Madras high court grants protection to Kamal Haasan’s personality rights
The high court also directed Hassan to issue a public notice in English and Tamil newspapers to publicise its order since Hassan had impleaded a John Doe, or unknown entities
The Madras High Court on Monday protected the personality rights of actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan and prohibited any illegal use of his “image, likeness and name for commercial purposes,” while making it clear that permissible creative expression such as “satire and caricature” was not being restrained.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim ‘John Doe’ order after hearing submissions from Hassan’s counsel, senior advocate Satish Parasaran, on the unauthorised merchandising and circulation of morphed images and videos using the actor’s likeness.
“Senior counsel (for Hassan) invited my attention to several photographs of morphed images..Submits that these images are causing incalculable damage to his reputation and image as celebrity Counsel also refers to the use of plaintiff’s image, name and the like on merchandise without the plaintiff’s consent or endorsement. Upon examining the above, a strong prima facie case is made out,” the High Court said.
“Therefore, the respondents are restrained from creating false images of the plaintiff and depicting the same through any media until the next hearing. Respondents also restrained from selling merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s name or image without consent or endorsement. This order will not however stand in the way of caricature, satire or other forms of permissible creative expression,” the court said.
Also Read: A remit too wide: Personality rights without a rulebook
{{/usCountry}}Also Read: A remit too wide: Personality rights without a rulebook
{{/usCountry}}The high court also directed Hassan to issue a public notice in English and Tamil newspapers to publicise its order since Hassan had impleaded a John Doe, or unknown entities, as respondent parties in the suit.
{{/usCountry}}The high court also directed Hassan to issue a public notice in English and Tamil newspapers to publicise its order since Hassan had impleaded a John Doe, or unknown entities, as respondent parties in the suit.
{{/usCountry}}Hassan’s counsel told the Court that the actor had sought a John Doe order because several unidentified entities were “commercially merchandising” his image without authorisation.
{{/usCountry}}Hassan’s counsel told the Court that the actor had sought a John Doe order because several unidentified entities were “commercially merchandising” his image without authorisation.
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, the court orally observed that in matters such as the present, courts must also remain conscious of the citizen’s right to freedom of expression and that “caricatures and satire fall within that space.”
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, the court orally observed that in matters such as the present, courts must also remain conscious of the citizen’s right to freedom of expression and that “caricatures and satire fall within that space.”
{{/usCountry}}Parasaran however, argued there could be “no commercial exploitation” under the guise of freedom of expression.
{{/usCountry}}Parasaran however, argued there could be “no commercial exploitation” under the guise of freedom of expression.
{{/usCountry}}Hassan had approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain third parties from exploiting his personality and moral rights for commercial gain. In his suit, he had also cited a similar order passed by the Court last year, granting similar protection to the personality rights of musician Ilaiyaraaja.
In his plea, Hassan had detailed his career spanning over “65 years across Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Hindi, Kannada and Bengali cinema and cited his four National Awards, twenty Filmfare awards, eleven Tamil Nadu State Film Awards and four Nandi Awards, apart from honours such as the Kalaimamani, Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan and the Order of Arts and Letters (Chevalier).”
He submitted that his “goodwill and artistic integrity” gave his endorsements significant commercial value and public trust. He told the Court that his name, signature, voice, image and other identifiable attributes formed part of his personality rights and deserved protection under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Copyright Act and common law.
Hassan’s counsel named several websites that were selling T-shirts and other merchandise bearing the actor’s name and photographs, creating the “impression of authorisation.”
Parasaran also told the court that several online platforms were using artificial intelligence to morph Hassan’s face into misleading and sometimes “sexually explicit” videos for profit. He specifically named a Chennai-based firm, which allegedly sold merchandise featuring Hassan’s portraits, initials ‘KH’, and famous dialogues from his films without consent.
Hassan has sought a permanent injunction against the firm and all unknown entities to restrain them from using his persona, including through AI, deepfakes and other emerging technologies, without prior approval.
