Delhi High Court protects Jackie Shroff’s rights, bars unauthorized use of his identity by e-commerce, AI, and social media entities.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Delhi High Court has issued a decisive ruling to protect the personality and publicity rights of renowned actor Jackie Shroff. The court’s order restrains various entities, including e-commerce stores, AI chatbots, and social media accounts, from misusing Shroff’s name, image, voice, and likeness without his explicit consent.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, noted the undisputed celebrity status of Jackie Shroff, stating-
“The details presented in Shroff’s lawsuit clearly confirm the actor’s status as a celebrity.”
This recognition, the court emphasized, inherently grants Shroff certain rights over his personality and associated attributes.
Jackie Shroff has made a significant impact in the entertainment industry, with appearances in over 220 films, numerous television shows, and web series. He has endorsed a wide array of products and services, and his image has been used extensively in advertisements. The court acknowledged Shroff’s registered trademark for the term “Bhidu,” which is closely associated with his public persona.
“The plaintiff (Shroff) utilizes his personality, name, voice, image, likeness, mannerisms, gestures, and other uniquely identifiable traits for commercial endorsements. These elements, which the plaintiff exclusively controls, constitute his ‘personality rights’ and ‘publicity rights.’ Unauthorized use of these characteristics for commercial purposes not only infringes upon these rights but also diminishes the brand equity that the plaintiff has meticulously built over the years.”
– the high court observed.
The court’s order came in response to a lawsuit filed by Shroff against several defendants, including e-commerce stores that were selling merchandise such as posters, mugs, and T-shirts using the actor’s image without authorization. Notices were issued to the defendant entities, restraining them from infringing Shroff’s personality rights until the next hearing scheduled for October 15.
The high court also took note of statements from certain entities claiming they had removed the infringing material. These entities were held accountable for their commitments, with the court noting that they are bound by their statements.
Additionally, the court reviewed a YouTube video by a content creator that compiled various interviews of Shroff, highlighting his responses. The video included a segment where Shroff’s face is prominently displayed with a photoshopped gold chain, sunglasses, and the caption “Thug Life.” The high court delved into the cultural context of the term “Thug Life,” explaining that it is commonly used in rap music, social media, and youth slang to denote a tough, resourceful persona.
“A simple internet search shows that the term ‘Thug Life’ is commonly used in rap music, social media, and youth slang to describe a tough, resourceful persona. It often appears in memes depicting individuals showing boldness or audacity, with a humorous or defiant undertone. The phrase highlights moments of cleverness or resistance, portraying the individual as admirable rather than negative. In fact, searching ‘thug life’ on YouTube yields various videos that indicate the term is generally intended as a compliment, not a derogatory term. With this understanding, the video in question could arguably be seen as a tribute to Mr. Shroff’s assertive demeanor.”
-the high court observed.
The court emphasized that the portrayal of Shroff in the video does not introduce any falsehoods; rather, it embellishes the existing public perception of him as a formidable and commendable figure.
“The video compiles publicly available interview clips that showcase Mr. Shroff’s forthrightness and wit. The creator’s additions—such as the ‘Thug Life’ caption and visual embellishments—aim to highlight Mr. Shroff’s charismatic and assertive persona, aligning with meme culture’s typical celebration of such traits.”
-the court noted.
The court further noted that YouTubers constitute a growing community and that the substantial viewership of their videos generates significant revenue for the creators. This highlights that such content is “not merely entertainment” but also an essential source of livelihood for a substantial segment, especially the youth.
Justice Narula highlighted the importance of artistic expression, stating-
“Limiting such creative expression could lead to significant consequences. More importantly, it could establish a precedent that suppresses freedom of expression, possibly discouraging the public from exercising their right to free speech out of concern for legal consequences.”
The high court opted to listen to the defendant content creator and signaled that it is hesitant to issue a “prima facie interim injunction” against the individual at this juncture.
CASE TITLE:
Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v The Peppy Store & Ors.