INTRODUCTION
“Lights, Camera, Legal Action- When parody meets publicity, even the best directors can’t scream ‘Cut’! fast enough
Imagine watching a movie where a “Sharukh Khanna” dances like Shah Rukh Khan but sells washing powder instead of dreams. Funny? Maybe. Legal? That’s the twist. When filmmakers use celebrity lookalikes or names for laughs, they step into a gray zone where humor borrows fame, and the law decides the punchline.
Personality rights come from the Right to Privacy.[1] Under Article 21 of the Constitution. They’re about protecting who you are, including your name, face, voice, and everything that makes up your identity, from being used without your permission. The Supreme Court[2] Has made it clear: if someone wants to use your identity, especially in ads or promotions, they need your clear okay[3] More so if you’re a public figure.
Publicity rights take that idea further. They give individuals, especially celebrities, the power to decide how their image is used for money-making purposes.[4] Because at the end of the day, your identity is yours, and no one else should profit from it without your say.
Parody isn’t only about copyright. It can also lead to legal trouble like defamation or breaking other laws, depending on what it says or shows. While copyright is often the focus, other rules about content and reputation are just as important and can’t be ignored.[5]
Under Indian copyright law[6]Parody falls into a grey area. It’s neither allowed nor banned. In Civic Chandran (1996)[7]The Kerala High Court said a parody-like play didn’t infringe copyright, but that doesn’t mean all parodies are safe. Each case depends on its content, context, and intent.[8]
HOW IS PARODY AND PUBLICITY INTERCONNECTED
They’re interconnected because a film that aims to be a parody of a person (especially a real-life public figure or celebrity) can potentially infringe their publicity rights if it crosses the line from commentary to unauthorized commercial use of their identity. What matters is the intention behind the film.[9] If it’s simply a humorous take, it might count as fair parody. But when the goal becomes making money off someone’s fame without their consent and there’s no real humour or fresh take, that’s where things get tricky. If a film just copies a celebrity’s life or style to pull in viewers, without adding anything new, it can easily step over the line.
WHAT’S THE NEED FOR PROTECTING AND WHY
Safeguarding parody is essential to uphold the right to artistic expression.[10] And free speech under constitutional and legal principles. It allows filmmakers to use satire as a legitimate form of social commentary, critique, or cultural reflection. Without legal protection, the threat of litigation could have a chilling effect, discouraging creators from producing works that challenge, question, or engage with public discourse through humour or imitation.[11]
CASE
In Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions,[12] The Madras High Court dealt with the unauthorised use of a celebrity’s persona, setting an important precedent for personality rights in India. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad, better known as Rajinikanth, filed a suit to restrain the release of the film “Main Hoon Rajinikanth”, claiming that the movie exploited his name, image, voice, and signature style without permission. He argued[13] That using his name and persona without permission misled the public into thinking he had approved or was part of the film, which violated his right to publicity, a right closely tied to the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court agreed and noted that even a screen name like “Rajinikanth,” when strongly linked to a well-known public figure, deserves legal protection. Using it without permission, especially to make money, wasn’t just unfair; it crossed the line into passing off and misuse of identity, both recognised under tort law.The Court also pointed out that this went against Section 14[14] Of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which clearly says a person’s name can’t be used for commercial purposes, like in a film title, without their consent. To prevent further harm, the judge stepped in and granted an interim injunction, stopping the film from being released.
THE LEGAL ARENA
Section 38, 38A, and 38B[15] The Copyright Act, 1957, also grants performers the right to be given credit and claim authorship of their performance (Right to Attribution). The corollary of this is equally true, i.e., performers have a negative right of restraining others from causing any kind of damage to their performance, which in turn damages their reputation (Right to Integrity).
One of the strongest protections under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, comes from something called passing off, mentioned in Section 27. This means that if someone tries to cash in on another person’s reputation by creating confusion, copying their identity, or pretending to be connected to them, they can be stopped. It’s a way to prevent unfair competition and protect someone’s image or goodwill. Personality rights often find a home under this concept, giving celebrities and public figures a way to guard their identity when it’s misused for profit.
GREY AREAS
In cinema, it’s difficult to differentiate between a coincidence and a copy. A natural resemblance is fine, but when it’s used to mimic a celebrity’s voice, style, or persona, it starts to feel like borrowing their identity. Indian courts have tried to protect celebrities from this kind of misuse, like in the ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises.[16] Case, but the rules are still fuzzy. The real challenge is telling when a performance is harmless parody, and when it starts unfairly cashing in on someone else’s fame.[17]
Movies like Tamizh Padam (2010) show how parody can be done right. Known as the first full-length spoof in Tamil cinema, the film didn’t just poke fun at popular actors and blockbuster clichés; it exaggerated them so wildly that it was clear the intent was humour, not imitation. Because it was so obviously over-the-top, it came across as clever commentary rather than copying, which helped it steer clear of legal trouble.
Talking about real-life celebrities in films isn’t always a legal problem. If a character casually mentions a famous name in a scene, it’s usually seen as just part of normal conversation, no harm done. But things change when that name isn’t just mentioned in passing. If a celebrity’s name goes from a quick mention to playing a bigger role in the plot or pops up in trailers and promotions to grab attention, it can stir up legal trouble. What seemed like a harmless reference at first can easily be seen as using their fame to sell the story, without actually getting their permission.
CONCLUSION
Most personality rights disputes in India are settled off the record, leaving little legal clarity. [18]. With no specific law to protect image or identity, filmmakers often rely on guesswork, judging risk based on a celebrity’s past lawsuits and how big the film is, rather than any clear rulebook.
AI has completely changed the game. With deepfakes and digital tools, it’s now possible to show someone like Shah Rukh Khan or Amitabh Bachchan on screen without them ever stepping on set. It looks real, sounds real, but it’s all computer-generated. The problem? Indian law hasn’t caught up. There are no clear rules on whether using a celebrity’s face or voice this way breaks the law, and that grey area is something many filmmakers are starting to take advantage of.
Bringing a legendary star like Raj Kapoor, Kishore Kumar, or Sridevi back to life on screen isn’t just a creative decision; it comes with a lot of legal confusion. With today’s technology, filmmakers can easily recreate these icons using lookalikes or digital effects. But in India, it’s not clear whether that’s legally allowed. Unlike some countries where a celebrity’s image and identity are protected even after they’ve passed away, letting their families decide how their legacy is used, India doesn’t have any specific rules. That leaves families unsure if they can object when their loved one’s name, face, or life story is used without being asked.
Because of this confusion, there’s been a wave of biopics and tribute films in recent years, many made without consulting the celebrity’s family. Sometimes these films go unnoticed, but in other cases, families come across them much later and feel hurt that their loved one’s legacy was used without respect or approval.
As digital technology moves forward and with AI now making it easier than ever to recreate someone’s face, voice, and expressions, this legal grey area is only widening. It’s a wake-up call for India to put proper laws in place, ones that can protect the dignity of both living celebrities and those who’ve passed on.
Author(s) Name: Saanhvi Srivastava (Integral University, Lucknow)
References:
[1] Panday J, ‘India’s Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right-and It’s about Time’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 11 October 2017) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/indias-supreme-court-upholds-right-privacy-fundamental-right-and-its-about-time accessed 5 July 2025
[2] Shafiel A Karim, ‘“Clear and Conspicuous” Disclosures Between Celebrity Endorsers and Advertisers on Social Media Websites’ (California Lawyers Association, Competition, vol 25 no 2, 2016) https://calawyers.org/publications/antitrust-unfair-competition-law/competition-2016-vol-25-no-2-clear-and-conspicuous-disclosures-between-celebrity-endorsers-and-advertisers-on-social-media-websites/ accessed 6 July 2025.
[3] K Singhania, ‘SAF Mandate & Aircraft Repossession Reform: India’s Twin Pivot in 2025’ (K Singhania Co, 2025) https://singhanialaw.com/understanding-indian-laws-protecting-personality-rights/ accessed 5 July 2025.
[4] Michael J Hoisington, ‘Celebrities Sue Over Unauthorized Use of Identity’ (Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP, 20 August 2024) https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/ accessed 6 July 2025
[5] Stanford University Libraries, ‘The Four Factors of Fair Use’ (Stanford Copyright and Fair Use, undated) https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ accessed 6 July 2025.
[6] The Legality of Parodies under Indian Copyright Law (Law Matters, January 2013) https://copyright.lawmatters.in/2013/01/the-legality-of-parodies-under-indian.html accessed 6 July 2025.
[7] Civic Chandran v Ammini Amma (1996) PTR 142 (Ker HC).
[8] Nandita Saikia, ‘The Legality of Parodies under Indian Law (Part I)’ (Law Matters, 24 January 2013) https://copyright.lawmatters.in/2013/01/the-legality-of-parodies-under-indian.html accessed 5 July 2025.
[9] Does Authorial Intent Matter in Film or Television? (Reddit, r/TrueFilm, 7 June 2017) https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/7kwpzu/does_authorial_intent_matter_in_film_or_television/ accessed 6 July 2025
[10] Iyer A, “Parody as Fair Use under Indian Copyright Laws” (IP Matters, March 17, 2022) https://www.theipmatters.com/post/parody-as-fair-use-under-indian-copyright-laws accessed July 5, 2025
[11] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas (Report, June 2023) https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-1-Digital-Replicas-Report.pdf accessed 6 July 2025.
[12] Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v Varsha Productions (2015) SCC OnLine Mad 15836 (Mad HC).
[13] Personality rights (Wikipedia, last updated 23 May 2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights accessed 6 July 2025
[14] United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Act and Trademark-related Statutes (USPTO, undated) https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/trademarks/law/Trademark_Statutes.pdf accessed 6 July 2025.
[15] Understanding Indian Laws Protecting Personality Rights (K Singhania & Co, June 2023) https://singhanialaw.com/understanding-indian-laws-protecting-personality-rights/ accessed 6 July 2025.
[16] ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises & Anr (Delhi High Court, 2003) 26 PTC 245.
[17] Saadiya N, “Protecting Personality Rights In India” (India, June 6, 2024) https://www.mondaq.com/india/privacy-protection/1475772/protecting-personality-rights-in-india accessed July 6, 2025
[18] SpicyIP, “Examining Delhi HC’s Rulings on Personality Rights Concerns” (SpicyIP, June 15, 2025) https://spicyip.com/2025/06/delhi-hcs-orders-in-sadhguru-ankur-warikoo-cases-what-indian-courts-are-getting-wrong-about-personality-rights.html accessed July 6, 2025
