Raj Shamani's win extends personality rights to India's content creators

“We have seen in the cases for movie personalities, who followed one after another, so other influencers may prefer similar pleas and approach the court," said law firm Saraf and Partners' advocate Gauhar Mirza, who specializes in technology law.

The judgment sends a clear signal that courts are willing to recognize and enforce personality rights in the creator economy, said law firm Aishani Partners' managing partner Aditi Verma, who specializes in intellectual property (IP) law.

“It also educates creators about the legal value of their personal brand, encouraging them to view their name, image, and likeness as protectable assets," she said, adding that growing awareness is likely to make more creators vigilant about misuse and proactive in seeking legal remedies.

Shamani approached the court on Friday, seeking protection from the widespread misuse of his name, likeness and identity across digital platforms.

The court on Monday granted an injunction, preventing individuals and companies from using his persona for endorsements, promotions, or AI-generated deepfakes.

“This case is not about ego, it’s about setting a foundation of trust, fairness, and safety for the next generation of digital talent," Shamani said in his response to Mint's queries.

He argued that for the country to realize its ambition of building a $10 billion creator economy, it is essential to protect the individuals driving this growth. “India is entering a new era where identity itself has become a digital property. So this case can’t remain a one-off victory; it needs to become a blueprint."

This order reinforces that personality rights are not the preserve of traditional fame, said Nakul Gandhi, founding partner of NG Law Chambers, which represented Shamani in the case. “Personality rights extend to anyone who has built recognizable goodwill in the digital marketplace."

The turning point

The order marks a turning point for the influencer ecosystem, as it extends personality rights—traditionally reserved for film, television, and sports celebrities—to digital creators, who see the order as a long-awaited step.

Creators with strong personal brands may increasingly involve lawyers early in their careers, said Viraj Sheth, co-founder of new-age media company Monk Entertainment.

“The threshold is simple. Once a creator’s face becomes commercial IP, they cannot afford misuse. Finance creators, wellness creators, political commentators—all of them are at high risk."

Mom influencer Shivani Kapila, better known as Littleglove on YouTube, with close to 17 million subscribers, said the community had been waiting for clear regulations for nearly a decade.

“With artificial intelligence now capable of generating highly realistic videos, this ruling provides a guiding light on how influencers can protect themselves legally. While smaller creators may not immediately secure such protections, it at least builds awareness that legal options exist," she said.

She added that the judgment would discourage brands from using creators’ likenesses or intellectual property without consent and push for stronger contracts.

However, she noted that broader, industry-wide guidelines are still needed to address issues such as IP theft and cc, ideally developed in cooperation with social-media platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, X, Reddit, Telegram, and Snapchat.

IP lawyers agree. “Agreements will now become far more detailed, with clear clauses on the use of name, image, likeness, and any AI-related applications. Expect explicit terms on synthetic content and takedown obligations," said Amit Panigrahi, partner-IP, law firm Kochhar & Co.

A warning

Shamani’s petition had also highlighted the rise of fake talent managers and scam booking websites—an issue influencer agencies have faced for years.

Although the court assured Shamani protection from fake videos, Telegram accounts, scam booking sites, and false endorsements, it declined to block all hashtags containing his name at this stage, noting that hashtags do not always imply endorsement.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who heard the case, also separated issues related to memes, humour, and parody from the present injunction, saying those involve free-speech considerations and should not be mixed with commercial misuse.

“The court did not want commercial misuse to be mixed with humour, parody or hashtags, because those raise free-speech concerns. By separating them, the court protects both personality rights and legitimate online expression," Panigrahi explained.

Social-media platforms have some limited protections in place. For instance, YouTube offers a content detection feature that alerts creators if their likeness appears in any other video online, allowing them to flag it as a potential deepfake.

“I would love to see other platforms follow suit. However, I believe a law would serve as a stronger deterrent against those who misuse personality rights. Otherwise, we’ll just end up spending all our time reporting these videos, with the perpetrators never really facing any consequences," said Satshya Tharien, a content creator whose deepfake advertisement for a skincare product circulated on social media until she managed to get it taken down.

“When this happened to me, and I explored legal action, I could only file a complaint under defamation. But this is such an IT-specific issue that legal recourse isn’t very clear. I mean, I could get my video removed from the platform, but I have no way of knowing if the brand is still running ads using my deepfake on other social-media platforms," she added.

Ayush Guha, business head at Creator18, said the order serves as a warning. “This signals that misrepresenting creators won’t be tolerated. Platforms will also have to take more responsibility. Finance and health influencers especially need tighter safeguards."