High Court
Court orders stay on music licensing societies from collecting royalties ahead of New Year
MUMBAI: It’s a judgment that has taken some time a-coming. For long Indian event organisers and agencies have been battling with the music licensing in various courts – the IPRS and PPL and Novex Communications – on their legal standing to collect royalties for music that is played out during ground events that the former organise. While the first two represent the interests of writers, authoris, composers and almost all Indian and international music labels, the latter collects royalties from event organisers for music from the YRF and Zee Music stable.
With many parties and gigs planned by many event organisers planned for the new year – which is a plum time for these three bodies to collect revenues for live events and parties – the Event & Entertainment Management filed a petition with the Delhi high court on 21 December. It named the Indian government, the Copyright Off ice and PPL, IPRS, and Novex Communications as respondents to the case.
The petition highlighted that despite the fact that currently neither of the bodies issuing ‘licenses’ are infact registered copyright societies – PPL / IPRS and Novex – however they still continue to grant licenses and continue to be in the business of granting licenses.”
Two days later, on 23 December 2016, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued an order which reads. “..the respondent Nos.3 (PPL) to 5 (IPRS and Novex Communications) are restrained from acting in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Union of India and Copyright Office respectively) are directed to take action in accordance with law for any breach of provisions of Section 33 by the respondent Nos.3 to 5.”
According to the EEMA , this effectively means that the three bodies have been barred from collecting money for music licensing for events until the next hearing which is scheduled for 24 April 2017.
“The Music Licensing lobby (PPL / IPRS / Novex) has been engaged in illegal issuance of licenses since over two years now and flouts all laws by openly threatening venues to stop events unless the license is procured,” says EEMA secretary (legal) Ankur Kalra: “Venues in turn pressurise event managers to do the same who despite knowing that it is wrong are forced to procure these licenses in order to safeguard their events. The music licensing ‘societies’ today are private limited companies operating purely for profit and very little or no money actually reaches the artists. It has become an organised syndicate and when we highlighted the same to the court we got an injunction almost immediately. We will take this battle forward and ensure that all event managers, venues and police departments are educated on this matter so that they are not part of the exploitation.”
Adds EEMA legal counsel Abhishek Malhotra: “The music industry has been going through a flux. While the law clearly provides that issue and grant of licenses can be done only through a registered copyright society, these three entities have been effectively carrying on this business in violation of the clear legal provisions. This order as well as the government of India’s endorsement of the issues facing the users of music is therefore a welcome development. “
We contacted several senior professionals from the music industry. Most were in the dark about the Delhi high court injunction order. However, the IRPS head Rakesh Nigam exclaimed that the order does not concern “the IPRS as it has been functioning under section 30 of the Copyright Act. The High Court’s verdict concerns bodies working under section 33 of the Act.”
(courtesy http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz)
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?
