A Bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has scheduled the matter for hearing alongside a pending case related to the misuse of deepfake technology.
NEW DELHI: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court, raising concerns over the unauthorized use of original artistic works by Artificial Intelligence (AI) software.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has scheduled the matter for hearing alongside a pending case related to the misuse of deepfake technology.
“We don’t have a magic wand. We have directed them to look into this matter. We have highlighted it and asked them to hear the stakeholders before passing any order. There is little more we can do. Everyone is grappling with this issue,”
remarked Chief Justice Manmohan.
The Court referred to a previous directive issued to a committee formed by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which is tasked with examining the deepfake issue.
In the order passed on November 21, the Bench instructed the committee to engage with multiple stakeholders, including internet intermediaries, telecom service providers, deepfake victims, and websites that host deepfake content.
Deepfakes are manipulated videos that impersonate individuals.
The PIL was filed by professional model Kanchan Nagar, photographer Vikas Saboo, and the company behind the stock photography website ‘Images Bazaar’. The petitioners seek directions to establish rules and regulations to protect original works from unauthorized use by AI platforms.
Specifically, the PIL calls for amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Information Technology Rules to address AI-driven offences such as cheating by impersonation and the misuse of deepfakes.
The PIL also seeks orders to block public access to unregulated applications, software, platforms, and websites enabling AI-generated images. Additionally, it requests the prohibition and punishment of selling AI-generated images made using original works without permission.
Furthermore, the PIL asks for the appointment of a dedicated nodal officer to handle complaints related to AI-induced copyright infringement.
The petitioners argue that such unauthorized use of artistic works not only leads to copyright violations but also undermines the efforts of creative professionals. They also contend that it infringes on the personality rights of freelance models depicted in the photographs.
The petition emphasizes that the photos of women models are being used without consent, particularly in deepfakes.
“This issue concerns the privacy and consent of women, extending beyond physical touch. Not everyone has the resources or courage to approach the courts. The absence of clear laws fails to deter misuse. We request that, at least for commercial advertising, women’s faces should not be used without consent,” argued the petitioners’ counsel before the Court.
The PIL has been filed through Advocate Mumtaz Bhalla, with the next hearing scheduled for March 24, 2025.
In a different case marks ANI as the first media organization in India to take legal action against OpenAI. A similar lawsuit was filed by The New York Times in December 2023, making it the first global news outlet to initiate an AI-related copyright lawsuit. The Times argued that OpenAI’s AI models harm its business and diminish the value of its substantial investment in journalism.
In addition to summoning OpenAI, Justice Bansal announced plans to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court in resolving the case.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar Marwah represented ANI, while OpenAI was represented by senior counsel Amit Sibal. Marwah argued that publicly available news does not grant permission for it to be copied or stored. He stressed that OpenAI’s use of ANI’s content raises public concerns, potentially damaging the agency’s reputation and credibility.
“This service falsely attributes content to me,” Marwah stated. “For example, it claims that Rahul Gandhi, the opposition leader, gave an interview to ANI when no such interview occurred. This not only violates my rights but also spreads fake news.”
Amit Sibal, representing OpenAI, denied the allegations, arguing that copyright laws do not apply to facts or ideas. He referred to similar cases against OpenAI in the US, Canada, and Germany, none of which resulted in injunctions.
“There is no monopoly on facts,” Sibal stated. “Copyright protects expression, not facts.” He further argued, “Since its inception two years ago, OpenAI has faced 13 lawsuits in the US, 2 in Canada, and 1 in Germany. None of these courts have granted an injunction, as they found no prima facie case of copyright infringement.”
Sibal also raised jurisdictional issues, noting, “OpenAI has no offices or servers in India. The plaintiff’s material is not being reproduced in India, and ANI has not provided evidence to the contrary. Additionally, our models are not trained in India.”
[Case Title: Kanchan Nagar & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors].
