Athlete Biographies and Sports Documentaries in the OTT Era: Copyright, Consent, and Moral Rights in India.

Written by By Eshan Kasim

A. Introduction     

The way people watch sports has changed with the rise of online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ Hotstar. These platforms now produce many sports documentaries and biographical films that tell inspiring stories of athletes. While such stories attract millions of viewers, they also raise important legal questions: can a filmmaker freely tell an athlete’s life story? Does the athlete have any control over how their image is shown or used?

In India, there is no clear law that directly answers these questions. The Copyright Act, 1957, mainly protects the rights of creators like filmmakers and producers, but it does not cover the identity or image of athletes. As a result, sportspersons may face issues of misuse or misrepresentation of their life stories. This article studies how copyright, consent, and moral rights apply to athletes in India, especially in the age of digital and OTT content.

B. Copyright and Creative Ownership

According to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a film is the first owner of the copyright, unless there is an agreement that says otherwise. This means that in most sports documentaries or biopics, the producers legally own the work. Athletes usually have no legal claim over the film unless they sign a contract giving them rights or a share of the profits. Sports footage and broadcasts are also protected under copyright law. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), for example, owns exclusive media and broadcasting rights to cricket matches. However, real events themselves cannot be copyrighted; only the creative way in which they are presented can be protected. This creates confusion when athletes’ images or names are used without their approval, especially in promotional material or dramatised scenes that might not reflect the truth.

C. Consent and Personality Rights

Personality rights, sometimes called image or publicity rights, allow a person to control how their name, photo, or likeness is used commercially. Unfortunately, India does not have a specific law that protects these rights. Courts have instead relied on general laws such as privacy, defamation, and unfair competition to offer some protection. In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the Delhi High Court said that using a celebrity’s picture in an advertisement without permission amounts to unfair exploitation. Likewise, in Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co. (2017), a restaurant was stopped from using the cricketer’s name to attract customers. These cases show that Indian courts understand the importance of consent, but since there is no clear statute, outcomes depend on individual judges. For athletes, this legal uncertainty makes it hard to protect their image from being misused in documentaries, films, or digital campaigns.

D. Moral Rights and Reputation

Moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, allow authors to claim authorship and prevent any distortion of their work. But these rights belong only to the creator, like a writer or filmmaker, not to the person whose life is being portrayed. Therefore, an athlete cannot use moral rights to stop a producer from showing them in an inaccurate or disrespectful way. If a documentary harms the reputation of an athlete, their only legal options are to file a defamation or privacy case. But both are hard to prove when the content is partly based on public events. The absence of a proper law on personality rights leaves individuals unprotected in the modern media industry.

E. Global Perspective

Other countries have developed stronger laws to handle such issues. In the United States, the “right of publicity” protects people from unauthorised commercial use of their image or name. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977), held that a performer’s act could not be broadcast without consent because it was his professional property. In the United Kingdom, although there is no separate image rights law, courts use the tort of “passing off.” In Irvine v. Talksport Ltd. (2002), the court ruled that using a celebrity’s photo in advertisements without consent was misleading and unlawful. These examples show that India still lacks a similar legal structure to protect the commercial identity of athletes.

F. Challenges in the Digital and OTT Age

With the growth of OTT platforms, boundaries between news, drama, and entertainment have blurred. Athletes’ names, images, and voices are being used in films, online ads, and even virtual reality projects without proper consent. Once released on a global streaming platform, such content reaches millions, making it difficult for athletes to stop misuse or demand corrections, because there is no fixed law for personality rights in India, athletes must depend on long and costly court battles. The lack of clarity also affects filmmakers, who may face legal risks even when trying to create genuine biographical stories.

G. Need for Reform

To ensure fairness and respect, India needs a clear legal system to protect athletes’ identity and image.

The following steps can help:

1. Introduce a law on publicity rights giving people full control over the commercial use of their name, likeness, and identity.

2. Extend moral rights allowing individuals shown in creative works to object to false or offensive portrayals.

3. Make consent mandatory, requiring written permission from athletes before making films or documentaries about their lives.

4. Promote fair contracts, ensuring that athletes get proper credit, payment, and approval rights over their portrayals. Such reforms would bring India closer to international standards and encourage responsible storytelling in sports media.

H. Conclusion

Sports documentaries and athlete biographies are powerful ways to tell real human stories of struggle and success. But in India, weak legal protection allows others to profit from these stories without the athlete’s consent. The existing mix of copyright, privacy, and defamation laws does not fully protect the dignity or image of sportspersons in the digital age. Creating a strong right of publicity law and extending moral rights would help balance creative freedom with respect for personal identity. In the era of OTT platforms, protecting an athlete’s story is not just about fame; it is about fairness, consent, and justice.

*The Author is a legal Scholar from India

(The Image used here is for representative purposes only.)

References

1. Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2018). Intellectual Property Law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

2. Board of Control for Cricket in India. (2018). Media Rights Regulations.

3. Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957 (India).

4. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6382.

5. Irvine v. Talksport Ltd., [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch).

6. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).

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