Beyond Access: Copyright, Personality Rights and Commercial Exploitation in India’s Digital Economy
Introduction : The concept of “Convenience" is too often mistaken for Compliance”. In fact, it is because of rapid development in information technology that we see the digital world filled with great opportunities ranging from creation of highly realistic content to various processes of content manipulation. The mere fact of having access to the digital content does not mean that it is legally okay to use it or commercially exploit it.
As a result, the fast-forward movement of the digital world and its availability in many formats, it is increasingly more difficult to define what constitutes the legitimate use of the digital content. Access to the content in a particular domain does not give one a legal right to use it, because modern technology blurs the line between personal use and commercial exploitations; thus, it is possible to reproduce any protected sound recording, digital media as well as names, images and voices of famous people with ease. At the same time, such a dilemma reveals the existing legal question: where should the law draw the border between proper use of the information and illegal use?
The tension between technological capacity and legal feasibility plays out right in Indian courts. The case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. (Nykaa) is about copyrighted material and revolves around a conflict regarding the possible use of music in Nykaa’s advertising Instagram Reels: whether the accessibility provided by the platform allows brands to make use of the material commercially. A similar case, Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors. emphasizes a different focus: personality rights and some unauthorized commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s name and appearance. Together, these cases show how technological convenience may interfere with previously established legal rights if digital content or identity is used for commercial purposes.
The points raised in these lawsuits have very practical implications for the entrepreneurs, creators, and online platforms. They signal that simple availability of materials on a digital platform does not imply that they can be used commercially. On the contrary, digital platforms should create clearer differentiation between personal use and commercial use as well as implement preventive measures to avoid misuse. This blog discusses the changes in legal aspects and analyses the demarcations drawn by Indian law in terms of digital convenience, legal approval and commercial exploitation.
The Legal Framework
Under the Copyright Act of 1957, a recording of a song can be covered by multiple layers of copyright protections. Section 14 gives authors exclusive rights to use their products in specific ways, including the transmission of sound recording to the public. Section 30 enables copyright owners to give out licenses with specific terms. If a right is used without a license or by violating the terms of use, it could be considered a copyright infringement according to Section 51, while Section 55 provides for civil rights available in the form of injunctions and damages. Thus, in the world of digital technology, access to content does not warrant a legal approval since the other aspects of the license need to be considered.
In contrast, there is no comprehensive statutory regime governing personality and publicity rights in India, and they have evolved through judicial precedents. These rights could find protection through the right to privacy and dignity guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 21, the performer rights as provided in Sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, and trademark protection whenever the name or distinctive expression of a person has protection under trademarks. Thus, courts play an important role in deciding when the unauthorized use of the name, image, voice or personality of a person is illegal.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. (Nykaa)
The difference between technical access and legal authorization is essential in the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd., which is now ongoing in the Delhi High Court. Zee Entertainment claimed that FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. used its sound recordings in around twelve promotional Reels on Instagram without acquiring a commercial license first. Zee has reportedly asked for compensation of ₹2 crores, and the mentioned Reels were removed afterward.
The issue in the case involves the value of the license of the concerned music on social media. As per Section 14 of the Copyright Act of 1957, copyright owners have power over a variety of uses of their works, including the transmission of sounds. Section 30 allows the holder of the copyright to issue the license of the rights, while Section 51 says that the exercise of the right of a copyright is possible only with the proper license.
Zee claims that its licensing agreement with Meta Platforms Inc. is restricted to personal and non-commercial user creation, while corporate brands must obtain the necessary permission for commercial exploitation. This stance is in line with the Music Guidelines of Instagram, which clarify that users are responsible for obtaining proper permission for all commercial use. The guidelines provide a distinction between the platform’s licensed music library, which is valid only for private and non-commercial uses, and the royalty-free option, such as Meta’s Sound Collection, which can be used for advertising.
The application of Nykaa, however, said that the use of its music using Instagram's features is covered under the broader licensing framework of the platform. In order to find out the correct extent of privacy provided to users, it has filed an application to join Meta Platforms Inc. as a party in the litigation.
From the compliance perspective, the key point for Nykaa was to establish whether use of a track available on Instagram could be deemed to amount to obtaining consent for promotion. In this regard, companies that use music for commercial purposes need to check whether or not the track is licensed for commercial use rather than relying on its availability on the app alone.
The importance of Zee v. Nykaa arises from the fact that it raises the question before the Court as to whether technical access to music on an electronic platform may be interpreted as consent to use such music commercially. Before this question is tackled properly, the case is an important compliance reminder for brands operating in the ever-expanding digital marketing environment in India.
Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.
The same difference between accessibility and authorisation goes beyond copyright-infringing material to include commercial exploitation of one's identity. This legal matter came up in the case of Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., where actor Jackie Shroff filed a case in Delhi High Court requesting protection from unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness, voice and other significant characteristics of his personality. The matter concerned various online activities, such as merchandise and other digital content featuring his photos, animated representations, name and phrases without getting his authorisation.
The Court confirmed that celebrities’ personalities consist of identifiable points like name, voice, image, likeness, mannerisms and other features of a public personality. Referring back to the case of D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., the Court said that the right of publicity protects individuals from unauthorised use of such features for commercial purposes so that others could benefit financially.
In this context, it is crucial to note that the Court provided interim protection to some of Shroff's commercial identities, like the unauthorized use of his name, nicknames and images in commercial products. However, when it came to the YouTube video consisting of various interviews, he gave that are already publicly accessible, the Court took a rather careful stance, denying the immediate withdrawal of the matter being considered and concluding that the matter is to be looked at through the lens of creativity and economic expression in the end. Thus, the ruling shows that the right to personality does not imply the ban on every use of the publicly available material; the context, nature and commercial nature of the usage matter.
From Access to Authorisation: Implications for Businesses
The Zee–Nykaa and Jackie Shroff disputes relate to dissimilar legislative rights, however, are indicative of the same worry faced by the companies working online: availability does not mean that the rights have been acquired for commercial exploitation. The dispute in Zee-Nykaa has to do with the copyright material in the form of music whereas in Jackie Shroff's case the issue concerns the individual's name and personality. What is important, however, is that the ease of access to the object in question does not imply that the object can be used on a commercial basis.
Such a difference is crucial for firms within the sphere of digital marketing. For example, even if a song is part of the music library, that does not necessarily justify its use for commercial purposes just as an accessible image of the celebrity may be protected from commercialization. Thus, the question we are to ask is not whether the object can be used, but rather is whether necessary rights were acquired for the use of the respective object.
At the same time, these instances do not mean that every instance of the usage of a person's identity or public material amounts to legal wrongdoing. The nature and purpose of the usage of such materials must still be considered. Inferences from Jackie Shroff's verdict suggest that it is important to strike a balance between the right to personality and the right to artistic expression. On its part, the Zee-Nykaa case has still to clarify the core of the licensing arrangement in question. Therefore, a balanced approach suggests consideration for the rights and permissions necessary for the usage of public material and not an automatic assumption about either free usage or liability.
From a compliance point of view, brands need to check if there is a required license or consent before using third-party music, images, names, voices, and other copyrighted materials in promotional activities. Availability of the platform should be viewed as just the starting point for the verification of rights and not the evidence of their permission to use the material commercially. Overall, what is important here is that technology does make the content and personality easily available, but the legal obligation to show.
Conclusion
There has been an evolution in how materials and identity are made, accessed, and used commercially due to advancements in digital technology. Yet despite advancements in technology, ease of access cannot be substituted for a legal permit granted under copyright law. Examples of Zee-Nykaa and Jackie Shroff serve to validate that just because content has copyright protection or visibility of a public character does not mean that it is available for commercial purposes. At the same tim , these cases also show the legal protection is not absolute; the nature, purpose and use of the context remains relevant.
For businesses, the distinction between accessibility and authorisation should serve as an important compliance warning. The fact that content or identity is readily available online does not mean that it is free to be used for commercial purposes. Businesses must therefore verify the rights and permissions beforehand, as failure results in legal proceedings and restrictions on the use of material and financial liability.
Author: Hasini Deshpande in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney
References
Copyright Act, 1957
Constitution of India, Article 21
Jaikishan Kakubai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff vs The Peppy Store&Ors (Delhi High Court, 15 May 2024)- link: Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie ... vs The Peppy Store & Ors. on 15 May, 2024
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd vs FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd. Anr., CS(COMM)408/2026 (Delhi High Court, 20 April 2026): Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited vs Fsn E-Commerce Ventures Limited & Anr on 20 April, 2026
D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs Baby Gift House&Ors., 2010 SCC Online Del 4794
Copyright Act, 1957; Section 51: Section 51 in The Copyright Act, 1957
Copyright Act , 1957;Section 30: Section 30 in The Copyright Act, 1957
Copyright Act, 1957;Section 38
Copyright Act, 1957; Section 14
Comments