High Court
219 private websites blocked for showing FIFA, Google does not figure in list
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has been informed by telecom player Airtel that it has already blocked 219 websites which were illegally streaming live the matches of 2014 FIFA World Cup.
The Court had earlier on 23 June issued an injunction restraining over 400 private websites from showing the matches, following a petition by Multi Screen Media (Sony) that holds the exclusive rights for beaming the matches in India.
Interestingly, the list given by Airtel does not list any Google website despite the fact that the Court had specifically cited two Google sites.
The vacation bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao gave a directive to the Department of Information Technology and Telecom to ensure implementation of the order of the court. He also said that his directive would be forwarded to the concerned Ministry.
The judge, who listed the matter to come up in the last week of July, gave the directive after hearing Saikrishna Rajagopal who was arguing on behalf of MSM.
The sports arm of MSM, Sony Six is the official broadcaster of the football extravaganza, while its digital platform LIVSports.in has the exclusive rights to live stream the event.
The network had moved the court after it found out that several unauthorised websites were streaming the World Cup matches illegally.
MSM had said that it has the official rights to telecast matches in six channels in the Indian sub-continent, including Sony Six and offers live streaming on Sony Liv and Liv Sports (for mobile).
The court order was revised on 1 July and the list of sites was modified after a list was submitted again by MSM. The High Court had also directed that the copy of the order must be sent to DoT and DIT, so that the Internet Service Providers can block the websites.
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?
