Back
Can Celebrity Image Use Violate When Copyright Vests With Photographer?
In a pivotal hearing that could reshape the intersection of and , the on Monday raised a fundamental question: does the mere use of a celebrity's photograph by a copyright-holding photographer amount to an infringement of the celebrity's ? The query, posed orally by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, came during proceedings in a suit filed by Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan, seeking protection of her .
The court’s inquiry strikes at the heart of a growing legal tension—between the exclusive right of a photographer to exploit a work and the celebrity’s right to control the commercial use of their image. As the bench prepares to hear three lead cases in the coming days, the outcome promises to set important precedents for the entertainment industry, social media influencers, and the broader field of intellectual property law.
The Core Question
Justice Bhambhani framed the dilemma with a sharp analogy: “A person can photograph Taj Mahal but not the celebrity? If a person takes a photograph of a celebrity and uses it, the conventional law says that copyright in that photograph belongs to the photographer. If the copyright belongs to the photographer and he uses that image, it becomes violation of a person's ?”
The question cuts to the fundamental conflict between two distinct legal regimes. typically vests ownership of a photographic work in the person who clicks the shutter, granting them rights to reproduce, distribute, and display the image. , on the other hand, protect individuals—particularly public figures—from unauthorized commercial exploitation of their likeness, voice, name, or other identifying attributes.
, representing Aaradhya Bachchan, responded firmly: such use would indeed violate the celebrity’s , with a single exception—when the photograph is taken at the instance of the celebrity. “You may be owner of copyright but you won’t be entitled to use it yourself. You will have to get clearance of ,” Anand argued.
This position, if accepted by the court, would effectively require photographers to obtain express permission from the celebrity before commercially using any image of them, even if the photographer holds the copyright. The regime would mirror the concept of “” recognized in U.S. law, where a person’s likeness is treated as a property right that cannot be exploited without consent.
Court’s Approach: Three Lead Cases
The is currently seized of multiple suits filed by celebrities, influencers, and other public figures seeking enforcement of their . Rather than hearing the entire batch together, Justice Bhambhani announced that the court would first decide the issues in three matters—those of Aaradhya Bachchan, actor Vivek Oberoi, and actor Janhvi Kapoor.
“I am not willing to expand the batch. I am willing to post (rest of the matters) subsequently. I will hear and set down (the principles) in only three matters,” the judge stated. The remaining cases were re-notified for further proceedings before the joint registrar.
The strategy reflects a judicial preference for establishing clear legal principles through a manageable set of representative cases before addressing the broader flood of litigation. Each of the three selected cases raises distinct factual nuances, but all center on the same legal question: the scope of in the digital age.
Role of
To ensure comprehensive legal analysis, Justice Bhambhani has appointed in two of the three cases. —known for his scholarship on constitutional and intellectual property law—has been appointed in Janhvi Kapoor’s suit. has been appointed in Vivek Oberoi’s case.
The involvement of amici signals the court’s recognition of the complexity and public importance of the issues. Both Bhatia and Alva are expected to assist the court in examining comparative jurisprudence, statutory interpretation, and the practical implications of any ruling.
Legal Implications for Practitioners
The ’s eventual decision could have far-reaching effects across multiple practice areas:
For : A ruling that the photographer’s copyright is inherently limited by would introduce a new layer of clearance requirements. Photographers, stock image platforms, and media companies would need to obtain from any recognizable celebrity, even for . This could chill the creation and dissemination of news photographs and paparazzi images.
For : A robust recognition of a celebrity’s right to control image use could expand protection to non-celebrity individuals as well, given that the right is rooted in . However, the court may limit its holding to public figures, as is currently the trend in Indian jurisprudence.
For the entertainment industry: Actors, influencers, and their legal teams will watch closely. A clear rule that trump copyright would strengthen the bargaining power of celebrities in endorsement deals and licensing agreements.
What Lies Ahead
The three suits are scheduled for further arguments on Wednesday. The court has not indicated a timeline for a final judgment, but the focused approach suggests a reasoned order may be delivered in the coming weeks or months.
In the interim, the legal community is abuzz with analysis. The fundamental question—whether the copyright holder can autonomously exploit an image without consent from the subject—remains unresolved. While the , and the both offer some guidance, no authoritative pronouncement from the yet exists on this precise point.
As Justice Bhambhani’s remark about the Taj Mahal illustrates, the law may treat monuments and celebrities differently—not because a photograph of a person is a lesser creative work, but because the subject’s personal rights are inherently non-transferable. The coming judgment will likely draw a line between in news and the individual’s and control over their .
For now, the question marks hover over the courtroom. But one thing is clear: the is determined to bring clarity to the tangled relationship between copyright and , and the answers it provides will resonate far beyond the three leading cases before it.
Conclusion
The oral question posed by Justice Bhambhani is more than a legal hypothetical—it is a challenge to the legal community to reconcile two overlapping yet conflicting rights. As the court proceeds to hear arguments and eventually rule, it will shape the contours of celebrity image protection in India’s digital marketplace. Practitioners across intellectual property and media law would do well to track these developments closely, as the outcome may necessitate a fundamental rethinking of how photographs of public figures are created, owned, and used.
