Bombay High Court Shields Preity Zinta from AI-Generated Deepfakes
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has extended interim protection to Bollywood actress Preity Zinta, addressing her concerns about AI-generated deepfakes and altered content that infringe upon her personality, publicity, and moral rights. The court has mandated the removal of various identified posts across digital platforms. This case, titled Preity Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors, highlights the legal implications of digital content manipulation.
Online Platforms Held Accountable
Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over the matter, emphasized the responsibility of online intermediaries such as Google and Meta. The court underscored that these platforms cannot act merely as passive conduits in cases of content misuse. Justice Jamdar remarked, “As international organizations, you must be vigilant about such misuse on your platforms. Proactive measures will not only deter offenders but also enhance your credibility.”
Case Details and Court’s Observations
The court was reviewing a petition filed by Preity Zinta concerning unauthorized AI-generated deepfakes and morphed content. The suit listed several intermediaries, including Google and Meta, alongside domain registrars and named infringers. Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, representing Zinta, highlighted approximately 275 YouTube links in violation of her rights, seeking to expand the lawsuit to include additional content. The court permitted this amendment.
Interim Orders and Legal Framework
Justice Jamdar directed the removal of flagged content, recognizing the infringement of Zinta’s personality and publicity rights. These rights, as noted by the court, derive from Article 19(1)(a) concerning freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21 related to life, liberty, and privacy under the Indian Constitution, in conjunction with moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Obligations Under IT Rules 2021
The court clarified that entities like Meta and Google must act on infringing content upon gaining “actual knowledge” as per Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Meta’s counsel assured compliance with the takedown order for already identified links but noted potential objections for future requests involving legitimate content. The court allowed both parties and intermediaries the liberty to seek further judicial intervention if execution challenges arise.
