Delhi High Court Rules Using Celebrity Names and Images in Art and Satire Protected by Free Speech

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has declared that the use of celebrity names or images for art, satire, news, and music is permissible as a facet of the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and would not infringe the celebrity’s right of publicity. The case, Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd. and Ors. v. Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited and Anr., involved a dispute between two companies, Dream 11’s subsidiary and a Singapore based entity Digital Collectibles PTE Limited running a website “Rario”, and Mobile Premier League and an application “Striker”, both of which are engaged in a similar business model.

The plaintiff company alleged that the defendants were “minting and distributing” non-fungible tokens which captured the images of players with whom the plaintiff had entered into exclusive license agreements. The plaintiff claimed that the agreements exclusively entitled it to mint the tokens and thus, the defendants indulged in the act of infringement and breached the right of publicity in launching a similar business using players by creating their caricatures.

Justice Amit Bansal, who heard the case, observed that the right of publicity cannot be seen as an absolute right in India in the absence of a specific legislation. He further noted that the extent of intellectual property rights is defined by the statute and the statute itself provides defences or exemptions. Even in jurisdictions where right to publicity is recognized as a statutory right, such as the U.S., the statute itself provides exemptions or defences.

Justice Bansal further observed that the use of celebrity names, images for the purposes of lampooning, satire, parodies, art, scholarship, music, academics, news and other similar uses would be permissible as facets of the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and would not fall foul to the tort of infringement of the right of publicity. He referred to relevant decisions on the subject, noting that various online fantasy sports gaming platforms use names and images of celebrities and other information which are available in public domain.

The court also noted that the information used by Striker regarding player name and data concerning a player’s real-word match performance is freely available in public domain which cannot be owned by anybody, including the players themselves. Furthermore, it said that the plaintiff cannot claim to have an exclusive right over the use of an non-fungible tokens technology which is freely available.

In the end, Justice Bansal denied interim relief to the plaintiff company, noting that an injunction granted at this stage would result in closure of the business of the defendant no.2 and would cause huge financial losses not only to defendant no.2 but also to the users of the Striker platform. He concluded that the plaintiff company failed to make out a case for grant of interim injunction and that the use of celebrity names and images by OFS platforms is protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.