High Court
MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC
MUMBAI: In a fresh twist to a face-off between broadcasters and regulator TRAI over tariff matters vis-a-vis international and Indian copyright laws, country’s MSOs have joined issues requesting Madras High Court to hear their views too.
According to cable industry sources, All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), India’s apex body for digital multi-system operators (MSOs), has impleaded itself in the case and urged the Madras High Court — hearing a case filed by Star India and Vijay TV filed against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) over draft tariff guidelines — that while disposing off the case it’s viewpoints should also be heard and taken into account.
The sources indicated that the MSOs had moved the court about 10 days back as they apprehended the viewpoints of distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.
Though Indiantelevision.com was not able to get full details of the MSOs’ stand in the court, industry observers explained that the presence of distributors of TV services in Madras HC makes the case interesting as the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) too has urged to be heard during the hearing of the case.
After Star India and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court appealing against TRAI’s jurisdiction to pass guidelines over tariff and commercial matters where copyrights was involved relating to content, the regulator had moved the Supreme Court seeking succour.
However the apex court, while directing TRAI that it could continue with its regulation-framing exercises and seek its nod before mandating guidelines, also observed that the regulatory body should argue its case before the Madras High Court, declining to stay proceedings in the high court.
The high court had asked TRAI to maintain status quo on tariff guidelines till full hearing of the case filed by Star India and Vijay TV. The next hearing is scheduled middle of this month.
ALSO READ:
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue
TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan
Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI
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?
