Gen Z creators are digital-native entrepreneurs. Their memes, reels, aesthetics, and personal brands are valuable intellectual assets. Yet India’s IP and personality-rights framework is still evolving. As social media and influencer marketing grow into multi-billion-dollar industries, the law is being tested on new fronts — from deepfakes to critical reviews. For many young creators, the law often feels reactive rather than anticipatory, leaving them to navigate legal risks that the legal system has not yet fully articulated.
Most influencer outputs fall under copyright (videos, photographs, edits), while brand names, channel handles, and logos are protected through trademarks. In parallel, courts have increasingly acknowledged “personality rights” — a derivative of the constitutional right to privacy under the Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgement — covering an individual’s name, likeness, voice, and image when exploited for commercial purposes. Nevertheless, personality rights in India largely remain judge-made and precedent-based, leaving scope for inconsistencies, which means that creators often operate in a grey zone. The absence of dedicated statutory frameworks often results in unpredictable enforcement, especially for emerging young creators who lack celebrity-level recognition and credibility.
The Delhi High Court in 2025 granted urgent interim injunctions to celebrities such as Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff, restraining the misuse of their persona and AI-generated deepfakes. These orders underscore the judiciary’s readiness to extend personality rights into the digital and AI context.
At the same time, the Court has emphasized that influencers retain a right to critique brands, provided such criticism is grounded in verifiable facts. In Hamdard National Foundation v. Nature & Nurture Health Care, the Delhi High Court refused to restrain comparative advertising and influencer critique that was supported by material evidence, noting that only unfounded disparagement alone crosses into actionable territory.
1. Register and protect: Copyright arises automatically, but registration bolsters enforcement. Influencers seeking long-term monetisation should file trademarks for their handles, brand logos, or slogans. Given the pace at which online identities evolve, securing these rights early on prevents impersonation and avoids future legal and rebranding costs.
2. Contracts before content: Collaboration agreements should spell out ownership, licensing scope, territory, duration, and AI-use clauses. in the absence of written consent, courts may infer implied licences, complicating enforcement.
3. Preserve provenance: Store original files, timestamps, and platform analytics. Courts in injunction hearings weigh contemporaneous proof of authorship heavily. This becomes especially crucial in a landscape wherein reposts, edits, and remixes blur the line between inspiration and infringement.
4. AI and consent: Explicitly prohibit unauthorised AI-based reproduction of one’s likeness. The recent Anil Kapoor order indicates that Indian courts are willing to curb synthetic misuse where it causes reputational or commercial injury.
5. Be cautious with critique: When reviewing or criticising brands, base claims on verifiable data — such as lab reports or expert opinions. Otherwise, influencers risk liability for defamation or unfair trade practices.
Indian courts favour interim injunctions to stem ongoing misuse, though final adjudication often lags. For Gen Z creators, the most practical remedy lies in preventive structuring: registering rights, documenting authorship, and contracting carefully. Litigation remains vital for urgent takedowns but should be coupled with reputational management and negotiation strategies. The enforcement gap still largely remains a major challenge and democratising access to remedies should be the foremost frontier of India’s IP ecosystem.
The Gen Z creator economy thrives on immediacy and trust. Protecting that value demands proactive IP and personality-rights strategies. Therefore, the law must evolve in tandem with cultural and technological shifts. Otherwise, young creators will become both the engine and the casualties of the digital economy. The courts are signalling strong support against unauthorised exploitation — particularly in the age of AI and deepfakes — but the true “playbook” is prevention: register, contract, document, and consent.
About the authors: Amit Panigrahi is a Partner, Sahil Arora is a Principal Associates and Ishikaa Seth is an Associate at Kochhar & Co.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.