Personality and Publicity rights: Analysisof Legal Framework

Introduction

In today’s hyper-connected, AI-driven world, a person’s identity has become both their most valuable asset and their most vulnerable possession. From a single photograph going viral to an AI-generated voice or video that perfectly imitates a public figure, the boundaries of personality and publicity rights are being tested like never before. These personality and publicity rights are the protection of an individual’s name, image, likeness, voice, and overall persona characteristics and they are no longer concerns limited to celebrities but they safeguard the dignity, privacy, and economic interests of every individual. Amidst this social media-driven, influencer-centric, celebrity-marketing phase of our lives, one of the hottest commodities has become personality. Be it a celebrity, athlete, or digital creator—their face, name, voice, and style are registered commodities and that is why personality rights are gaining unprecedented importance in modern law, especially in matters of brand endorsements and digital media usage, where even a moment’s unauthorized exploitation can lead to substantial financial loss and reputational damage.

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has amplified both opportunities and risks. While it enables creative possibilities and innovative content, it also fuels the unauthorized exploitation of identities which erodes the truth and blurs the line between reality and fabrication. Stakes are much higher for celebrities in particular, whose careers and livelihoods are closely tied with public perception. These judicial rescued rights serve as the crucial protection against commercial exploitation, reputational harm, and invasion of privacy. Yet, as technology pacing ahead, the legal protections that guard our identities needs to keep pace up, making it imperative to strengthen, and modernize the laws that uphold personality and publicity rights in the digital age.

Personality Rights

Personality rights protect the dignity, privacy, and personal identity of an individual. They ensure that no one can intrude into, misuse, or distort a person’s image, name, voice, or other identifying traits in ways that harm their reputation, autonomy, or sense of self. These rights safeguard how a person is represented to the world, giving them control over their public portrayal and preventing unwanted interference in their personal life.[2]

Personality rights, also referred to as ‘right of publicity,’ are the legal rights that an individual has over the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, voice, or other aspects of their identity.[3] These rights are particularly important for public figures such as actors, musicians, and athletes, whose persona often carries significant economic value. In simple terms, personality rights allow individuals to decide how their image and identity are used in public and commercial contexts.

There are two core pillars of personality rights:

• Right to privacy: The right to privacy protects an individual’s ability to be left alone, free from unwanted intrusion into their personal life. The individual autonomy is protected by right of privacy. It is the duty of the state to ensure that rights of citizen should not be curtailed arbitrarily. [4]
• Right to publicity: In contrast, the right of publicity allows individuals particularly public figures to control and profit from the commercial use of their identity, such as their name, image, voice, or likeness. This right ensures that no third party can exploit someone’s persona for commercial gain without permission.

In the case of Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co,[5]The Supreme Court of united states, while ruling in the Petitioner’s favors, hold that “the right to privacy was a personal right, while right of publicity was a commercial right”. [6]

Celebrities are often the most affected by violations of personality rights because their fame makes their identities highly valuable in the public sphere. However, the courts have historically taken different stances when such cases arise. In many instances, when celebrities have attempted to claim a violation of their right to privacy, courts have ruled that their status as public figures means they have to waived that right to a large extent. The reasoning is that by stepping into the public eye, they have accepted a reduced expectation of privacy. Some courts have even gone further, holding that certain aspects of a celebrity’s personal life. Maybe for the first time may not be protected under privacy laws if those aspects are deemed to be of public interest. This tension between the public’s appetite for information and an individual’s control over their personal life lies at the heart of many legal disputes involving personality rights. It also raises important questions about where to draw the line between legitimate public interest and unwarranted intrusion.

In November 2024, Pakistani politician Azma Bukhari, a prominent media spokesperson in Punjab’s political landscape, became the target of a sexually explicit deep-fake video. The video digitally superimposed Bukhari’s face onto the body of an actress in a sexualized scene. Deepfakes AI-generated media that realistically impersonate individuals have increasingly been used to fabricate actions or speech that never occurred and are posing serious threats to reputation and dignity. Azma Bukhari temporarily withdrew from public appearances.
She subsequently filed a petition before the Lahore High Court, seeking judicial intervention against the perpetrators who produced and disseminated the doctored video. Bukhari argued that such acts constitute a direct violation of her personality rights, including the right to dignity, privacy, and protection of image, and called for stronger enforcement mechanisms under Pakistan’s cybercrime legislation.

She referenced similar incidents involving doctored videos of Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif, portraying her in fabricated compromising situations with political opponents.In Pakistan, the issue also surfaced in the political domain during the 2024 elections, when an AI-generated video of jailed ex–Prime Minister Imran Khan was disseminated by his political team to enable virtual campaigning.[7]

Understanding Key Terms

Personality Rights: Legal protections for an individual’s dignity, privacy, identity, and physical integrity. Personality rights are absolute, inalienable, extra-patrimonial rights inherited to every person, for safeguarding their physical, moral, and intellectual integrity, ensuring respect for human dignity, and protecting personal attributes such as life, honor, image, privacy, and name.[8]

There are fourth-generation rights considered the most recent evolution in the legal framework of human rights, emerging alongside rapid technological advancement, globalization, and shifting social norms. While the first three generations of rights addressed liberty (civil and political freedoms), equality (social, economic, and cultural), and solidarity (collective and environmental rights). The fourth generation Rights focuses on identity, emerging bioethical and digital concerns.[9] These rights recognize that individuals and communities have an interest in preserving their distinct identities.

• Right to be different: The protection of minority identities, non-conforming gender expressions, and cultural uniqueness without discrimination.
• Bioethical rights: Autonomy in decisions related to genetic modification, reproductive technologies, and end-of-life choices.
• Digital identity rights: Control over one’s personal data, online persona, and AI-generated representations (including deep fakes, Name or symbolic trademarks)
• Rights in cyberspace: The assurance that human dignity, privacy, voice, and security are respected in virtual and augmented environments. [10]

Personality rights are facing unprecedented vulnerability in the digital age. The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI), deepfake technology. Deepfakes for instance, can convincingly place someone’s face or voice into fabricated contexts, enabling malicious uses such as non-consensual, political misinformation, and reputational harm. Social media and data-mining practice. further erode privacy, with user information being scraped, analyzed.

Additionally, the rise of digital marketing and virtual influencers has blurred the line between real and synthetic personas, allowing brands to replicate the likeness of celebrities or public figures without formal endorsement. Compounding the issue, the global nature of the internet creates jurisdictional challenges. Content can spread instantly across borders.[11]

Case Law:

In 2024, A famous well-known Hollywood Actress Scarlett Johansson had accused OpenAI of imitating her voice in its latest GPT model. OpenAI introduced Sky, a voice model as a part of GPT-4o where the voice being used was similar to the voice of her. [12]

In Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & other,[13] the Delhi High Court addressed the commercial exploitation of a public figure’s name through domain registration. Arun Jaitley, a prominent Indian politician with considerable goodwill and public recognition, sought to register the domain name (arunjaitley) only to discover it had already been registered by another party. The plaintiff alleged that the registration was done in bad faith to commercially exploit his identity, amounting to an infringement of his personality rights. The Court held that the domain name was indeed registered in bad faith and, drawing parallels to the protection afforded to well-known trademarks, ruled that only the plaintiff had the right to use his name for such purposes.[14]

In civil law jurisdictions, personality rights are often expressly protected in civil codes, covering an individual’s image, personal data, and other private information, with exceptions for matters involving public figures or newsworthy events. In common law jurisdictions, personality rights have evolved from property, trespass, passing off and intentional tort doctrines, mostly as judge-made law, with some statutory elements.

In Australia, for example, false endorsement is addressed through passing off rather than a standalone right of personality.
In a pioneering legislative move, Denmark is poised to amend its copyright laws to grant individuals legal ownership over their face, voice, and physical likeness, effectively treating these personal traits as intellectual property. This initiative represents one of the most far-reaching legal responses to deepfake technology anywhere in the world.[15]

Right to Privacy: Right to be left alone and it is extent of right to liberty. Black’s Law Dictionary directly defines the term “right of privacy” as individuals’ right “to be free from unwarranted publicity”.[16]
William Lloyd Prosser is quite well-known jurist by his “proposed privacy torts”. Prosser has classified “privacy” cases under four torts. In his famous article “Privacy” in 1960. William Prosser in (48 Cal. L. Rev. 383)[17] systematized the right to privacy into four distinct categories of actionable torts. These categories, now widely cited in American jurisprudence, are:

1. Intrusion in Seclusion: The intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise, into a person’s private affairs or physical solitude in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
   Example: Secretly entering someone’s home, wiretapping their phone, or hacking into their private online accounts.
2. Public Disclosure of Private Facts: The public dissemination of truthful, but private information that is not of legitimate public concern, and whose disclosure would offend a reasonable person.
3. False Light: Publication of false light that places an individual before the public in a misleading or distorted manner.
4. Appropriation of Name or Likeness:  Using another person’s identity, image, voice, or other personal attributes for commercial benefit without their permission.[18]

The most widely recognized way to classify privacy divides it into four broad categories:

(a) Informational Privacy,

(b) Bodily Privacy, 

c) Privacy of Communications,

(d) Territorial Privacy.

First three are considered as violation to the Right to privacy while fourth one is considered as violation to publicity right. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), A key milestone document that laid the groundwork for global human rights protection. While the UDHR does not explicitly label a “right to privacy” as a standalone provision, Article 12 directly addresses it by declaring:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to protection against such interferences or attacks.”[19] The principle was later codified in binding international treaties, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (ICCPR), adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. Article 17 of the ICCPR states:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”[20]

Unlike the UDHR which is considered a soft law, (declaratory but not legally binding), the ICCPR is a hard law treaty. Binding obligations on its signatory states to respect and protect privacy. By placing privacy alongside family life, home security, and reputation, these provisions reinforce its role as a cornerstone of personal autonomy, dignity, and human freedom.

Publicity Rights:

In 1954, Melville B. Nimmer wrote an influential article called The Right of Publicity where he argued that celebrities face a problem different from ordinary people. Their main concern isn’t about stopping unwanted intrusions into their private life the traditional “right to privacy”, but about controlling and profiting from the commercial use of their identity their name, image, voice, or likeness. In other words, while privacy law protects people from being bothered or exposed, Nimmer said celebrities also need a legal right to stop others from making money off their fame without permission.

Right to Publicity is nowadays ongoing thing on internet. It basically arises in commercial situations where companies want to use image, name, and likeness of other person to market their good and services.

The right of publicity can be described as the right of every man to control the commercial use of his image or identity. And it protects the associative value that celebrities such as actors and sportsmen bring to products and services through endorsements.

Publicity right is basically right to control and commercially exploit one’s identity, including name, image, likeness, or voice, and to prevent unauthorized use for profit. The right of publicity is also an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness, or other indicia or sign of personal identity such as nickname, voice, signature, likeness, or photograph for commercial benefit.

Case Law:

The case of Shivaji Rao Gaekwad v. Varsha Productions[21] is a significant Indian legal precedent on personality rights, particularly concerning celebrity publicity rights. It involved the famous actor Rajinikanth (real name Shivaji Rao Gaekwad), who filed a suit against Varsha Productions to stop them from using his name and distinctive style in a film titled “Main Hoon Rajinikanth”. The Madras High Court emphasized that publicity rights are especially vital for well-established public figures. The court clarified that such rights can be invoked when the individual is both identifiable and reputable. Unauthorized use of a celebrity’s name, image, or persona, the court noted, could mislead the public, create a false association, and potentially damage the individual’s reputation.[22]

Similarly, the court, in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi & Others [23] ruled that a celebrity’s image cannot be used for monetary gain by third parties without their permission. However, these cases lack clarity on the statutory basis for such protection.

Legal Frame Work for Protection of Personality Rights:

Across the world, the way personality rights are protected differs greatly from one country to another. In some jurisdictions, governments have enacted specific statutes that directly address the use and potential misuse of a celebrity’s image, name, or other distinctive personal attributes. These laws provide a clear legal pathway for public figures to assert their rights and prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity.

However, in many countries, there is no single, dedicated piece of legislation covering personality rights. Instead, celebrities and public figures relies over legal tools to protect their image and reputation. This often involves drawing from the principles from (common law principles, contract law, intellectual property laws, data protection) such as, law of tort, defamation, trademark, copyright and privacy protections. For example, a celebrity might register their name or signature as a trademark, include image usage clauses in contracts, or bring claims under defamation and privacy laws when their persona is misused.

While this blended approach can provide some degree of protection, it is often incomplete and inconsistent. The absence of unified legislation means that the scope of protection can vary widely, depending on the legal framework of the country and the specific circumstances of the case. This fragmented system creates challenges in enforcing personality rights particularly in the digital era, where images and content can be shared globally within seconds, often crossing multiple legal jurisdictions.

Law of tort:

Tort law offers foundational protection to aspects of an individual’s personality by addressing defamation, trespass/intrusion upon seclusion, and passing off.

• Defamation: It safeguards reputation from false statements that lower a person’s standing in society. Both slander (verbal defamation) and libel (written defamation) protects the personality rights.
• Intrusion in seclusion or Trespass: It protects against deliberate invasion into a person’s private life without consent.
• Passing off: It prevents false representation that a product, service, or cause is associated with an individual, by protecting against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity.

These principles are underpinned by principal of natural justice, ensuring dignity and fairness are preserved.

Intellectual Property Law:  

In Pakistan, there is no standalone statute that expressly defines or protects personality rights.

However, certain existing intellectual property (IP) laws can be applied to protect aspects of a person’s identity. Although these laws IPR laws primarily protect creative, artistic and unique works, inventions, and commercial marks, they indirectly safeguard certain aspects of personality rights, especially where identity is commercialized.

Copy right law in Pakistan: Protects authors, performers, and creators from unauthorized distortion, or modification of their work that harms their honor or reputation[24] Sections 56–57 this is all relevant for actors, musicians, and public figures whose performances, artistic, creative and unique works are part of their public persona.

Patent Ordinance, 2000,[25] primarily protects inventions and innovations. Personality rights are directly applicable unless a person’s likeness or unique personal attribute is used in connection with a patented product or technology without consent (as biometric, patents, celebrity’s facial scan). Trademarks Ordinance, 2001 is basically much relevant for personality rights. This law protects registered marks including names, signatures, or images usen in commerce. A celebrity can register their name, autograph, slogan, or distinctive phrase as a trademark to prevent unauthorized use. As the dialogue word of “Jakaas” is registered by Anil Kapoor, can’t be used by anyone. [26]

Constitution of Pakistan:

Constitution of Pakistan 1973 under article 14 protects the dignity and right to privacy of a person.[27] In the famous case of Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan,[28] court has upheld personal privacy and privacy of home, shall be inviolable.

Is there any need for Statue in Pakistan

In Pakistan, there is no dedicated statute specifically addressing personality rights the right of individuals, especially public figures, to control the commercial use of their name, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes and characteristics. However, the judiciary has stepped in as the primary safeguard by interpreting and applying existing laws mainly the Copyrights Act and Trademarks Act to resolve such dispute. A dedicated statute for personality rights is crucial because it would provide a clear, comprehensive, and enforceable legal framework to safeguard an individual’s name, image, likeness, voice, and other personal attributes from unauthorized commercial exploitation. Currently, protection is derived from fragmented provisions under the Trademarks Act, Copyrights Act, and law of tort or passing off, which often leads to inconsistent interpretations and inadequate remedies. In the digital age, where social media, AI-generated deepfakes, and viral content can easily misuse a person’s identity, the absence of a specific law leaves personalities vulnerable to exploitation without sufficient legal recourse.

A statute would not only ensure consistency and clarity in judicial decisions but also strike an appropriate balance between protecting personality rights and upholding freedom of expression and public interest. Moreover, it would strengthen the commercial dimension of these rights, allowing public figures, influencers, and artists to monetize their identity securely.

Conclusion:

In today’s fast-changing digital world where deepfakes, AI-generated content, and invasive media practices threaten both privacy and reputation the recognition of personality rights has become essential. Current intellectual property laws in Pakistan and many other jurisdictions provide fragmented and indirect protection, leaving significant gaps that allow misuse of personal identity, image, and likeness. These gaps are especially harmful in an era where public figures and ordinary citizens alike can have their personas exploited without consent. It is crucial for Pakistan and other jurisdictions to develop clear, sui generis legal provisions that safeguard personality rights while maintaining the delicate balance between personal dignity and freedom of expression. The effectiveness of these protections will ultimately depend on their ability to adapt to emerging technologies and evolving social norms, ensuring that identity remains a shield for empowerment rather than a target for exploitation.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Legislation

• Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, art 14.
• Copyright Ordinance 1962, ss 56–57 (Pakistan).
• Patent Ordinance 2000 (Pakistan).
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999 UNTS 171, art 17.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, art 12.

Cases laws

• Estate of Presley v Russen 513 F Supp 1339 (DNJ 1981) (US).
• Zacchini v Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co 433 US 562 (1977), 1977 SCC OnLine US SC 153; 53 L Ed 2d 965 (US).
• Titan Industries Ltd v Ramkumar Jewellers 2011 (47) PTC 1 (Del) (India).
• Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641 (India).
• Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India & Ors (2023) SCC OnLine Del 6914 (India).
• 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158 (India).
• PLD 1998 SC 388 (Pakistan).

Secondary Sources

Books

• Carlos Alberto Bittar, Os Direitos da Personalidade (1989).
• Francisco Amaral, Direito Civil: Introdução (2008).
• Carlos Antonio Morato, General Overview of the Personality Rights.
• Bryan A Garner (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 6521, 652A–652I cmt a (1977).
• William Prosser, ‘Privacy’ (1960) 48 California Law Review 383.

Journal Articles

• Jabeen Tahira, ‘Right of Privacy: The Lacuna in Pakistan and Indian Legal Framework’ (2021) 5(2) Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review 460.
• Zehra Fatma and Eesha Kaul, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Safeguard Personality Rights in Digital Age’ (2024) IV(V) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law ISSN 2583-0538.

News & Online Sources

• ‘Personality Rights of Public Figures’ (Kas & Co, undated) https://kasandco.in/personality-rights-public-figures.
• ‘Scarlett Johansson v OpenAI: What are Personality Rights and How are They Protected?’ The Indian Express (India, 17 August 2024) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/scarlett-johansson-vs-openai-voice-personality-rights-9347952/.
• ‘NDTV Report’ (10 July 2025).

[1] 4^th Year Student LL. B (Hons) International Islamic University Islamabad

[2] https://kasandco.in/personality-rights-public-figures

[3] Estate of Presley v. Russen, 513 F Supp 1339, 1353 (DNJ 1981) (U.S.)

[4] Jabeen Tahira, Right of Privacy: the Lacuna in Pakistan and Indian legal Framework, 2021 Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, page 460

[5] 1977 SCC OnLine US SC 153; 53 L Ed 2d 965; 433 US 562 (1977)

[6] Ibid

[7] 2025 NDTV report

[8] Cf. Carlos Alberto Bittar, Os Direitos da Personalidade, 1989; Francisco Amaral, Direito Civil: Introdução, 2008

[9] Carlos Antonio Morato: General overview of the personality rights Translated from: General overview of the personality rights

[10] Ibid

[11] Zehra Fatma &Kaul Eesha,Artificial Intelligence and the law: safeguard personality rights in digital age, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume IV Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

[12] Scarlett Johansson v. Open AI: What are personality rights and how are they protected? India, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/scarlett-johansson-vs-openai-voice-personality-rights 9347952/ (last visited on August 17, 2024).

[13] 2011 (47) PTC 1 (Del).

[14] Ibid

[15]https://time.com/7298425/ai-deepfakes-denmark-copyright-amendment 10 July 2025

[16] Black law dictionary.

[17] Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 6521, 652A-652I cmt. a (1977); William Prosser, Privacy, 48 California law Review 383, 398-401 (1960).

[18] Personality Rights – Intellectual Property Law – Research Guides at Case Western Reserve University Law Library

[19] United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 12.

[20] UNGA International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999 UNTS 171, Art. 17.

[21] 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158.

[22] Ibid

[23] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641 (Ind.)

[24] a. Section 56-57 Copyright Ordinance, 1962

[25] Patent Ordinance 2000

[26] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 6914 (Ind.)

[27] Article 14 Constitution of republic of Pakistan 1973

[28] PLD 1998 SC 388