Photo: Lisa from Pexels / Pexels
Personality Rights: Why Stars Now Sue to Own Their Face
A few years ago, if a roadside stall sold a keychain with a film star's face on it, nobody reached for a lawyer. That world is gone. In September 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered websites, e-commerce sellers and even AI chatbots to stop misusing Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's name and image, much of it generated by artificial intelligence. The case sits at the centre of a fast-growing field that every actor's legal team now watches closely: personality rights.
This is no longer a niche concern for a handful of superstars. Over the past three years, some of the biggest names in Indian cinema have walked into court to claim ownership over the one asset money can't buy back once it leaks — their own identity. Here is how that right works, why the filings have exploded, and where the limits sit for the rest of us.
The case that turned a catchphrase into property
The modern wave really started with Amitabh Bachchan in 2022, when the Delhi High Court restrained the unauthorised use of his name, voice and image, including the familiar cadence he carries into Kaun Banega Crorepati. It was a signal that a star's persona could be fenced off like any other piece of valuable property.
Then came the case that made the idea concrete for ordinary readers. In 2023, Anil Kapoor secured a sweeping order protecting not just his name and face but his voice and even the word "Jhakaas" — the catchphrase he has owned in the public mind for decades. The court accepted that morphed images, fake ringtones, GIFs and AI-generated clips were eating into something he had built over a career.
Jackie Shroff followed in May 2024. The Delhi High Court protected his name, his sobriquets "Jaggu Dada" and "Bhidu", and his distinctive voice and mannerisms. The judges noted that misuse doesn't just violate a right; it dilutes brand equity an actor has spent a lifetime constructing.
What personality rights actually cover
Strip away the legalese and the protected zone is intuitive. It is the set of things that make a fan instantly think of one specific person. Courts in these cases have shielded:
- Name and nicknames — including stage names and sobriquets the public uses
- Face and likeness — photographs, look-alikes, morphed or AI-generated images
- Voice — including synthetic clones that imitate a singer or actor
- Catchphrases and signature style — a trademark word, gesture or mannerism
- Overall persona — the combined effect that identifies the celebrity
The key word running through every order is commercial. The right targets people trying to make money or mislead the public by riding on a famous identity. It is not designed to police private jokes, honest journalism or genuine fan affection.
There is also a close cousin worth knowing: publicity rights, the economic side of the same coin — the star's exclusive right to cash in on their own fame through endorsements and merchandise. Courts in India tend to treat the two together.
The law India never quite wrote down
Here is the surprising part. India has no dedicated statute for personality rights. There is no single Act a judge can point to. So how do stars keep winning?
The courts stitch the right together from three threads. The first is the right to privacy, recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court's landmark 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which expressly mentioned that a person's identity has a protectable dimension. The second is trademark law — many stars now register their names and catchphrases as marks, which is exactly why Jackie Shroff could lean on a registered "BHIDU" mark. The third is the old common-law tort of passing off, which stops someone from falsely suggesting a celebrity endorses their product.
Because it is judge-made rather than codified, the right is still being shaped order by order. That gives courts flexibility, but it also means the boundaries shift from one bench to the next, and a clear national law remains a work in progress.
Why AI made this suddenly urgent
For years these disputes trickled in. Then generative AI collapsed the cost of faking a human being, and the trickle became a flood. The Aishwarya Rai order was blunt about it: her image was being exploited through AI tools, with morphed and even pornographic deepfakes circulating to draw clicks and sell products.
The most far-reaching shift came in the audio world. In 2024, the Bombay High Court protected singer Arijit Singh against AI platforms that let users generate songs in his cloned voice without consent — among the first Indian orders to confront synthetic voice head-on. For a playback singer, the voice is the career, and a convincing clone is theft of the literal instrument.
To deal with a swarm of anonymous offenders, courts hand down what India calls Ashok Kumar orders — the local version of John Doe injunctions, aimed at unknown defendants. Judges then direct the Ministry of Electronics and IT and the Department of Telecommunications to get infringing links blocked, often within 72 hours. It lets a star swing at a moving target of throwaway websites and AI tools instead of chasing each one by name.
What this means for fans, creators and meme-makers
If you make reels, fan edits, reaction videos or memes, none of this is aimed at you — provided you stay on the right side of one question: am I using this star's identity to sell something or to deceive?
A few practical lines that hold up well:
- Memes, parody and fan art for non-commercial fun are generally safe.
- Reviews, news and commentary are protected speech, even when unflattering.
- Selling merchandise with a star's face — T-shirts, mugs, posters — without a licence is the classic violation.
- AI deepfakes and voice clones used in ads, scams or adult content are the fastest route to a takedown and a lawsuit.
- Fake endorsements — implying a celebrity backs your clinic, app or coaching class — invite a passing-off claim.
For small creators and brands, the cheapest insurance is consent. If a campaign leans on a recognisable face or voice, licence it. The era when a star's image was treated as free public material is firmly over.
Where the courts may draw the line next
The open questions are getting harder. How long should personality rights last after a star dies, and who controls a late legend's likeness when AI can resurrect them for a new film or ad? Indian courts have only begun to test this, and families of older stars are starting to assert claims.
There is also a free-speech tension nobody has fully resolved. Pull the protection too tight and you risk muzzling satire, political cartoons and legitimate criticism that happen to use a famous face. The better orders try to carve out parody and news, but the balance is delicate.
What is clear is the direction of travel. As long as anyone with a laptop can fabricate a celebrity in seconds, expect more filings, faster takedown orders, and growing pressure on Parliament to finally write the rules down. For India's stars, defending the face on the poster has quietly become as important as filling the seats below it.
