🖧 Post 7: ‘Face Insurance’ & its intersection with ‘Personality Rights’ under Right to Privacy.

🖧 Post 4/2025: ‘Face Insurance’ & its intersection with ‘Personality Rights’ under Right to Privacy.

(A discussion sprouting from a reddit post claiming that the filmmaker-producer ‘Karan Johar’ has insured his face)

For any person in the entertainment industry, their appearance, their peculiar features are much more than just being ‘aesthetic’. It becomes a part of their income and them being a brand.

A recent reddit post, in nature of a rumor, claimed that Karan Johar has insured his face in South Korea. Now, the thing is, the said country does not specifically provide for insurance of specific body parts. Whereas, there is an insurance against cosmetic surgeries or certain issues arising from treatments or medical procedures, but no formal face insurance exist in there.

In India, one such example of insuring a ‘peculiar feature’ has been the ‘voice’ of actor Amitabh Bacchan. Via a combination of legal action and insurance policies, he sought an insurance for his voice.

He has a Delhi High Court Order restraining the use of his voice alongwith his name and image (as his voice was being used for illegal commercial use) Why not a copyright here? Because copyrights protect creative works, and voice is not considered as creative work in itself.

The ‘West’ has had long history of such examples- Pianist Richard Clayderman’s fingers were insured, David Beckham has protected his legs with an insurance policy and Mariah Carey is said to have insured her vocal cords.

Personality rights, also known as publicity rights, “are legal rights that grant individuals control over the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, voice, and likeness”.

“No persona can be monopolized. The right of Publicity vests in an individual, and he alone is entitled to profit from it” was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ‘ICC Development (International) Ltd. vs. Arvee Enterprises 2003 (26) PTC 245 (DEL)’ and in 2023 in the case of ‘Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd and Ors. v. Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited [CS(COMM) 108/2023]’.

Therefore, the discussion lies in exploring the ambit of how such an insurance peculiar to the ‘body parts’ or ‘features’ of the individuals intersect with the recognized facet of right to privacy- ‘personality rights’ and if so, will this become a trend in India anytime soon?

📎