When memes meet celebrity rights

Jurisprudence in personality rights originated in India with the case involving the convicted murderer Auto Shankar, wherein the court held that every individual has the right to control the commercial use of their identity. The court came to the conclusion by utilising the privacy right of the celebrity under the Indian Constitution. Later cases involving personality rights jurisprudence evolved along the lines of intellectual property rights. These cases have subsumed personality rights within the existing framework of intellectual property. Personality rights essentially involve an intersection of constitutional rights with intellectual property rights and remedies prescribed under criminal law.

For instance, in 2014, actor Rajinikanth filed a case against a movie titled Main hoon Rajinikanth for usurping his name without permission. Singer Daler Mehndi sought to protect his personality rights against miniature dolls that resembled and sang like him. These cases indicate a misreading of celebrity identity and commercial rights. Celebrities inherently possess a right over their personality, and any commercial use of this personality has to be owned by them. Furthermore, unauthorised use of this personality indicates potential monetary loss for the celebrity.

Since Generative AI content made inroads into social media platforms, cases around the violation of personality rights have increased exponentially. High courts in India have been grappling with multiple cases related to personality rights. Many of these cases were filed by movie stars and sports personalities regarding the usurpation of their name, image, voice, and likeness, specifically citing the economic harm caused to them.

Now, a pattern is emerging where celebrities claim infringement of personality rights when “derogatory” memes are made utilising their images. Recently, cases were filed by Acharya Balakrishna and Aniruddhacharya to protect their personality rights against such memes. It is pertinent to mention
that both these cases were heard ex parte (without hearing the other party). The argument raised in these cases suggests that satirising celebrities dilutes their personality rights.

This is extremely interesting, as personality rights, so far, have had applicability with reference to their economic rights in the creation. The rights, per se, do not extend to memes made about the personality. The courts have also failed to analyse how these memes affect the commercial rights or the personality rights of the celebrity.

Towards censorship?

Against this background, it becomes necessary to clarify the limits of personality rights and their application. Should personality rights extend to protect a celebrity against caricature, or should they be limited to contesting commercial exploitation? The former is a right that cannot be brought within the rubric of intellectual property by any imagination. Personality rights must be grounded in a statute, and their broad frameworks will have to be clearly defined to understand the limitations of jurisprudence. Otherwise, these rights run the risk of being extended beyond the intellectual property framework.

The courts in these instances have been swift to aid the celebrities by passing injunction orders to take down the allegedly infringing content from the social media platforms. The content typically involves parodic memes about celebrities or AI-generated material, which might have the effect of lampooning the celebrity. Intellectual property, in its present shape, extends to creative works and not necessarily to secure the person from reputational harm.

This trend is particularly disturbing because it uses a celebrity’s personality rights to curb freedom of speech and expression on the internet. This heavily compromises the fundamental rights of the internet users to exercise their speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. There cannot be any restriction beyond the inherent curbs that are present in the Constitution.

The orders passed by the courts also reduce the internet to an overtly censored space that restricts even the legitimate exercise of the users’ fundamental rights. The celebrity who enjoys the right over their personality cannot possibly have the selective right to approve what others speak about them, at least not within the realm of commercial rights.

When a defamation suit is filed in similar cases, the plaintiff is put through a rigorous process to prove that the content is defamatory in nature. The logic cannot be different for a meme targeted at a celebrity. Exceptions made along these lines conflict with a foundational position – intellectual property laws cannot be used to curb legitimate constitutional rights.

(The writer is an assistant professor at the KIIT Law School)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.