Read Time: 09 minutes
Manchu claimed that pornographic websites were using his name to host obscene videos, which was humiliating to him and affected his dignity. These, according to Manchu, were using “cheap humor” to portray him in an obscene setting.
The Delhi High Court recently passed a John Doe order protecting the personality rights of Indian actor and film producer Vishnu Manchu. Manchu, who is known for his work in Telegu cinema, had filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the misappropriation of personality/publicity rights. He also sought protection of his name, voice, likeness, images, and other elements of his persona which were being used in an unauthorized manner by third parties.
Advocate Pravin Anand, representing Manchu, submitted that the use of his image and persona could cause confusion and deception among the public. Additionally, Manchu stated that, as an actor, he had been a part of many cinematographic films and was entitled to moral rights for his performances in these, as per the Copyright Act of 1957.
Advocate Pravin Anand alleged that the defendants were using tools such as Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to superimpose his face onto other people’s bodies, creating distasteful images and audio/visual clips. These were used to generate YouTube videos and earn revenue. Advocate Pravin Anand also stated that Manchu’s name, voice, likeness, signature, and even his mannerisms are distinctive and have acquired commercial value. This means that an unauthorized use of aspects of his personality could deceive the public, who would feel that he is affiliated with or sponsoring the people using such images.
Notably, according to Manchu, he is not only an actor but also an entrepreneur and philanthropist. He is the youngest president of the “Movie Artists Association,” a trade union representing many principal and background performers of the Telegu industry, as per his petition. He also claimed that his name “Vishnu Manchu” has garnered a significant amount of goodwill in the film industry. Citing these reasons, he stated that nobody can utilize or appropriate his name or any aspect of his personality without his consent and authorization.
Advocate Pravin Anand argued that the actor’s likeness was being used to promote content that was derogatory and defamatory towards him. For instance, his image was being juxtaposed with pictures of animals, along with “out of context” excerpts from his interviews, to portray him in a bad light. The counsel alleged that Manchu’s images and videos created by these individuals were shown with profane language or were used to make “baseless allegations” against him.
Additionally, the actor described how his likeness and personality rights, such as his name and voice were being used to promote affiliate links, which generated money for their creators when used by viewers.
According to the actor, such attempts to misuse his personality and publicity rights would harm his reputation and his position as a member of the Telegu film industry and a member of several educational bodies. He sought relief from the court, asking that a permanent injunction against the defendants, who were misusing his publicity rights, be granted to him.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna issued directives to the people misusing Manchu’s image, including group entities, affiliates, and holding companies, ordering them to refrain from creating defamatory content against the actor. The bench also forbade such individuals and companies from using formats and mediums such as AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Metaverse to depict the actor’s likeness or voice for commercial gain.
The court further directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) along with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to suspend the links and URLs of websites that were indulging in such activities. The creators of certain objectionable YouTube videos involving the aggrieved actor were ordered to take down the content, in addition, YouTube was directed to suspend these URLs in case this was not carried out. The judge also stated that the plaintiff Manchu could notify YouTube to block or suspend any URLs that were or would be uploaded by the defendants.
The court further listed the matter for January 22, 2024.
Case Title: Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu Alias Vishnu V/s Arebumdum and Ors. (CS (COMM )828/2024)
Advocates:
For Petitioner: Advocates Pravin Anand, Jaya Negi, and Yashi Aggarwal
For the Defendants: Advocates Aditya Gupta and Sauhard Alung for Google LLC
Please Login or Register
