Amicus curiae: Profiting from celebrity image alone insufficient for content takedown
Making money from a celebrity's image should not, on its own, be enough for courts to order platforms to takedown content, an amicus curiae told the Delhi High Court on October 7.
Simply profiting from a celebrity's image should not automatically justify court orders for online platforms to remove content, Gautam Bhatia, an amicus curiae appointed by the court, argued before the Delhi High Court on October 7. The argument was made in the context of a lawsuit filed by actor Janhvi Kapoor concerning personality rights.
Bhatia explained that while commercial exploitation combined with other factors, such as deception or false endorsement, could warrant injunctions, commercialization alone might not be sufficient. The court is hearing Kapoor's case alongside similar suits from actors Vivek Oberoi and Aaradhya Bachchan to define the scope of personality rights.
He proposed that celebrity commercial claims should be adjudicated through existing legal frameworks like "passing off" (preventing misleading the public about product origin), copyright, and trademark law. Other claims related to privacy, dignity, and autonomy should be assessed separately. Bhatia emphasized that personality rights are not a single, monolithic right but a collection of distinct interests with varying legal protections.
The arguments hold implications for content creators. Bhatia cited the example of a football fan who gained sudden fame from a photograph, highlighting how "celebrity status" has become a fluid category in the viral digital age. He suggested that all individuals should possess fundamental rights over their identity, with commercial claims arising only when an image has commercial value and the public has been misled.