The conflict over celebrity rights is becoming more challenging

 The conflict over celebrity rights is becoming more challenging

Anil Kapoor introduced "Jhakaas," a linguistic jewel that became the center of Indian popular culture, to Bollywood in the middle of the 1980s. This common Marathi exclamation, which means "fantastic," became his trademark and a vivid representation of his on-screen demeanor. This phrase became popular and spread quickly before modern media. "Jhakaas" has been ingrained in the cultural vernacular for about 40 years and is present in commerce, events, and television programs.

But current circumstances have brought Kapoor to the forefront of the legal world. An interim judgment from the Delhi High Court prohibits organizations from using Kapoor's name, voice, and other characteristics, including his famous performance of "Jhakaas," for commercial advantage without his agreement. The court had imposed limitations on the use of Amitabh Bachchan's name, distinctive style, and voice in a case that was identical to this one.

Legal disputes over celebrity ownership show how fame, image, and brand protection are altering in the digital era. While using trademarks for commercial purposes has always been prohibited, there was previously a lenient attitude toward using famous people's language, gestures, and representations. In fact, having one's image appear on a butter brand hoarding was seen as an honorable hall of fame entrance that was on par with making news headlines. Celebrity photographs have been shown in salons all throughout the country for years, and movie dialogue has been immortalized on souvenirs without causing any problem. Lookalikes and mimics prospered.

These actions may have served as a way for celebrities to continue to be remembered by the public before social media. Both the celebrity and the person who used their picture were satisfied with the agreement.

Nowadays, celebrity is measured in monetary terms rather than in terms of recognition. Monetization and following go hand in hand. Celebrities no longer stand by and do nothing while lesser companies profit from their pictures and catchphrases. Celebrities are more hyper-sensitive to the exploitation of their assets, which have the potential to be monetized, in a time when everything in life has transactional value, from wedding images to used clothing.

Being a celebrity depends not only on skill or success, but also on authenticity and the capacity to develop close relationships with viewers. Diverse celebrities, each striving for the attention of the audience and brand endorsements, have been introduced by influencers. In a highly competitive market, there is intense pressure to have a distinctive character, which increases the need to secure and safeguard what is genuinely yours.

Without their permission, some companies leverage the celebrity of celebrities to market their goods. This is hazardous and immoral. The instance of Kapoor demonstrates how this may go wrong. Such incidents have been seen by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). In 2021, a law school in Indore, India, ran a full-page advertising asking students to pick between Harvey Specter from Suits and Jagdishwar Mishra from the Bollywood film Jolly LLB 2. Another incidence included a Sundar Pichai impersonator in an advertisement for an ed-tech business. Remember how badminton champion P.V. Sindhu sued 20 businesses in 2021 for improperly capitalizing on her fame?

It might be difficult to define the boundary between authorized usage and copyright violation in the context of celebrity rights. According to ASCI, references in advertising that provide the offered product an unfair advantage shall not be made without the person, company, or institution concerned's consent. The law allows for the "fair use" of copyrighted content in some circumstances, such as for personal, academic, or research reasons. In general, using speech from movies in ads may not be acceptable, especially when the main objective is financial gain.

Determining copyright ownership sometimes involves famous people, producers, and scriptwriters in complex legal situations. After a literary or musical work is incorporated into a film, the producer of the film acquires the initial ownership of the copyright to such works, unless a contract specifies otherwise, the Mumbai high court declared in 2013.

Many modern celebrities take conscious steps to build their brands and exercise strict control over the goods they do and do not promote. Beyond the items they sell, personal brand curation includes the causes and ideas they support. In order to maintain continuity with their own personal brands, celebrities demand total control of their images, catchphrases, and distinctive delivery techniques.

The current legal disputes serve as a reminder of the necessity to strike a balance between defending the rights of celebrities and navigating the complex seas of popular culture and business interests. Not only celebrities are altering the limits of fame and ownership in this constantly changing landscape. In fact, the judges and attorneys who preside over courtrooms may have the authority to change the fundamental rules that govern the game of fame.