High Court
TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan
NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court today extended to 19 January 2017 the status quo with regard to any TRAI tariff orders or regulations for the broadcast sector in a case by Star TV and Vijay TV.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on 16 January 2017 the appeal by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India against this interim order issued last month by Madras HC.
In the Madras High Court, the broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders are in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. As a result of that court order and pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guideline for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, and quality of services.
A TRAI spokesperson said that although it was still waiting to receive the order from the Court, one immediate result would be that the draft tariff and interconnect guidelines issued by the regulator will be subject to the order of the High Court in this regard unless the apex court accepted the regulator’s appeal.
A few months ago, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff interconnect and quality of service, while TRAI chairman RS Sharma had told indiantelevision.com earlier this month that the regulator would come out with its final recommedation by the end of the year.
It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had also said in a submission to TRAI that the regulator’s draft guidelines were in direct conflict with the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act and similar regulations under the Berne Convention.
The IBF had said the Copyright Board is fully empowered to adjudicate upon disputes between any person and Content or Broadcast Reproduction Rights owners. Hence the Copyright Act and Rules provide for protection, monetisation, enforcement and adjudication procedures for all copyrightable work and broadcast reproduction rights.
Also read: 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?
