What's New

Comments & Summaries
May 23, 2025

Comment: Do Injunctions In Matters Of Celebrity Personality Rights Unfairly Restrict Public Speech?

Author: Garima Chauhan

The explosion of social media has made celebrities more visible than ever, with their images and personalities constantly in the spotlight. This increased exposure has also made them more vulnerable to unauthorized commercial exploitation, where their likeness is used without consent to promote products or mislead the public. In response, many celebrities seek broad injunctions to protect their personality rights. While these legal tools aim to prevent misuse, they also ignite a debate about their fairness and the impact on public expression. The author argues that while protection is necessary, overly broad injunctions, which prohibit using the likeness of a celebrity via any current or future mediums, are ultimately unjustified due to their chilling effect on free speech, more so when they are granted in ex-parte cases.

From one point of view, celebrities are at a greater risk of exploitation due to their high public profile. Their images are frequently misused for profit, often without their knowledge or approval, leading to both financial and reputational damage. Broad injunctions provide a safety net, giving celebrities the power to control how their persona is used. They also serve as a strong deterrent against anonymous online users who exploit the lack of accountability to misuse a celebrity’s image for personal gain. For many, these legal measures are essential to preserving the dignity and privacy of public figures.

However, it can also be argued that such injunctions can go too far, stifling free speech in the process. Public figures naturally invite scrutiny, criticism, and even satire—forms of expression that are integral to a healthy democracy. Broad injunctions risk silencing these voices, creating an atmosphere where even legitimate critique or humorous commentary becomes risky. This could discourage open dialogue and undermine the public’s ability to hold influential figures accountable. Additionally, such measures could set a dangerous precedent, where the boundaries of free speech are continually pushed back under the guise of protecting individual rights.

In conclusion, while celebrities have a legitimate interest in safeguarding their personality rights, the reach of broad injunctions must be carefully examined. These legal tools, though intended to protect the dignity and privacy of public figures, carry significant implications for the broader societal principles of expression and critique. By restricting the public’s ability to engage openly with influential figures, such injunctions risk creating an environment where legitimate discourse is stifled, and the space for humor, criticism, and accountability is diminished.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

  • Non Solicitation
  • Data Privacy & Protection
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Data & Document Retention Practice
  • Firm Management Policy
  • Liability
  • Disclaimer
  • Privilege
  • Copyright
  • Billing Policy
  • Pro Bono