High Court
Simulcast of India-Bangla series: HC asks DD to state how much it will pay
MUMBAI: The Kerala High Court has asked pubcaster Prasar Bharati to indicate how much it would be willing to pay for simulcasting live the ongoing India-Bangladesh cricket series.
The question relates to a public interest petition filed last week, seeking telecast of the matches on national broadcaster Doordarshan (DD). The court’s query to DD was prompted by ESPN Star Sports’ (ESS) insistence on a compensation if the matches were to be simulcast. The court will continue hearing the case tomorrow.
ESS has acquired five-year exclusive telecast rights to the Bangladesh board for Rs 500 million.
When contacted, Prasar Bharati chief executive officer KS Sarma told indiantelevision.com: “At this stage, we can only take up live telecast of the matches if we have a revenue share arrangement with ESS. The ratio can be worked out with ESS.”
ESPN Software India managing director R C Venkatesh, however, was unwilling to discuss the issue. “As the matter is sub-judice, we would not like to offer any comment at this juncture,” he said.
The advertising rates on cricket matches have been on a downward trend recently. DD earned an average net revenue of Rs 15 million a day for the India-South Africa Test series. Though the India-Bangladesh series has not drawn audiences and advertisers, DD feels there may be some interest in the one-dayers.
Meanwhile, ESPN has switched off signals to Rajan Raheja-promoted Hathway Cable & Datacom and Asianet for non payment of dues. This has coincided with the telecast of the India-Bangladesh cricket series.
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?
