top of page

The Afterlife of Fame: Who Owns a Celebrity’s Legacy?

  • Writer: Vrinda Harmilapi
    Vrinda Harmilapi
  • Jun 16
  • 10 min read

Introduction


The allure of celebrity life is undeniable. For fans, celebrities are more than just entertainers—they are icons, role models, and walking brands. This fascination often transcends the screen, seeping into every aspect of their lives - public or private. What’s striking is that a celebrity’s influence doesn’t end with their life. Their name, face, and overall persona often turn into valuable commercial assets that continue to generate revenue long after they’re gone. In fact, a celebrity’s death can sometimes spark a new wave of public interest—through tributes, merchandise, biopics, and, increasingly, legal battles.


This is where personality rights come into focus—laws that protect an individual’s identity from being exploited without permission. While still developing in India, this area of law has already seen high-profile figures head to court to protect their image and identity. The issue becomes even more complex when the person is no longer alive, as seen in cases involving the late Sushant Singh Rajput and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. These cases underscore the growing effort to secure not just a public image, but a lasting legacy.


With fame that transcends time, the question arises: how far can the law go to protect their rights? This article delves into the interplay between personality rights, intellectual property, and the evolving legal landscape in India regarding posthumous rights.

Personality Rights and Their Posthumous Extension


Personality rights—also known as publicity rights—safeguard an individual's unique identity. This includes elements like their name, image, voice, signature, dialogues and other distinctive personal traits. These rights grant individuals, control over how their persona is used for commercial purposes, allowing them to authorize or restrict its usage in public and commercial domains.


Posthumous rights are a natural extension of these personality rights, continuing to protect a person’s identity even after their death. If a celebrity’s name or likeness is used for profit—whether in advertising, merchandise, or films—their estate retains the authority to control and consent to such usage. This legal protection ensures that a celebrity’s image is not exploited in ways that conflict with their legacy or values. While rooted in the broader right to privacy, personality rights differ in one significant way: privacy rights typically cease upon death, whereas publicity rights can endure posthumously. This distinction is especially important in the entertainment and media industries, where a celebrity's image can maintain—or even increase—its commercial value after death.


At the core of publicity rights is the recognition that a person's identity holds enduring economic and symbolic worth. These rights allow individuals or their heirs not only to monetize that value but also to protect the moral integrity of the persona. In a culture where celebrity image is constantly repackaged and resold, personality rights serve as a safeguard—ensuring that a star's legacy is neither misrepresented nor misused.


‘A key example that illustrates this tension is the case involving General Motors[1], which used a digitally altered image of Albert Einstein in an advertisement. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which holds rights to Einstein’s estate, filed a lawsuit. The Court, however, ruled in favor of General Motors, noting that more than 60 years had passed since Einstein’s death, and that the ad was clearly a parody not meant to suggest endorsement. This case highlights the delicate balance between creative freedom and the right to control posthumous publicity.’[2]


Indian perspective on Posthumous rights- A deeper analysis through case laws


In India, the legal recognition of posthumous rights—especially the right of publicity—is still taking shape. While there is no express statutory provision dedicated to the “right of publicity,” Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged the need to safeguard an individual’s persona, including their name, image, and likeness, from unauthorized commercial exploitation, even after their death. These rights are primarily derived from broader constitutional guarantees such as Article 19(1)(a), which ensures freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, which protects the right to life and dignity. They also intersect with intellectual property laws in practice.

Indian law has yet to explicitly recognize posthumous publicity rights, apart from certain protections offered under specific legislations like the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, which prevents unauthorized commercial use of the names of national personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi.[3] A number of significant judicial decisions have shaped the discourse on personality rights. For example, the foundation of personality rights in India was laid by actor Rajinikanth, who initiated legal action against film producers for using his name, image, and distinctive style without permission.[4] In a significant decision, the Madras High Court ruled in his favor, stating that his identity could not be commercially exploited without his consent.[5] This case marked a turning point, establishing a precedent for enforcing publicity rights in the Indian entertainment industry. Similarly, in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012)[6], the Delhi High Court delivered a pivotal judgment recognizing celebrity or personality rights in India. The Court held that celebrities have an inherent right to control the commercial use of their identity. It specifically restrained a jeweler from using images of Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan, copied from Titan's advertisements, without their permission. This ruling underscored that the right to publicity allows individuals to control when, where, and how their persona is commercially exploited, safeguarding their valuable goodwill from unauthorized appropriation. [7]

However, the legal recognition of posthumous rights remains a contentious and unsettled issue. A pivotal case in this context is Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Sarogi[8], in which the Delhi High Court addressed the question of whether personality rights—including privacy and publicity—extend beyond death. The case arose when the father of the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput sought to block the release of films and projects inspired by his son's life, arguing that they violated his son’s personality rights and were being used for commercial gain without consent. The Court rejected the plea for an injunction, ruling that personality and privacy rights do not survive the individual and are therefore not inheritable. Emphasizing the constitutional value of artistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a), the Court noted that the projects in question were fictional works inspired by widely publicized events and thus could not be restricted on grounds of privacy or defamation. This decision highlighted the judicial inclination to prioritize freedom of expression in creative works over posthumous claims to personality rights.


A similar stance was seen in Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay & Ors.[9], where the niece of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa objected to the production of the biopic Thalaivi and the web series Queen, alleging violation of her aunt’s privacy and personality rights. She argued that, as Jayalalithaa’s legal heir, she had the right to protect her posthumous dignity. The Madras High Court, however, held that privacy rights terminate upon death and cannot be transferred or inherited. The Court underscored the importance of creative freedom and the public's right to examine and critique the lives of public figures, thereby allowing the biopic and series to proceed.

Thus, it is clear that while India lacks comprehensive legislation that formally recognizes or protects posthumous publicity rights, these judicial precedents reflect a growing awareness of the legal and ethical issues surrounding a celebrity’s image after death. As the commercial and symbolic value of public figures continues to endure posthumously, Indian Courts are gradually navigating the complex intersection of privacy, intellectual property, and legacy protection.


Global Perspectives on Posthumous Rights[10]


Across the globe, personality rights—particularly posthumous publicity rights—are far more developed than in India, with the United States leading the way through a combination of state laws and judicial precedent dating back to the early 20th century. These rights typically protect the use of an individual's name, likeness, voice, and other identifiable attributes, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. However, the extent and duration of these protections vary significantly across jurisdictions.

In general, posthumous rights can be divided into two components: the commercial right of publicity, which deals with economic exploitation, and the non-commercial right to privacy and dignity, which is often rooted in human rights or constitutional protections. While civil law countries often provide formal statutory frameworks for these rights, common law countries tend to develop protections through case law.

  • United States of America

The United States has one of the most robust frameworks for posthumous publicity rights, though the laws differ from state to state:

  • California has recognized posthumous publicity rights since 1984, offering protection for up to 70 years after death. These rights can be transferred or assigned through will or other legal instruments.

  • Indiana provides one of the longest durations—100 years of protection after a person's death.

  • New York, which long lacked posthumous rights, enacted a law in 2020 providing 40 years of protection for deceased personalities, contingent on consent from the estate or heirs.

A landmark case, Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.[11], saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold an individual's right to prevent unauthorized commercial use of their performance, reinforcing the principle that exploiting a person’s identity without consent constitutes unjust enrichment.

  • United Kingdom

The United Kingdom does not formally recognize a “right of publicity” as such. However, estates may control the use of a deceased person's image or likeness through copyright or other intellectual property tools.

  • France

France adopts a blended approach through the concept of “droit à l'image” (right to one's image), which encompasses both personal dignity and commercial interests. Posthumous image rights can be enforced by the heirs for up to 20 years after death. French law allows limited exceptions for parody or non-offensive use. A 1998 case set an important precedent in recognizing the commercial use of a deceased individual’s image, emphasizing the heirs' right to consent.

  • Germany

Germany offers formal recognition of posthumous publicity rights, grounded in constitutional protections of human dignity. These rights cover both moral and commercial aspects of a person’s identity and last for 10 years after death. The Marlene Dietrich[12] case notably reinforced the economic value of a celebrity’s image and upheld her estate's right to control its use posthumously.

  • Spain

Spain’s 1982 Organic Law on Civil Protection of the Right to Honor, Personal and Family Privacy, and One’s Image provides extensive protection, including posthumous rights that last for 80 years.

While approaches differ widely—from statutory protection in the U.S. to case-based enforcement in the UK—there is a growing global consensus on the economic and symbolic value of a public figure’s identity, even after death. In many countries, these rights are inheritable and allow heirs to manage how a deceased individual’s likeness is used in the public domain. Nevertheless, legal frameworks continue to evolve, especially in response to modern challenges like AI-generated likenesses, digital avatars, and biographical content. The international trend leans toward recognizing posthumous publicity rights—not just to prevent misuse, but to honor the commercial and moral legacies of public figures.


Intersection of Personality Rights and Intellectual Property Rights in India


Personality rights—though not formally codified under Indian intellectual property laws—frequently intersect with copyright, trademark, and contract law when an individual's persona is commercially exploited. These rights protect identifiable traits like a person’s name, image, or voice and are increasingly recognized through judicial interpretation rather than explicit legislation.


Copyright: Protecting Legacy Through Creative Works


Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Copyright protection extends for the lifetime of the author plus 60 years posthumously (Section 22). This ensures that the economic and moral value of a creator’s original work—be it a book, song, film, or painting—continues to benefit their heirs. The law covers not just reproduction but also rights such as adaptation, performance, and distribution. India’s extended term of protection (compared to 50 years in many countries) promotes long-term cultural and financial preservation.


Trademark: Sustaining a Persona as a Brand


Trademarks, governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, play a critical role in the commercial legacy of individuals, especially public figures. While copyright protection is automatic, trademark rights require ongoing registration and active use. If a trademark—like a name or logo associated with a celebrity—is unused for five years, it risks cancellation.

Unlike copyright, trademark protection is not automatically posthumous. The heirs or legal successors must continue using the mark to retain protection. In India, celebrities often register their names or likenesses as trademarks. These can continue to be licensed or commercially used posthumously, provided the use remains genuine and does not mislead the public. Such protection ensures that a celebrity’s brand value is preserved and managed by their heirs Notable examples include legacy brands like Tata, or personalities like M.G. Ramachandran (MGR), whose names have continued to hold commercial value long after their passing.


A Personal Insight into the Future of Posthumous Rights in India


Despite some judicial pronouncements, the lack of dedicated legislation on posthumous rights in India continues to result in legal ambiguity and may result in inconsistent outcomes in the future. This legal vacuum not only leads to confusion among the public but also leaves room for the unauthorized exploitation of a deceased individual’s identity. India’s approach to posthumous rights reflects a unique intersection of cultural reverence and commercial reality. Deeply rooted traditions emphasize honoring the dead—through rituals, remembrance, and the preservation of familial legacy. These cultural values naturally align with the idea of protecting an individual’s identity even after death, reinforcing the need for dignity and respect in both personal and public spaces. From a legal standpoint, however, the commercialization of celebrity identities presents a modern challenge. In today’s media-driven world, a public figure’s persona—encompassing their name, image, voice, and overall brand—holds immense commercial value. As endorsements, merchandising, and digital recreations continue to grow, so does the risk of unauthorized exploitation. Recognizing posthumous personality rights would allow legal heirs to retain control over the commercial use of the deceased’s identity. This recognition is crucial—not just as a matter of economic right, but as a safeguard for the legacy that the individual spent a lifetime building. Celebrities often invest years of hard work, creative output, and personal sacrifice to shape their public image—an image that holds the power to influence society long after their death. Protecting posthumous rights would thus serve a dual purpose: preserving the dignity and legacy of the deceased and preventing the misuse of their identity for unconsented gain. As India continues to evolve both culturally and legally, it may soon be time for the legislature to take proactive steps in codifying these rights—ensuring clarity, consistency, and fairness for generations to come.


Conclusion


In India, posthumous rights within the framework of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are essential for safeguarding a creator's legacy after their death. Provisions such as the Copyright Act’s extension of rights for 60 years beyond the creator’s death ensure that works continue to generate economic benefit, allowing heirs to preserve the creator's artistic and financial contributions. Similarly, trademarks associated with individuals or brands can be protected posthumously, provided the heirs or successors maintain their use. As Intellectual Property Rights laws continue to evolve, the protection of posthumous rights becomes even more relevant, especially in India, where cultural traditions and legacies are deeply intertwined with commercial interests. Ensuring that creators’ rights are honored after their death not only allows their heirs to benefit from their legacy but also protects their moral rights, helping preserve both the creative and commercial value for future generations.


References:

  1.  Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. General Motors LLC, 202 WL 4868003 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2012)

  2. Selvam &Selvam, Post-mortem rights of publicity in India. A matter of grave importance, Post-mortem rights of publicity in India. A matter of grave importance – Selvam & Selvam

  3.  Ibid

  4. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (aka Rajinikanth) v. Varsha Production (2015),Civil Suit No.598 of 2014

  5.  Supra note 2

  6. Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellelrs, CS(OS) No.2662/2011

  7. Bar and Bench, Personality rights from Amitabh Bachchan to Sushant Singh to Anil Kapoor: Indian and Global View Point, Personality rights from Amitabh Bachchan to Sushant Singh to Anil Kapoor: Indian and Global View Point

  8. Krishna Kishore Singh vs Sarla A Saraogi & Ors,CS(COMM) 187/2021

  9. Deepa Jayakumar vs A.L. Vijay, O.S.A.No.75 of 2020 and C.M.P.Nos.2945, 2946 and 9240 of 2020

  10.  Dr Pratima Narayan, Beyond the grave: Exploring the legality of posthumous publicity rights, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/24/beyond-the-grave-exploring-the-legality-of-posthumous-publicity-rights/

  11. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)

  12. Marlene Dietrich Case BGH 1 ZR 49/97

  13. https://iprmentlaw.com/2021/05/12/settling-the-posthumous-application-of-privacy-rights/

  14. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/personality-rights-22#:~:text=Description%201%20Personality%20rights%20include%20various%20aspects%20of,unauthorized%20exploitation%20of%20their%20identity%20for%20commercial%20gain.

  15. https://www.tbalaw.in/post/a-look-evolution-personality-rights-in-india

  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacchini_v._Scripps-Howard_Broadcasting_Co.

  17. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/personality-trademark-in-india-the-new-unchained-wolf-and-need-to-regulate

  18. https://law.utexas.edu/transnational/foreign-law-translations/german/case.php?id=726 

Comments


Search By Tags
bottom of page