On Tuesday, it was reported that Aishwarya Rai Bachchan has moved Delhi High Court to seek protection of her publicity and personality rights. And now after Aishwarya, even Abhishek Bachchan has moved to court for the protection of the same. This petition calls for blocking of offending websites, taking down of unlawful content and also AI generated images. It also raises concern against commercial exploitation, fraudulent representations to put a full stop to further misuse and exploitation. This also aims at curbing circulation of obscene images which are manipulated through AI. But what are these personality rights exactly? Mint has quoted the advocate in the Supreme Court Of Inida, Nipun Saxena saying, “These rights bear out of the Copyright Act, where they claim that the actors have a proprietory right and ownership over their voice, image, body and face.”
Advocate Dhruv Anand, on behalf of Abhishek Bachchan has stated that one platform was even selling merchandise on his name, misleading users into believing that he had endorsed it. The plea also asks the court for the freedom to extend the order to “John Doe” defendants, unidentified individuals who might misuse his persona in the future. Such injunctions are commonly used in cases related to intellectual property and personality rights, as they help stop not only existing violators but also potential ones.During the hearing, Justice Tejas Karia directed Bachchan’s lawyer to respond to the court’s questions and scheduled the matter for 2:30 pm. The actor was represented by advocates Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, and Dhruv Anand.Meanwhile, Aishwarya Rai filed a similar plea against the website aishwaryaworld.com and other infringers. Her lawyer, senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, argued that the website was falsely claiming to be her “only authorised and official website.” He pointed out that it had published her personal details and unauthorised photographs, and was even selling merchandise like T-shirts priced up to ₹3,100 and mugs featuring her image. Calling the misuse “derogatory, defamatory, and a direct assault” on her dignity, Sethi urged the court to step in.
