High Court
Mumbai HC upholds Creative Eye right to ‘Jai Santoshi…’ track
MUMBAI: It may not be music to the ears of Kavi Pradeep’s descendants, but the Mumbai High Court has upheld Creative Eye’s rights to use the poet’s title track for its mythological Jai Santoshi Maa.
The serial, currently aired on Zee TV, uses the hit track from the similarly titled film which spawned a massive cult following when released in 1975. Pradeep, who penned the lyrics for a pittance for the film’s producer Satram Rohra, is no more but his daughter Mittul Pradeep, dragged Creative Eye to court, asking that Pradeep be given due acknowledgement in the serial’s credits. Creative Eye MD Dheeraj Kumar did not deem it necessary, having bought the rights for using the song from Rohra for a reported Rs 48,000.
The court, in its ruling this week, has also upheld Rohra’s rights to the work and dismissed Pradeep’s petition. “Under clause 7 all the rights in the work vest in defendent no. 3 (Satram Rohra) without any reservation. At least in this prima facie stage, therefore, it is not possible based on a prima facie reading of Clauses 7 or 8 to hold that they are contract to the contrary to bring the contract of service within the purview of Section 17 (c) of the Copyright Act”, it ruled.
Earlier, Mittul Pradeep had sent copies of her petition to the Film Writers’ Association, Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association (IMPPA), The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) and Zee TV, of which only the Film Writers’ Association (FWA), of which Kavi Pradeep had been a member, responded, supporting him legally, morally and financially.
IMPPA, say media reports, took up the issue in March but Kumar had claimed he should not be held responsible for anything because he had the bond from Rohra. With the high court finally ruling in Creative Eye’s favour, the controversy seems to have ended. For now.
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?
