Indian Courts Scrutinize Monetization Proof in Personality Rights Cases

In a trend reflecting recent judicial decisions, Indian courts are adopting a cautious approach to personality rights claims that lack concrete evidence of commercial exploitation. While courts have moved swiftly to order the removal of offensive or sexually explicit content, they are increasingly demanding proof that alleged infringers have financially benefited from using an individual's name or likeness.

The Delhi High Court recently granted an interim injunction to actor Meenakshi Chaudhary, protecting her from sexually explicit content allegedly posted online without consent. However, claims related to the commercial exploitation of her image or name on other websites were left open. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasized the need for the claimant to demonstrate that money was made from her personality.

India does not have specific legislation governing personality rights, leading courts to decide each claim on its facts. Key considerations often include proof of monetization, the presence of sexually explicit content, impersonation, the line of satire, and the individual's public figure status. The courts have indicated that mere popularity or high view counts do not suffice as evidence of financial gain.

Courts have consistently acted against sexually offensive and deepfake content, including AI-generated material. In cases involving impersonation or accounts operating under a person's name, courts have intervened when the public could reasonably mistake the account for representing the individual. The protection afforded to satire and parody, however, remains distinct, with courts differentiating it from abusive or false content.