Indian Actor Wins Court Order for His Personality Rights (bloomberg.com) 38
Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan won interim protection of his personality and celebrity rights from the Delhi High Court Friday. From a report: The court barred not just identified entities from using Bachchan's persona, without his consent, but also passed a John Doe order, or an order against world-at-large, from infringing his personality rights. The lawsuit before the court flagged Bachchan's name, voice, images, pictures, likeness and his "unique style of dialogue delivery" among the traits which fall under legal protection. Counsel for the actor told the court that mobile applications, telephone numbers and websites had mushroomed that monetized his images or likeness without permission. "Personality right is a strong right to enforce for persons with high level of identifiability and strength of association," said Eashan Ghosh, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights. "Both these factors hold true for Amitabh Bachchan."
... I don't understand ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Personality" is active, aggressive, funny, neurotic, etc. whereas "persona" are voice, image, clothing, etc.
So... what is it he won? His "personality" rights (so no more "psychopaths" are allowed or his "persona"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: ... I don't understand ... (Score:4, Funny)
He went to the same acting school as The Rock and Tom Cruise?
Re: (Score:3)
He went to the same acting school as The Rock and Tom Cruise?
As Dorthy Parker said of Katharine Hepburn: "She runs the full gamut of emotions, from A to B."
Re: (Score:3)
Who not coincidentally get paid tens of millions of dollars per movie. Why? Because they're stars. More people come to see an action movie starring Rock/Cruise than if they cast an unknown actor.
Well-known actors generally have a personality that they bring to any given role. Sean Connery played many different characters with aplomb, but it's unlikely that you'd mistake him for anyone else. Harrison Ford, Johnny Depp, Steve Buscemi, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson - all excellent actors, all with a distinctiv
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion about the quality of the films that Hollywood's "stars" produce. It seems a bit of a stretch to argue that films like Pulp Fiction (Jackson) and Fargo (Buscemi) are "dull, lifeless and formulaic".
"Personality" is active, aggressive, funny, neurotic, etc. whereas "persona" are voice, image, clothing, etc. So... what is it he won? His "personality" rights (so no more "psychopaths" are allowed or his "persona"?
You might not acknowledge that "The Rock" has a personality, but he certainly has a character that he developed during his pro wrestling career. He plays a version of his character "The Rock" in every film he appears in, mainstream audiences love him, so he's currently the worl
Re: (Score:2)
Kevin Spacey is a great example of that. In every movie he’s instantly recognizable as Kevin Spacey. Not that his acting is bad or anything. Contrast him against someone like Gary Oldman or Daniel Day Lewis who totally disappear into the character.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ... I don't understand ... (Score:2)
They disappeared so far that I never heard of them before now.
Re: (Score:2)
We typically call it someone's "likeness", it's illegal to use anyone's for profit in the US without their consent but in some other countries there is no such protection at all (the UK) and in others, apparently including India, it exists but has to be granted on a case by case basis.
Re:... I don't understand ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It means William... Shatner can... sue... ChristopherWalkenforhis... speech pattern.
On a related note - Harley Davidson tried to copyright the sound of their motorcycles. Unique because the engines were designed to be narrow, with both pistons on one crank pin, so have a non-optimum unbalanced firing sequence.
They make a sound that is like Potato-potato-potato-potato, in pattern - rather than the buda-buda-buda of a normal motorcycle.
They lost their case FWIW.
Re: (Score:2)
Who were they suing, Alex Van Halen? (For the drum intro to "Hot For Teacher".)
Re: (Score:2)
Who were they suing, Alex Van Halen? (For the drum intro to "Hot For Teacher".)
Hah! well played indeed. Sorta does sound like their bikes. Here's the story: https://imotorbike.my/news/en/... [imotorbike.my]
Re:... I don't understand ... (Score:5, Informative)
"Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of their identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the information.
Then, it's a "lost in translation" because we (Spaniards) use that term (personality rights) without the "physical image" (likeness) to it but just to: name, capacity (rights/obligations), address, nationality, property and civil status (married, single, etc.)
To what you call "Personality rights" we call it "derechos de imagen" that would be translated as something like "looking (look-alike, likeness) rights".
What? (Score:3)
He is an actor. Unless he is famous for being in autobiographical documentaries, his actual personality has no commercial value; therefore, they must be talking about the personalities he portrays. But then those personalities are inventions of the writers/directors of the movies he appears in. How could he have rights to that? It's like saying Robert Downey Jr. has rights to Sherlock Holmes or Iron Man's personality.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I could, even remotely, make sense of this is if the actor had a unique lisp or mannerism that became part of his trademark. But even then, this is just a huge reach.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
He is an actor. Unless he is famous for being in autobiographical documentaries, his actual personality has no commercial value; therefore, they must be talking about the personalities he portrays. But then those personalities are inventions of the writers/directors of the movies he appears in. How could he have rights to that? It's like saying Robert Downey Jr. has rights to Sherlock Holmes or Iron Man's personality.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the angle here is that some actors are fairly distinct. Christopher Walken is basically "Christopher Walken" in every role. I have no idea what he's like in person, but as an actor he falls back on very similar patterns of behaviour time and time again. Arnold Schwarzenegger is another example where you will always see the actor, not the role.
I think the point of this ruling is to "protect" that. Other actors aren't allowed to adopt the original actor's tics, lilts, and general nuance. On the one hand, I think that might be good. As either of the examples I gave, I'd be kind of annoyed if some other actor started imitating me and taking roles I'd normally be cast in. On the other hand, art is art and saying "you can't make your own art similar to my art" is kind of sucky.
Regardless, that's what I think this is about.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are not understanding. It's the way he delivers lines and acts.
Think of it more like "Jim Carry" if you need a western example. Sure the characters that he portrays are different, but the way he portrays them is similar in the way that he delivers lines, articulates, moves, and facial expressions. It is very distinctly Jim Carry. If any actor played their character like him, you'd know exactly who they were copying.
Same thing with actors like William Shatner, and how he acted in Star Trek. You think
Re: (Score:2)
Comic imitations? (Score:2)
Much as I agree that the use of his style / persona for ordinary usage should be banned, it's important that comedians are allowed to make fun of such people.
Re: (Score:2)
For India see: https://vakilsearch.com/blog/f... [vakilsearch.com]
So there's probably some more legislation that India wants to work through.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you're right, but I can imagine some sense of humour lacking judge extending the ruling to include such imitations. And I'm sure many politicians would LOVE to use the precedent to protect them from their imitators.
Re:Comic imitations? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least compared to a lot of more nations with European roots that either have their respective fair use laws and or additional public figure laws in place particularly for the purpose of allowing criticism after having their historic share of tyrannical kings and dictators that are officially acknowledged as being "bad".
I don't know enough about Indian culture and politics to be sure what kind of direction this will go. But I sure do hope they'll not go the way to protect the powerful and influential from being criticized.
hmm (Score:2)
Yikes (Score:2)
Imagine selling the rights to your own personality. How would one even go on living after that point?
Unique delivery (Score:2)
Are You Certain? Because I .. (Score:1)
*CELEBRITY VOICE IMPERSONATED
Shortlist who qualify: (Score:2)
Donald Trump
MBS
Putin
Sandra Bullock
George Clooney
Marylyn Monroe
Gene Simmons
Re: (Score:2)
Jim Carry should have been on top and he didn't even make that list.
Re: (Score:2)
Amitabh Bachchan is a pervert (Score:2)
Amitabh Bachchan is a Brahmin and a Pervert
https://twitter.com/powerofyog... [twitter.com]
https://archive.is/8CElp [archive.is]
Bofors scandal.
Panama scandal.
Claims he is a farmer to evade income tax.
Failed miserably as Allahabad Loksabha Member.
Instigated riots against innocent Sikhs in 1984.
Rekha/Zeenat/Parveen/Karishma/Sayali accused Amitabh Bachchan of sexually harassing/exploiting them
https://chng.it/w8JQc6Yws8 [chng.it]