High Court
Copyright infringement: Kross awarded injunction against ‘Pushpaka Vimana’, hearing on 12 Apr
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has issued an ad-interim injunction restraining further exhibition and distribution of the Kannada film, “Pushpaka Vimana” in any manner or in any medium including cinema theatres, television, CDs/DVDs.
Kross Pictures is a cross-border film and television production company with offices in Seoul, Los Angeles, and Mumbai.
The order restrains the film-makers from awarding any rights in relation to satellite or telecast rights of the film for its exhibition. The Court further directed defendants to disclose to the court the earnings from the film and all contracts with artists involved with the movie.
The Bombay High Court stated that the Kannada film prima facie appears to be a copy of the Korean film called “Miracle In Cell No. 7” the rights to which are owned by Kross Pictures India. The original film was released on 23rd January 2013, first in Korean and then on Youtube in English in 2014. Kross Pictures had moved the Bombay High Court claiming copyright infringement against the producers of the Pushpaka Vimana. Dr. Birendra Saraf, instructed by Anirudh Rastogi of TRA and Ankita Singh of A&P Partners, appearing for Kross Pictures drew the court’s attention to at least fifteen instances where producer AR Vikhyat of Vikhyat Chitra Productions has publicly admitted that he ‘adapted’ the screenplay of the Korean film for Pushpak Vimana.
Kross acquires high-concept and proven intellectual property to produce localized films in different languages. Kross’s Indian operation started in 2015, and has produced the 2016 Hindi film “TE3N” which is based on the Korean film “Montage”, and is currently producing “Suspect X” (directed by Sujoy Ghosh) for Amazon India.
The court order can be seen here:
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?
