Madras High Court protects Kamal Haasan’s personality rights

The Madras High Court on Monday granted interim relief to actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan, restraining unidentified persons and platforms from commercially exploiting or disseminating morphed and AI-generated images using his likeness [Kamal Haasan Vs Neeyevidai].

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ruled that Haasan had made out a strong prima facie case for interim relief.

"Upon examining the above, strong prima facie case is made out. Therefore, the respondents are restrained from creating false images of the plaintiff and depicting the same through any media until the next date of hearing,” the Court said.

The Court further restrained commercial exploitation.

“Respondents are also restrained from selling merchandise wearing the plaintiff’s image or name, including screen names attributed to the plaintiff, without the plaintiff’s consent or endorsement until the next date of hearing,” the order stated.

However, the Court also said that satire and other permissible creative expression is allowed.

“This order will not, however, stand in the way of caricature, satire or other forms of permissible creative expression," the judge made it clear.

Since a John Doe defendant (unknown entity) had been made a party to the case, the Court also directed publication of the order in an English daily with wide circulation to notify unknown infringers.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for Haasan, submitted that the action was brought to protect both dignity and commercial interests, which were simultaneously being impacted by unauthorised online activity.

It was argued that the misuse took two broad forms - commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s persona and disparaging or harmful content circulated on social media.

The Court was informed that the infringers were largely anonymous and that the suit had therefore been structured as a John Doe action.

Instead of naming individuals, Haasan identified specific URLs through which the infringing content was being circulated. Parasaran explained that only in limited instances had a specific person been identified, particularly where there was clear commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s image.

On commercial misuse, it was submitted that Haasan's image and name were being used on merchandise such as T-shirts and other products without consent or endorsement. The pleadings and materials placed before the Court were said to demonstrate a straightforward case of unauthorised monetisation of the plaintiff’s personality.

Parasaran conceded that non-commercial use of an image does not ordinarily attract restraint and that even creative expressions such as caricature and satire must remain protected. However, the grievance in the present case is that the content crossed this boundary, he said.

On negative misuse, the counsel pointed to the creation and circulation of AI-generated deepfakes and morphed images. These were described as unsavoury and harmful, including content that allegedly depicted the plaintiff in inappropriate contexts, thereby diluting personality rights, infringing moral rights and affecting endorsement value.