High Court
TRAI jurisdiction: Madras HC yes to MSOs as interveners, no as impleaders
NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: The Madras High Court yesterday gave concession to the MSOs allowing them to intervene on matters of law under consideration. But, the court refused to let them implead, via AIDCF, in a case filed by broadcasters (content generators) challenging whether regulator TRAI can have jurisdiction over commercial issues relating to copyright of content.
Both sides — petitioners Star TV and Vijay TV and All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) — viewed the court stand as a moral victory.
Star TV and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court pleading that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India’s broadcast carriage and telecoms regulator, didn’t have jurisdiction to issue guidelines that had a bearing on tariff of content, both TV and film, especially if such issues were also governed under the copyright law.
In an official statement, AIDCF said the court was “pleased to permit AIDCF to participate in the proceedings as (an) intervener” allowing it to “file all relevant material, make oral submissions and file written submissions in the main writ petition.”
The AIDCF statement, quoting organisation president and Hathway video division CEO TS Panesar, said, “We are delighted to note the decision of the Madras High Court in recognising us as an important stakeholder in this matter.”
A source close to the petitioners, however, described the court’s decision as “disallowing” MSOs to directly implead in the main writ petition, the same way as it had not allowed Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) to implead itself in the case. “AIDCF can only intervene on the main matters of law under consideration, which is whether TRAI has jurisdiction over copyright issues relating to content,” the source opined.
TRAI, which has been trying to bring about semblance of order in the broadcast and cable sector in India via various guidelines, could not be reached for comments by indiantelevision.com till the time of writing this report. However, TRAI chairman RS Sharma had told indiantelevision.com in an year-end interview in December 2016 that the regulator’s main aim behind issuing draft guidelines relating to broadcast and cable tariff, quality of service and interconnection was to reduce litigation amongst stakeholders and create a broad playing arena for all players, including the consumers.
Industry sources had indicated that the MSOs had moved the court as they apprehended viewpoints of distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.
However, there is lack of clarity on the status of the petition filed by Videocon D2H, a distribution platform, to get impleaded in the aforementioned case being heard by Madras HC. The matter is listed for another round of hearing 7 March, 2017.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court, petitioned by TRAI, had refused to intervene in the case being heard by Madras HC and had stated in its last hearing few days back that it would wait for the outcome at the high court, listing TRAI appeal for a March-end hearing.
ALSO READ:
SC keeps TRAI request on tariff pending till Madras HC completes hearing
TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb
MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue
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?
