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 HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
