An amicus curiae in the Janhvi Kapoor personality rights case told the Delhi High Court that profiting from a celebrity's image alone falls short for content takedowns. This argument pushes back on broad celebrity control, favoring freedom for content creators and platforms. Social media giants now face a narrower definition for when they must remove user-generated content.
How We Got Here
The Delhi High Court is defining personality rights in a composite hearing, including suits from Janhvi Kapoor, Vivek Oberoi, and Aaradhya Bachchan. Gautam Bhatia, amicus for Kapoor, presented his arguments on October 7, with Rohan Alva (amicus for Oberoi) concluding his earlier.
The Numbers
- Gautam Bhatia argued "commercialisation plus something else"—like deception or false advertisement—justifies injunctions, not mere commercial gain.
- He proposed commercial claims be handled by passing off, copyright, or trademark law, and other claims by privacy, dignity, and autonomy.
- Both Bhatia and Rohan Alva, amicus in the Oberoi suit, concurred that courts must separate different claim types within celebrity suits.
- Both amici backed the Delhi HC's Digital Collectibles ruling, which stated celebrity identification or defendant's commercial gain alone does not violate rights.
- Bhatia disagreed with Alva's view of celebrity image as property, asserting dignity, not saleability, governs control over identity.
What Happens Next
🇮🇳 Why This Matters for India
For independent meme creators and fan communities in smaller cities like Nagpur, Vadodara, and Coimbatore, this clarifies the boundaries for fair use of public figures.
The Take
This case establishes a narrower path for celebrity takedown requests based on commercial use. The creator economy and platforms gain significant breathing room, pushing the onus back on specific acts of deception or misrepresentation.
Source:
MediaNama ↗