High Court
Court allows ESS to telecast India cricket highlights
NEW DELHI / MUMBAI: In what could be termed a minor victory for ESPN-Star Sports, the Delhi High Court today allowed highlights of the cricket matches between West Indies and India to be aired on ESPN and Star Sports in India.
According to an official release issued by ESPN India: “By its order, following a detailed hearing today, a specially constituted division bench of the Delhi High Court hearing the appeal stayed the operation of the order of a single judge of the Delhi High Court dated October 11, 2002 which had injuncted TWI/ Stracon from telecasting the highlights of the BCCI cricket matches in India through ESPN and STAR Sports channels in India.”
Doordarshan, (which has the exclusive rights to telecast the cricket matches as per an agreement with BCCI), along with MEN had moved the court seeking a stay on airing of highlights of cricket matches on ESPN and Star Sports.
The ESPN statement further said: “The highlights of the second Test (being played in Chennai) will be aired from today onwards at 8:00 pm on Star Sports and 11:30 pm on ESPN.”
ESPN STAR Sports had earlier announced the acquisition of telecast rights to feature comprehensive daily highlights of all international cricket played in India till September 2004. Starting with the first test of the India-West Indies series on 9 October, both ESPN and Star Sports had started showcasing the India cricket highlights, including a comprehensive analysis of all international cricket played in India, at prime time on a daily basis.
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?
