High Court
Delhi HC adjourns India rights case to 13 September
|
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has adjourned till Tuesday, 13 September, the hearing of the Zee Telefilms versus Indian cricket board case in regards to bidding for cricket telecast rights in India. |
|
While announcing the adjournment, the court observed that if the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) wants to open the technical bids, it could go ahead and do so. The only rider the court attached to the observation was that if the BCCI found Zee to be ineligible to bid for India rights, then it should get back to it by the 13th stating the reasons for its decision. |
|
This development took place after the counsel for Zee Telefilms submitted before the court that the BCCI could open the technical bids to verify the eligibility of the media company.  Efforts made by Indiantelevision.com to elicit a response from BCCI proved futile. In the earlier hearing held on 31 August, the board had assured the court that it would not decide on bids for grant of India cricket rights for the next four years till September 8, when the hearing on Zee Telefilm’s petition, challenging the eligibility conditions, were to resume. Zee had sought an interim order to restrain the BCCI from deciding the bids till the next date as “it would prejudice the interest of the petitioner, which has demanded quashing of BCCI’s ‘invitation to tender’ (ITT) for cricket telecast rights in India on the ground that the eligibility conditions were framed to oust Indian bidders.” |
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?
