High Court
Delhi high court blocks 60 rogue sites for streaming Zee content
Mumbai: The Delhi high court granted interim relief to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, ordering the cessation of unauthorised streaming of its TV shows, movies, and other proprietary content on sixty rogue websites. Justice Mini Pushkarna directed domain registrars to suspend these sites and provide Zee with essential information, including contact details, IP addresses, and locations. Additionally, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were instructed to block access to the infringing websites.
Represented by advocate Sidharth Chopra, Zee noted extensive unauthorised streaming by defendants 1 through 60—rogue websites hosting popular shows such as Bastar – The Naxal Story, Kakuda, Rautu ka Raaz, and other original series without permission. These sites, operating anonymously, were reportedly profiting from unauthorised access to Zee’s intellectual property by featuring organised and regularly updated content. The suit names defendants 61 to 81 as domain registrars for suspension or blocking of the rogue websites, while defendant 82, Google LLC, is tasked with de-indexing these sites from search results. Defendants 83 to 91, representing Internet Service Providers, were added to restrict access to these websites. The Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, listed as defendants 92 and 93, respectively, were included to provide necessary notifications.
He emphasised the impact on Zee Entertainment, noting that without intervention, ongoing piracy by defendants 1–60 could lead to irreparable harm given Zee’s investment in content production and distribution.
The court further empowered Zee to report any additional websites found to be involved in unauthorised streaming during ongoing proceedings. In cases where a non-infringing site may be mistakenly blocked, the court assured that the site could seek rectification, provided it does not intend to breach Zee’s broadcast rights.
Zee had initially sought a permanent injunction to prevent copyright violations and piracy by these sites, alleging that they profited from illegal streaming. Zee requested that the domain names be blocked or suspended, that registrars and ISPs disclose relevant information and that search engines like Google de-index these sites.
After reviewing Zee’s arguments, the court found the media company had made a case for an injunction, concluding that Zee could suffer harm without this relief. Justice Pushkarna granted an ex parte interim injunction, and the case is set to continue on 7 March 2025.
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?
