High Court
Unisys Infosolutions gets favorable Delhi high court injunction order against pirating websites
the domains.
MUMBAI: Pirating websites in India beware. December has brought some bad news for you. Earlier this month, the Delhi High granted a permanent injunction order against 71 web sites which were pirating media tech firm Unisys Infosolutions content online.
Unisys owns the copyright to a catalogue of 60 plus regional films which it exploits on YouTube under the channel Saga Hits, on its own OTT platform Kableone and other third-party platforms. The films have either been produced by it or in collaboration with other producers or acquired and include titles like Zindagi Zindabaad, Cheta Singh, Snowman, Kulche Chole, Television, Posti, Maa, Warning, Ikko Mikke, Happy Go Lucky, Manje Bistr, The Black Prince and Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hay.
Sites such as desicinemas.tv, desicinemas.pk, tellygossips.tv, movies23.pk, among many others were illegally show casing Unisys’ catalogue of films and making money either off advertising online or through subscription fees. Hence, it filed a suit against them, including Google, ISPs, the department of telecommunications (DoT) and ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) as defendants.
The Delhi high court, after listening to Unisys’ lawyers arguments, passed an injunction against the sites from showing the films and because the owners of the sites are not locate-able, it ordered Google to stop indexing them on its search engine. Additionally, it ordered the registrars and internet service providers to block the rogue domain names and make them inaccessible from Indian shores. Finally, it ordered DoT and Meity to ensure that its orders for blockage are followed to the T by issuing a government notification in this regard.
The court also issued a Joh Doe order under which any other future infringing or rogue sites would be treated similarly. Additionally, the court ordered Unisys to continue to inform the court about the progress of the blockage of the current rogue web sites. mentioned in the petition
The counsel for Google who was present in the court accepted the government’s notice and order and agreed to go ahead with the government’s directions.
However, a media observer stated that while the order is a landmark one, Unisys will have to be on the alert as the rogue websites will easily move the content to another domain or URL.
“The battle to overcome piracy is not over until those behind the piracy are put behind bars and the servers taken down,” she said. “This requires multinational coordination between legal authorities in neighbouring countries like Pakistan. Some of this is already happening in Europe where coalitions against piracy in various countries are working together with the police to book online pirates, apart from taking blockage measures.”
Is anyone out there listening?
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
