Kamal Haasan wins personality rights case; Madras HC restrains AI misuse & unauthorised sales
Kamal Haasan has moved the Madras High Court to protect his personality rights . The lawsuit says no one should be allowed to exploit his name, initials (KH) images for commercial or personal gain without his permission.
Chennai: In a landmark ruling safeguarding celebrity rights in the digital age, the Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction protecting actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan’s personality rights. The court restrained the creation, circulation, and commercial use of AI-generated or morphed images of the veteran actor, along with the sale of unauthorised merchandise bearing his name, image, or famous dialogues.
The order came on a civil suit filed by Kamal Haasan against Chennai-based company ‘Neeye Vidai’ and others, accusing them of commercially exploiting his name, photograph, title ‘Ulaganayagan,’ and iconic dialogues without permission to sell products like T-shirts and shirts.
Madras High Court’s Observations
A bench, after hearing arguments presented by senior advocate Satish Parasaran on behalf of Kamal Haasan, noted that a "strong prima facie case” had been made out in favour of granting interim relief. The court found compelling evidence of personality rights violation, particularly concerning the AI-driven misuse of his likeness.
Scope of the Injunction
While issuing the restraint, the court was careful to balance protection with freedom of expression. The injunction specifically safeguards satire and creative expression, ensuring that legitimate parody or artistic works are not unduly restricted. The order will remain in effect until the next hearing in the suit.
Background of the Case
Kamal Haasan, an icon of Indian cinema for over five decades, joined a growing list of celebrities—including Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek Bachchan, Salman Khan, and R. Madhavan—who have sought judicial intervention against unauthorised commercial exploitation of their persona. The suit argued that such misuse not only infringes on intellectual property but also misleads the public and damages the star’s reputation.