Connect with us

High Court

Bombay HC seeks to adjourn ESS Zee case to next week

Published

on

MUMBAI: It looks as though Zee, ESPN Star Sports (ESS) and the BCCI will have to wait till next week before they can expect any resolution to the legal dispute on the India cricket rights.

The reason for the delay is that today another high profile case involving Tata Power comes up for hearing. Deliberations on that matter are expected to go on through the whole afternoon. Therefore, the Bombay High Court is seeking a consensus from both ESS and Zees counsel to hold the hearing on either 21 or 22 September (Tuesday or Wednesday).

While ESS counsel expressed concern about the short time window with Australia coming down on 6 October to play a test series, the court representative assured him that the matter would be speedily expedited in one or at the most two hearings.

Advertisement

As had been reported yesterday by Indiantelevision.com, the High Court has asked the Indian cricket board to maintain “status quo” and make a firm commitment that it would not award the contract for telecast rights to any third party until it decides on the ongoing legal dispute.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

High Court

Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case

Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Advertisement News18
Advertisement All three Media
Advertisement Whtasapp
Advertisement Year Enders

Copyright © 2026 Indian Television Dot Com PVT LTD

This will close in 10 seconds

×