Name of author: Mahi Agrawal (III Year B.A. L.L.B (Hons.) student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur)
When Taylor Swift announced her engagement with Travis Kelce on Instagram, the internet went into overdrive. Fans cheered, brands scrambled, and memes exploded. Within minutes, the famous pizza chain Domino’s India posted its own Instagram update featuring pizza seasoning against a backdrop eerily similar to Taylor’s, set to the very same song she used, one of her own tracks. It was a clever play for attention, but it raises an important legal question: when a celebrity shares a personal post, like that engagement photo, who actually owns it, and what happens when brands borrow from that moment? This blog examines the legal implications of such actions and offers actionable guidance for lawmakers, platforms, and brands to navigate intellectual property and personality rights responsibly.
Who Owns Taylor’s Engagement Post?
Posting on Instagram doesn’t mean giving up ownership. Instagram’s terms make this clear: users retain copyright in what they post. The platform only gets a license to display and share that content, not to let others use it off-platform. So, if Taylor took the photo herself, or if she hired a photographer, the copyright belongs to the creator, not Instagram.
In the U.S., the default rule is that the photographer owns the photo, even if the celebrity is in it. Courts have held stars like Gigi Hadid and NFL player Deshaun Watson liable when they reposted paparazzi shots without permission. The same principle applies if a brand grabs Taylor’s engagement photo for a campaign. Screenshots count too. Copying without a license risks a lawsuit or, at the very least, a DMCA takedown.
India follows a similar approach. Copyright vests in the author, usually the photographer. Courts have taken this seriously. In the Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers case, a jeweller used a photo of Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan without consent. The court called it copyright infringement and a violation of personality rights. So in both jurisdictions, Taylor’s engagement post isn’t just a sweet update; it is protected intellectual property.
Can Brands Copy the Aesthetic without Crossing the Line?
The law draws a clear line between ideas and expressions. Copyright protects the exact photo or caption, not the general concept. That means a brand can create its own floral backdrop or pastel colour scheme inspired by Taylor’s post without violating copyright. Courts see broad “aesthetics” or trends like the “clean girl” style or TikTok dance formats as unprotectable ideas (also see here and here).
But here’s the catch: copying the actual image, or even making a derivative like Photoshopping Taylor’s engagement photo to slip in your product, is a problem. It’s still her (or her photographer’s) copyrighted work. Even a quick repost by a brand account without permission is a violation. Thus, while an homage may be legally permissible, direct replication risks infringement not only of copyright but also of the subject’s personality and publicity rights.
Where does Publicity Rights Law Step In?
Copyright protects creative works, but publicity rights safeguard a person’s identity, their name, image, voice, and even signature features (read here and here). In the U.S., approximately half the states recognize these rights by statute or common law.. New York, for instance, forbids using someone’s portrait for advertising without consent. Courts have gone as far as punishing look-alike and voice-simulation ads in cases like White v. Samsung and Midler v. Ford. And under the Lanham Act, any ad that falsely suggests Taylor endorses your product can lead to liability.
India does not have a standalone publicity statute, but courts have acknowledged personality rights through privacy law, trademarks, and passing off. In Titan and Rajinikanth v. Varsha, judges made it clear: you can’t commercially exploit a celebrity’s persona without permission. Brands that incorporate Taylor’s name, image, or unmistakable characteristics into advertising could face legal action, even if they stop short of using her actual photograph.
Creative expression remains protected. News outlets may cover the engagement, fans can produce memes, and commentary is generally permissible. What changes the balance is commercial intent: uses that are transformative, parodic, journalistic, or artistic are typically safe, whereas leveraging Taylor’s identity to sell a product crosses into infringement territory.
Are “Digital Moments” the Next IP Frontier?
Here’s where it gets interesting. Short-lived digital viral moments, such as Taylor Swift’s engagement announcement, carry significant cultural and commercial value. Yet the law does not treat them as standalone intellectual property. Instead, existing frameworks apply: the photograph is protected by copyright, the individual’s name and likeness are covered by publicity rights, and a tagline may be subject to trademark. The idea of announcing an engagement with a romantic photo, however, remains free for anyone.
Some scholars contend that this framework is inadequate. hey argue that digital culture may require updated intellectual property rules to address short-lived but highly valuable moments. Europe is already debating how far copyright exceptions like pastiche should go in the age of memes. In India, commentators call for clearer legislation on personality rights to keep pace with social media. Nonetheless, no jurisdiction has yet established a dedicated intellectual property category for viral content.
For now, brands and influencers must continue to follow old rules: license the content they use, avoid false endorsements, and ensure that inspiration does not become duplication. Whether “moments” themselves should ever be recognized as property is a question lawmakers have yet to answer, and perhaps should approach cautiously, as overprotection could inhibit the remix and meme culture that underpins much of the internet’s creativity.
Recommendations and Takeaways
Taylor Swift’s engagement post belongs to her (or her photographer), not Instagram and definitely not to opportunistic marketers. While brands can take inspiration from the vibe of such moments, they must avoid replicating the image or implying endorsement without explicit permission. Beyond copyright, publicity rights create additional legal exposure, particularly in advertising and commercial contexts.
The safest approach for brands is straightforward: be inspired, not invasive (read here, here, and here). This means creating original content or using properly licensed imagery that captures the emotion or aesthetic of a moment without directly copying it. Whenever a recognisable individual is involved, securing a model release and clear usage agreement is essential to avoid potential publicity claims. Likewise, if there is any risk that an audience might interpret the content as an endorsement, disclaimers should be included, though these do not replace proper licensing or permission. Brands must also remain mindful of jurisdictional differences in publicity rights and consult legal counsel when operating across borders. Finally, maintaining documentation of the creative process can demonstrate the intent to draw inspiration rather than reproduce someone else’s work.
To strengthen protections in India, a comprehensive policy framework for personality rights is crucial. A dedicated statute should clearly define personality rights, encompassing name, image, voice, and likeness, with robust protections against unauthorized commercial use, as evidenced in cases like Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers and Rajinikanth v. Varsha. This law should incorporate exemptions for transformative, parodic, or journalistic uses to balance free expression, drawing inspiration from New York’s publicity rights laws (New York Civil Rights Law, Article 5). Social media platforms should adopt rapid takedown mechanisms for infringing content, similar to the U.S. DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512), and require clear disclosures for commercial content to prevent misleading endorsements. Additionally, establishing a public registry for licensing agreements will enhance transparency and reduce disputes. To address cross-border challenges, India should pursue bilateral agreements with key jurisdictions and collaborate with global platforms to ensure compliance. Strengthening judicial capacity through specialized IP benches in courts and promoting public awareness campaigns will further safeguard personality rights while fostering a creative digital ecosystem.
Ultimately, protecting personality rights in India’s digital age requires proactive steps from lawmakers, platforms, and brands alike. By balancing robust legal protections with the freedom to create and share, India can ensure that viral moments remain a source of cultural vibrancy without compromising individual rights.