‘Extremely disturbing’: Take down content with morphed images, videos of Shilpa Shetty, directs Bombay HC

In her suit, Shetty had alleged that AI tools were used to clone her voice and mannerisms to create morphed images, books, and other merchandise without her authorisation, and such material would also expose her to “unsavoury humour and ridicule”.

Therefore, she sought injunction orders to take down such content and to restrain them from using her name, voice, image, or likeness through AI-generated content, deepfake videos, and voice cloning and also sought damages of Rs 5 lakh against some of the defendants.

Justice Sethna, while hearing her interim application, clarified that while the broader questions of personality and publicity rights would be decided by the regular court, the vacation court was in the interim “duty-bound to protect the rights guaranteed to the plaintiff under Article 21, which would encompass her fundamental right of privacy and living with dignity that cannot be compromised whatsoever in any manner”.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan for Shetty argued that her client had acted in over 50 Bollywood films, is a TV personality, and a health and fitness enthusiast with a wide social media following, and her personality rights need to be protected from commercial exploitation. Khan referred to Section 38B of the Copyright Act and argued that the defendants were misusing the actor’s photographs and persona for selling sarees and other products without her consent or authorisation.

However, Justice Sethna said that the issue of whether and to what extent personality rights are recognised and enforceable under the Copyright Act and other laws could not be decided in a conclusive manner by the vacation court and the issue would remain open to be agitated before the regular court. The high court asked the lawyer to present her case on personality rights with relevant statutes and case laws before the regular bench.

The judge said that he would, for the time being, keep the issue related to personality rights open and would proceed on the basis that Shetty was a “credible actress” and therefore such material cannot be broadcast without her consent.

“The plaintiff has tendered pictures apparently from social media platforms, which depict the plaintiff in an inappropriate and unacceptable fashion. These pictures prima facie appear shocking,” the judge noted in the order.

“She (Shetty) is a well-known film personality and also active on various social media platforms. Portrayal of such images through URLs would tarnish her image and reputation and this cannot be countenanced,” the order records.

“In the interest of justice,” the high court directed all the defendants to forthwith delete the URLs from their respective platforms. The court also directed the Department of Telecommunications to pull down all links, posts and websites that “unlawfully infringe the privacy rights of the plaintiff”.