever since they take their first breath?

However, the inadequacy of protection under existing laws becomes evident in several aspects of law. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, while offering some protection under Section 14, still fails to comprehensively address the nuanced aspects of personality rights in all its glory. Similarly, the Copyright Act of 1957, also falls short as it primarily protects creative copyrighted works and not personal attributes of individuals. Further, interpretations by courts have favoured celebrities over citizens as there is a glaring lacunae of statutory provisions for personality rights.  

GLOBAL APPROACHES TO DIGITAL IDENTITY PROTECTION

A comparative analysis of international frameworks reveals diverse approaches to personality rights protection. In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) offers a notice-and-takedown mechanism that, while primarily designed for copyright protection, indirectly safeguards digital identity through expedited content removal procedures. The UK's approach balances intellectual property protection with privacy laws, particularly through the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and the Data Protection Act, which together create a robust framework for identity protection regardless of celebrity status.

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) presents perhaps the most comprehensive civilian-focused approach, offering “right to be forgotten”" provisions that effectively extend personality rights to all citizens. These global models can be viable alternatives to India's celebrity-centric approach.

PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

As we move forward, specific legislations that democratize the protection of individual rights are desperately needed. Such laws must acknowledge that regardless of a person's public standing, their identity has an intrinsic value that deserves protection in the modern digital world, no matter their status in the society.

Key Elements of Comprehensive Legislation

1. Universal Application: Rights should extend equally to all citizens, eliminating the current arbitrary distinction between celebrities and ordinary citizens. Protection should be based on unauthorized commercial use, ensuring constitutional equality

2. Tiered Remedial Framework: A streamlined dispute resolution mechanism should include platform-based notice-and-takedown provisions (similar to DMCA), administrative tribunals for expedited resolution, and judicial remedies for complex cases. This multi-tier approach ensures accessible remedies and prevents court overcrowding.

3. Balanced Enforcement: The legislation must prevent misuse through penalties for false claims, incorporate fair use exceptions (e.g., for news reporting, commentary, education), and provide proportionate remedies based on severity and intent. This ensures robust protection coexists with free expression rights.

4. Digital Implementation: Mandate technological solutions for identity verification and automated enforcement, including AI-based detection systems for unauthorized use of personal attributes, standardized APIs for takedown requests, and digital identity verification systems. This will make enforcement scalable and efficient.

Such legislation would offer democratized protection, reduce litigation costs, and align with constitutional values. While challenges exist in enforcement, balancing free expression, and preventing abuse, the societal benefits of equal protection are substantial.

CONCLUSION

The protections and rights granted to celebrities and civilians differ significantly when it comes to personality rights and what it stands for, but this brings forth a bigger question - Why are they treated differently? This isn’t an ethical and philosophical question but a question that is of legal importance. Even while the original celebrity-centric approach to court interpretation has increasingly changed, the lack of comprehensive legislations in this regard results in an unfair system of protection resulting in scenarios where civilians have to fight for their rights. Despite being forward-thinking in their interpretation of Article 21 and acknowledging privacy as a basic fundamental right, the courts have unintentionally maintained a system where the stringent protection of individual rights requires celebrity status, as seen in the analysis above.

Details of the authors

Author 1- Ananya Tiwari, Fourth Year law student at Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat Author 2- Ankit Kumar, Fifth Year law student at Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat

Edited by- Ojasi Gopikrishna