Bigg Boss Contestants: Artists or Just Participants?

15 hours ago
7 min read

Introduction

Even if you have seen Bigg Boss during the period when you were waiting for other shows to begin, then there is one point that you cannot overlook that no one is playing the part of a normal human being inside that house. They cry about their meals, fight for beds, form alliances, break them within days, and turn what could have been a common argument into a nationwide debate.

But now we come to our main concern: Are these people artists or mere participants recorded on camera?

At first glance, it appears to be a straightforward answer. It is just an ordinary individual who performs certain activities inside a home with the presence of cameras capturing everything happening around him. But then again, when you consider this matter from a legal standpoint, especially in terms of copyright law, things become complicated.

The basic argument - they are just participants

The first point to consider is that the Bigg Boss contestants are not artists. They are merely individuals who have been placed into a certain situation. There is no written script available for them. They are not pretending to be someone else through acting. Moreover, they are not offering a certain kind of performance like the actors in films or theatrical performances. The same point may also be advanced from a legal perspective. For an individual to be considered as a performer under the copyright law, there should be some sort of pre-existing work. It may include anything ranging from a script to a plot or other expressions. In any case, it will be difficult to determine precisely what kind of performance is being offered. Your memorial makes the above arguments explicitly. Normal human behavior, conversations, and reactions are not considered to be performances because they lack both creativity and intentionality.

But reality television is not really reality

However, when one considers the mechanics of how reality shows work, then this reasoning seems to become even more questionable. Bigg Boss is an unscripted show, but the fact that it lacks a script doesn't mean that it's unorganized. The program is staged in an artificial setting where there are assigned tasks, where conflicts arise, and where participants know all along that millions of viewers are watching them. When they understand that they are being observed, they tend to change their behavior to some degree. They will exaggerate their responses, they will manage their images, and they will act in a way that would grab more attention.

Expression and originality? the copyright angle

That's the role of copyright laws. As per the copyright laws, there is no need for a written script in order to stage any performance at all. What is needed in this case is the originality in the expression, and this means that if somebody expresses his original thoughts, he can get copyright protection as long as such originality is documented. It would be right to say that the position adopted by your memorial respondent in this regard holds true. This is due to the fact that even spontaneous oral expression if expressed in literature would qualify as a literary work.

Now think about Bigg Boss contestants

Their emotions, discussions, confessing room speeches, and interactions – all these things are original. No two people have the same performance. No two people use someone else’s words. No one has emotions written elsewhere. Their emotions arise out of their very soul. And if there is anything called originality, then it would be difficult to say that they are not performers.

The confession room as a stage

One of the most fascinating elements of Bigg Boss is the confession room, where participants sit by themselves and talk straight into the camera. They describe their actions, articulate their emotions, and occasionally defend their behavior. Such instances cannot be considered anything but performed specifically for an audience. According to law, they may well qualify as performance because courts have recognized that any kind of interaction, including one lacking in scripted lines, can be considered performance if there is an element of expressive engagement with the audience. The confession room does not represent a private sphere. It becomes a stage at which the contestant performs his or her narrative.

Editing and the problem of distortion

It becomes much more serious when one takes editing into account. Reality television programs are extensively edited. What takes several hours to shoot gets condensed into a brief episode. In the process, the actual meaning of anything said or done by a contestant may be altered. In your interview respondent's eulogy, there is mention of the concept of manipulation through editing, which includes putting together clips that have never been spoken or done. This completely changes the image of the contestant in the mind of the viewers. For instance, an innocuous statement may be put after a negative one, making it appear offensive. The reactions may not be taken in context, and small arguments may be blown out of proportion.

Moral rights and reputation

However, if the individuals are recognized as performers, they would be entitled to enjoy moral rights. Performers’ rights are protected under sections 38 and 38B of the Indian Copyright Act. The right of integrity is one among those. The right includes protecting the honor of the performer from any distortion or alteration that adversely affects his reputation.

Now consider the effect of editing in Bigg Boss

Contestants usually receive titles from the public like villain, manipulator, and troublemaker. These titles are not necessarily an absolute reflection of the truth. They are influenced by the way the contestant is portrayed through the media. The memorial contends that if editing results in a false portrayal that negatively impacts the reputation, it may be considered an infringement on moral rights.

The producer’s argument

Producers, however, have their own strong arguments. They invest large amounts of money into the show. They create the format, design the tasks, and manage the entire production. From their perspective, controlling the final output is necessary to maintain the value of the show. The appellant memorial highlights that confidentiality clauses and control over content are essential to protect the intellectual property of the production . If contestants are allowed to freely reveal behind-the-scenes details or control their portrayal, it could affect the commercial success of the show. Producers also argue that contestants voluntarily agree to these conditions through contracts even before coming into the actual show. They enter the show knowing that editing and narrative construction are part of the process. This raises an important question about consent and fairness.

The grey area between life and performance

In fact, the real problem here arises from the fact that Bigg Boss is an entity that stands between reality and fiction. It is neither wholly fictional nor wholly real. The contestants are certainly not acting; however, at the same time, they do not ignore the fact that there is an audience out there watching them. They may have actually said something, yet what has been shown is constructed to serve a story.

But then what exactly are they? Once we analyze both sides of the coin, it becomes evident that the answer to the question posed is relative. Bigg Boss participants are participants in the sense that they become part of the reality show after signing a contract, playing according to the rules laid down for the show and following a certain format of play. However, at the same time, they are performers in terms of how they express themselves, create content, and drive the show with their personality.

Why does this question actually matter? This issue is not restricted only to the Bigg Boss show. Today in the era where content creation is increasingly becoming something that can be accomplished just by being yourself, people are becoming performers even on social media. As a consequence of this, the law has to adjust itself accordingly. What we do not need to think about anymore is whether a person is an actor or not; rather, we have to consider whether their expression is valuable enough to deserve protection.

Conclusion

Bigg Boss show participants cannot be classified as artists or participants. There are elements of both of these categories combined in their activity. It can be described as a combination of people put into a controlled environment which leads them to produce material out of their personalities, emotions, and social interaction. These actions are true, but at the same time, they are being directed and performed for producers of the show. As far as the legal point of view goes, there are certain elements of performance that cannot be ignored. However, from the contractual and commercial perspective, one cannot overlook the fact that Bigg Boss is a reality show. Thus, the participants are people who start performing once the cameras start rolling.

Author: GOWRI V S, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, § 38 (India).
The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, § 38A (India).
The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, § 38B (India).
The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, § 2(qq) (India).
The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957 (India).
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works art. 2(1), Sept. 9, 1886, as revised July 24, 1971.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 39, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty art. 2(a), Dec. 20, 1996, 2186 U.N.T.S. 203.
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances Arts. 2(a), 5(1), June 24, 2012.
W.R. Cornish, David Llewelyn & Tanya Aplin, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (9th ed. 2019).
Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th ed. 2018).
Paul Goldstein & P. Bernt Hugenholtz, International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (3d ed. 2019).
Mark Andrejevic, The Work of Being Watched: Interactive Media and Reality Television, 18 Cultural Stud. 230 (2002).
Annette Hill, Big Brother: The Real Audience, 4 Television & New Media 323 (2003).
Sonia Livingstone & Peter Lunt, Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate, 21 Eur. J. Commc’n 1 (2006).
Guy A. Pessach, Copyright Law as a Silencing Restriction on Noninfringing Materials: Unveiling the Scope of Copyright’s Diversity Externalities, 76 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1067 (2003).
Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India).
RG Anand v. Deluxe Films, (1978) 4 S.C.C. 118 (India).
University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch 601 (Eng.).
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Soc’y of Upper Can., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339 (Can.).