.png){kind=logo}
The Limits of Posthumous Celebrity and Personality Rights: Analysing the Sushant Singh Rajput Case
- thelawpinion
- Oct 7, 2023
- 5 min read
ABSTRACT
The text discusses the publication of information and the protection of rights. It highlights that the right to publish or distribute information is guaranteed by the Constitution of India, as long as it was previously available to the public and does not infringe Article 19(2). The text also mentions the prohibition of interim injunctions against the publication of allegedly offensive films and the recognition of publicity rights. Furthermore, it discusses the non-heritability of rights and the release of a movie on a platform.
Introduction
Publicity rights, also known as celebrity rights, refer to an individual's right to control the commercial use of their image or likeness. These rights aim to protect a person's image and prevent unauthorized or intrusive uses of it.[i]
“A right to personality is the exclusive intellectual property right of each person to use his or her own name, or any other distinguishing characteristics which would identify a specific person. Just as the freedom of the press is necessary for the dissemination of information about matters of public interest, it is equally in the public interest to see that not merely the reputation of an individual but his private affairs, which are unrelated to public affairs, should be protected from unwanted publicity in the press.” Publicity rights encompass advertising and merchandising and may extend to an individual's estate after death. Consent is required for using a person's image for commercial purposes. The notable cases in this domain include R Rajagopal v State of TN[ii], which recognized the violation of personality rights when a person's likeness is used without consent. Additionally, Tata Sons Ltd v Aniket Singh[iii] highlights the importance of protecting the commercial value of a well-known personal name. While it is quite obvious that these rights are a given to people alive, this article aims to reflect if such personality rights exist posthumously for which the recent case of Sushant Singh Rajput’s (hereinafter referred to as SSR) case, Krishna Kishore Singh Vs. Sarla Saraogi is analysed along the same lines.
Analysis
The plaintiff, Mr Krishna Kishore Singh, father of Sushant Singh Rajput filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and all others from using SSR’s name, caricature or lifestyle in any projects or films without the prior permission of the plaintiff, alleging that any such effort would infringe the personality rights of SSR and also cause deception in the minds of the public. The challenge mainly arose due to one very pertinent issue with respect to privacy of the body.
The court after reading Khushwant Singh and Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi[iv], Icc Development vs Arvee Enterprises[v] And Anr, Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair[vi],Phoolan Devi vs Shekhar Kapoor[vii],Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellelrs[viii] which are vital judgements of this area summed up that if a person's name or likeness is used without their consent, it constitutes a violation of their right to privacy.
Source: http://surl.li/lwvpm
Provided the person in question is a public official or public figure, their right to privacy is not violated. Action for damages can only be taken if the publication is made with reckless disregard for the truth. The burden of proof lies with the person publishing the information, who must reasonably verify the facts. If the information is derived from public records or previously published material, no violation occurs. The fact that the information is not strictly public documents does not matter; what matters is that it is available to the general public. The plaintiff retains the right to seek damages in such situations. The right to publish or distribute information, including in the form of a film, is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The publisher is not required to obtain consent or prove the truthfulness of the information, as long as it was previously available to the public and does not infringe Article 19(2). The claims made in the lawsuit solely pertain to the late actor SSR, and the rights being sought to be protected, such as privacy, publicity, and personality rights, were personal to SSR and did not pass on to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the information presented in the film is derived from publicly available sources and was not challenged or questioned when it was initially published. Even if the film were to infringe SSR's publicity rights or defame him, such rights are personal and cannot be inherited by the plaintiff. On the basis of the well-known Puttaswamy[ix] judgement, it was also contended that the right to privacy being the other side of the coin as right to publicity, ceases to exist with the death of a man which makes the plaintiff only entitled to damages at the most. In reference to the famous ‘Thalaivi’ case, the court rightly observed that one’s reputation and goodwill is private to the person only and is not of a transferable or heritable nature, “After the death of a person, the reputation earned cannot be inherited like a movable or immovable property by his or her legal heirs. Such personality right, reputation or privacy enjoyed by a person during his life time comes to an end after his or her life time. Therefore, we are of the opinion that “posthumous right” is not an “alienable right.”[x]
In the case before us, the scenario is similar and hence Justice Harishankar adjudged, “The rights ventilated in the plaint – i.e., the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in SSR, are not heritable. They died with the death of SSR. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff.” In such a case, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff would be to seek damages rather than seeking an injunction to stop the film's distribution.
Conclusion
From an ethical, moral, and logical standpoint, even though the law recognizes a deceased person as no longer legally capable of having personality or celebrity rights, the public's perception can still be influenced when they watch a movie or content that closely resembles the deceased individual, especially when these facts are readily available in the public domain. This association can potentially damage the deceased person's reputation in the eyes of the public. While the reputation of a deceased individual may hold little to no practical value since they are no longer alive, the fact remains that the person was once highly regarded and admired by the public. Therefore, it is incumbent upon society to show respect for the privacy and image of such an individual. In light of these considerations, it may have been more appropriate for the plaintiff to pursue a defamation claim as well, as this could have provided a more dignified and respectable legal remedy.
References [i] Halsbury's Laws Of India (Intellectual Property) [185.1962] Introduction [ii] R Rajagopal v State of TN 1995 AIR 264. [iii] Tata Sons Ltd v Aniket Singh. [iv] Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi AIR 2002 Delhi 58. [v] ICC Development (International) vs Arvee Enterprises2003 VIIAD Delhi 405. [vi] Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair 1986 AIR 411. [vii] Phoolan Devi vs Shekhar Kapoor & Ors. 57 (1995) DLT 154 [viii] Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellelrs 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del). [ix] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4161 [x] Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair 1986 AIR 411
*This article was authored by Aarzu Singh & Sanvi Mathur, Students from Symbiosis Law School, Noida and reviewed by Shreya Doneriya, Student from Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
Comments