High Court
MIB directs TV channels, MSOs, FM channels to follow directives of Delhi HC on Balaji comedy
New Delhi: Doordarshan and all private channels were today asked by the Information and Broadcasting ministry to comply with the directive of the Delhi High Court not to telecast or publicise in any manner the film Kya Kool Hain Hum 3.
Justin Vipin Sanghi had passed the order earlier this year on a petition by Balaji Motion Pictures against WWW.1337.YOOTORRENT.COM and others barring them “from communicating, making available, distributing ,duplicating, displaying, releasing, showing, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing, defraying the movie Kya KoolHai Hum 3 in any manner whatsoever without obtaining prior license from the plaintiff or in any other manner that would infringe the plaintiffs copyright in the said cinematograph film through any medium whatsoever.”
Thirty-six other defendants were directed to ensure compliance of the order by the other defendants.
The ministry directive dated 14 March was addressed to News Broadcasters Association (NBA), Indian Broadcasting Foundation Association of Regional Television Broadcasters of India, all TV Channels, all MSOs, and all FM Stations.
In the petition, Balaji had said that release of any material or the film itself would lead to colossal losses to the company.
Balaji impleading 300 defendants of which 1 to 203 are websites allegedly engaged in the business of uploading content. The plaintiff apprehends that the said websites may even upload unlicensed copy of the plaintiffs film Kya Kool Hai Hum3, of which the plaintiff claims to be the producer and copyright holder. defendants no.204 to 238 are Internet Service Providers (ISP), who are engaged in the business of providing basic telephony, mobile services and broadband network all over the world and are covered by the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Copyright Act, 1957 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).
The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology has been impleaded as defendant no.239. The plaintiff stated that defendants no.204 to 239 have been impleaded so that the orders that may be passed by the court may be implemented by them by blocking the infringing URLs of websites such as defendants no.1 to 203. Defendants no.240 to260 and 260-274 are Multi System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators governed by the Cable Network RegulationAct 1995 and the TRAI Act. The plaintiff stated that various MSOs and cable operators, including in Delhi could be engaged in unauthorised unlicensed production and broadcast, on their local channels and through other means, of various pirated contents, including cinematograph films through their cable network. The apprehension of the plaintiff was that the said defendants may indulge in broadcast of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff, which at the time of the court order of 19 January was yet to be released (on 22 January) and Balaji apprehends will infringe the copyright m the aforesaid cinematograph film.
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?
