High Court
Cricket footage fracas: HC adjourns case to 12 December
NEW DELHI: When it comes to matters cricketing, the courts may propose but the jostling parties are more than unlikely to reach a compromise.
And so it was with a suggestion the Delhi High Court put forth yesterday to Prasar Bharati and five private television news channels to amicably settle a dispute over use of video footage of the ongoing India-South Africa cricket series. When the case came up for hearing today there was no agreement and the matter has been adjourned to 12 December.
The case pertains to an assertion by the pubcaster that it had the exclusive rights from the Board of Control for cricket in India (BCCI) to telecast the matches and that some news channels were violating the terms it had laid down for usage of its footage. Sahara Samay, Asianet News, ETV2, India TV and TV9 are the news channels Prasar Bharati accuses of being in breach of the terms.
The hearing follows the filing of a petition by India TV challenging the locus standi of Prasar Bharati to move court in the matter. The High Court had on 28 October restrained the five news channels from using the footage following a suit filed by Prasar Bharati.
”The use of footage by the news channels in their news bulletins does not amount to infringement of copyright but is a bonafide act of fair dealing and fair use,” India TV’s counsel Pratibha Singh has been quoted in news reports as arguing. Singh further argued that whereas the private news channels were restrained, Doordarshan News was allowed to use about 120 minutes of footage even though it was not in the perview of the contract.
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?
