The has ordered the removal of “obscene” and “pornographic” online content featuring , reported Bar and Bench. The order came after Kapoor filed a petition seeking the removal of over 5,000 webpages and social media posts with pornographic AI-generated content, impersonating accounts, fake booking agencies, and chatbots that allegedly exploited her personality traits without consent.
Kapoor’s submissions to court were ‘overboard’?
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed the removal of “obscene pornographic online content” featuring Kapoor.
However, he found the submissions made by Kapoor’s legal team to be “overboard.”
The court asked Kapoor’s counsel to provide a tabulated chart of webpages that contain “ex facie pornographic, obscene, prurient, lascivious” content directly monetizing her personality rights for sale of merchandise or services.
‘You may not be misusing restraint order but…’
The court also expressed concerns that the restraint order could be misused by others.
Justice Bhambhani reportedly said, “We are not the conscience keepers of the nation. Solution may be worse than the problem.”
“It was at the very root of free speech. You may not be misusing restraint order but there may be others who will.”
‘Everyone who is in the public domain is being abused’
The court also made remarks about fan pages and public personalities.
The Court said, “How can you shut down all fan clubs? You are a public personality.”
“Who is immune these days? Everyone who is in the public domain is being abused left, right and center.”
The next hearing is scheduled for August 17.
Court clarified personality rights and copyright issues
The court also clarified the interplay of copyrights clashing with personality rights.
It said, “I have a photo, and I have a right to sell it; how is it monetising you?”
“Somebody writes a book so he can’t sell it? Right to sell a copyrighted work is the copyright owner’s right.”
“I am a potter, I make a mug, I put your likeness on it, I paint you or photograph you and sell it. Who owns the copyright then?”
Meta opposed Kapoor’s petition
represented by Advocate Varun Pathak, opposed Kapoor’s petition.
He argued that it is not possible to check the 5,000-plus links mentioned in the plea.
“It is not prohibited by law to not have AI-generated pictures. These people also have a right to livelihood,” said Advocate Pathak.
However, the Delhi High Court warned Meta not to “overstep your role.”