Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of any obscene or pornographic materials that exist on the internet regarding actor Janhvi Kapoor, but fell short of giving a blanket injunction against any fan pages and other unauthorised material. Court held that personal rights cannot be construed in such a way that they act to curb freedom of speech, especially regarding celebrities.
Court limits relief to obscene content
According to Bar and Bench report, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing the case filed by Janhvi to seek the protection of her personality rights from any unauthorised use for commercial purposes. The actor had asked for an order against over 5,000 webpages and posts on various social media platforms where her image was being used for commercial gains.
While the court did agree that Kapoor was eligible for protection from such obviously offensive content, it wanted the lawyers of the plaintiff to be more selective regarding the content on which they are seeking immediate relief. For this purpose, the court told them to create a precise tabular format listing all those webpages which have such obviously pornographic, obscene or lascivious material.
Court refuses to block fan pages
However, the Court did not agree to the demand for removing fan pages because the Court realised that fan sites can have many variations; some may praise the work of an actor while others may criticize it. Justice Bhambhani said that this form of expression falls within the ambit of freedom that people enjoy on the Internet. “We are not the conscience keepers of the nation. Solution may be worse than the problem. It was at the very root of free speech,” Justice Bhambhani observed, adding “Fan pages may be lampooning, adulatory of your work, critical of your work. You don’t want fans? It is the digital world. No comments, no URLs…You will find yourself living in a cave.”
The Court further questioned how a public personality could seek to shut down every fan club or unofficial page using their name. “They should just be genuflecting in front of you? Stand and touch my feet? How can you shut down all fan clubs? You are a public personality. Who is immune these days? Everyone who is in public domain is being abused left, right and centre.”
Judge questions the scope of personality rights
In the process of hearing the case, the Justice went through the line dividing copyright and personality rights. He questioned whether selling a photograph or a piece of art that depicts a celebrity automatically means the creator is unfairly profiting off that person’s identity.
On this matter, the court held that an individual who creates a photograph has the right to sell it and wondered how it can be an exploitation of the personality of the subject. It is like an author who has the right to sell the book he wrote.
For instance, the judge used a hypothetical situation in which there was an artwork made out of the picture of Janhvi. The court wanted to know what would happen if the pottery makes a mug, puts the picture of Janhvi on it, and sells it. In that case, the owner of the copyrights of that visual material is the person who created it or took a photograph of it.
Meta raises concerns over broad takedown requests
During the proceedings, Meta’s legal representative, Varun Pathak, pushed back against the sweeping demands made by Janhvi. The tech firm maintained that expecting a platform to manually sift through and verify thousands of disputed web links would be a nearly impossible burden.
Pathak pointed out that producing AI-generated images is not against the law and that the creators behind such media have a legitimate right to make a living. He characterised the plaintiff’s request as an attempt to secure a continuous legal mandate to scrub the internet of this material.
However, Justice Bhambhani issued a firm warning to Meta, advising the corporation to stay within its legal bounds as a mere facilitator. The judge noted that taking an active defensive position contradicts their status as a neutral intermediary and implies they have a deeper, vested interest in the content itself.
Court seeks clarity on personality rights
During the hearing, the court pushed back on how frequently public figures are using personality rights to build legal cases. Justice Bhambhani asked the lawyers to help draw a firm line on the issue, explaining that while the protection started out as a minor, well-meaning rule, it has spiralled completely out of control. He stressed that they urgently need to restore some common sense to how the concept is actually applied. The case will be heard again on August 17.