Metaphors, metaphorical and figurative representations that do not specifically call a particular individual by his legal names cannot be construed to depict the aggrieved individual. All the film makers have to do is print a statement that all characters are fictional and there Mr. Bappi Lahiri's case goes kaput. Law works on definite facts and not on the feelings and interpretations of individuals that a cartoon character resembles him or not. It is a matter of personal opinion of Mr. Lahiri and not a fact in law. Personal opinion based on gut feelings and personalized interpretations are not the domain of the law, they are the domain of the abstract. And the law is not based on abstractions. Law is based on concrete, unbiased and hard substantiated evidence. A fictional cartoon character going by a fictional name cannot be said to be a 100% representation of the aggrieved Mr. Bappi Lahiri, and if there is no 100% representation either in word or deed, then what ground does the case of Bappi Lahiri have?
by Ramesh Babu on Dec 22, 2010 07:11 PM
Very well said. And BL says "I would have thought about it and given a go-ahead". So what is there now to complain about if he would have given a go-ahead? And "Making fun on TV is a different thing". Why? So he has made a fool of himself AGAIN. What is wrong with Guppy and Bhappi BOTH imitating Elvis?