Copyrights | Intellepedia

Images Copyright and AI Getty Vs. Stable Diffusion

In the case of Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd, Getty Images sued Stability AI, the developer of the Stable Diffusion generative AI model, alleging that the system had been trained on millions of copyrighted photographs from Getty Images’ websites. Getty Images argued that both the outputs generated by the AI system and the AI model itself infringed copyright. During the proceedings, Getty Images abandoned the claim relating to infringing outputs after the prompts used to generate those outputs were blocked. The High Court then examined whether the Stable Diffusion model itself could constitute an infringing copy and held that the model does not contain or store copies of Getty Images’ photographs and therefore cannot qualify as an infringing copy under UK copyright law.

When Chatbots Sing Songs AI Outputs and Copyright Liability

In the case of GEMA v OpenAI entities operating ChatGPT, the collecting society GEMA sued the operators of a generative AI chatbot for reproducing protected song lyrics through chatbot outputs. The court examined chatbot responses generated after simple prompts asking for song lyrics and compared them with the original lyrics represented by GEMA. The court held that the operators are liable for copyright infringement arising from such outputs, ordered them to refrain from reproducing the lyrics through the chatbot, directed them to disclose the extent of the infringing acts and revenue earned from them, and held them liable to compensate damages.

First Owner of Copyright in Film Music: Delhi HC in Saregama v Ilaiyaraja

Film reel and musical notes illustrating film music rights.

Section 17(b) and 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was applied by the Delhi High Court to treat the producer as the first owner of copyright in film works, absent an agreement to the contrary. Interim restraint was granted against unauthorised licensing of the works.

Shatrughan Sinha and the Legal Fight Against Digital Impersonation

The Shatrughan Sinha digital impersonation ruling confirms that personality rights are enforceable against AI-driven misuse and commercial exploitation in the digital age.

“Will You Marry Me” Twice Not After a Copyright Assignment

In the case of Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and others, a producer agreed to assign worldwide rights in the film Will You Marry Me in perpetuity. After that assignment, the producer entered into later arrangements for music rights and distribution rights with others. The assignee sued to protect the earlier assignment and stop further exploitation inconsistent with it.

AI, Identity & Injunctions: The Vivek Anand Oberoi Personality Rights Case

A personality rights injunction was granted by the Delhi High Court in favour of Vivek Anand Oberoi against alleged AI deepfakes and unauthorised use of his persona. Takedown and intermediary disclosure directions were issued.

Intellepedia’s Top Copyright Articles of 2025: A Year in Review

Explore the top Indian copyright cases and policy changes of 2025, including AI-related rulings, music licensing reforms, and major court decisions.

Same MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped In

In the case of Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar, the court examined whether embedding spy cameras inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and selling them online could be justified as resale, or whether such conduct crossed into trade mark infringement, trade dress misuse, and passing off.

Same Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright Comfort

In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the court examined whether the defendants’ Jasmine and Hair Protection hair oil products unlawfully copied the distinctive trade dress, logos, and packaging of the plaintiff’s well known Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products sold under the Parachute house mark, and granted interim relief to the plaintiff.

Gen AI, Copyrights, and Hybrid Licensing in India Why the Assumptions May Not Sustain the Model

The DPIIT committee’s proposal for a hybrid licensing model for AI training rests on a set of assumptions about creativity, copyright ownership, collective management, and regulatory control. A closer examination of these assumptions raises important questions about whether the model can deliver the balance it seeks to achieve. In particular, the model appears to strengthen the position of copyright owning entities while offering limited benefits to authors and creators, introduces administrative complexity in a rapidly evolving technological space, and relies heavily on institutional structures that have historically faced governance and efficiency challenges in India. Against this backdrop, the article explores whether India would be better served by an open and carefully calibrated AI training exception, supported by a statutory right that directly recognises and strengthens authors and creators, rather than by an expansive licensing regime built on contested assumptions.