MapMyIndia accuses Ola Electric of copying data; sends legal notice
CE Info Systems, the parent company of MapMyIndia, has sent a legal notice to Ola Electric for allegedly copying the former’s data. It all came to the fore, after Ola Electric launched its own mapping service in India.
In the legal notice, MapMyIndia claimed that Ola Electric breached the license agreement. In 2022, Ola Electric onboarded MapMyIndia to offer navigation services for its S1 Pro electric scooter.
As per MapMyIndia, Ola was prohibited from co-mingling the licensed product with another similar competing product and indulging in any reverse engineering or making any attempt to extract/ copy the source code from any API of the licensed product or any related software.
The Delhi-based firm also added that it will initiate appropriate legal action, both civil as well as criminal, against Ola Electric.
Earlier this month, the Bengaluru-based firm launched Ola Maps as an alternative to Google Maps. The firm also shifted its operations to its in-house mapping service by transitioning from Google Maps. As per them, this measure is expected to save Rs 100 crore a year his company.
In response to Ola Maps’ free offerings, Google also slashed the pricing of Google Maps platform for developers in India by as much as 70%. The tech giant also said that it will give a 90% discount to developers working with the Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC).
Warning shots fired at non-sponsor brands seeking to cash in on Manu Bhaker’s Olympic success
Brands that use photos, images and videos of Indian Olympic medal winners in congratulatory marketing and ads without sponsoring the concerned athletes are set to receive legal notices for violating personality rights, said executives representing India’s top athletes.
Manu Bhaker, the 22-year-old shooter who won two bronze medals at the Paris Olympics, has been flooded with congratulatory wishes by brands that have never sponsored her or are associated with her in any manner.
The firms that latched on to Bhaker’s feat include Bajaj Foods, LIC, FIITJEE, Oakwood International School, Praneet Group, Radha TMT, Apricot Bioscience, Kineto, Xtrabrick Realtors and Parul Ayurved Hospital.
So far, Bhaker only endorses sports gear and fitness fashion company Performax Activewear, though about half a dozen brands are in negotiations to sign her for endorsements or sponsorships. The matter is widespread and a growing concern, executives said. If required, the executives representing the double Olympic medallist have said they will also initiate legal proceedings to protect the personality rights.
Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Directing Removal Of Articles, Posts About Criminal Case Against Acquitted Businessman
Passing a john doe order, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X, formerly Twitter, regarding a criminal case registered against him in 2018 after his honourable acquittal the next year.
Invoking right to be forgotten in his favour, the court observed that apart from the existence of old news articles or posts on the internet, the businessman’s reputation has been injured on account of updation of such posts which has brought his accusation under public glare again.
Justice Mahajan restrained media houses India Today Group, INDIADOTCOM Digital Pvt. Ltd., Mid day info media Ltd. and The Indian express, from posting or updating any posts on their websites in respect of the alleged criminal case from which the businesses has been acquitted in the year 2019.
It added that if the posts made by unknown persons are not deleted within 48 hours after the businessman having contacted them, X shall delete the same within 48 hours from receiving his request.
The court passed the order in the defamation suit filed by the businessman against the four media houses, unknown persons and X. It was his case that though other media outlets had deleted the news articles against him in relation to the criminal case, the four defendant media entities failed to do so.
The court issued summons in the suit and issued notice on the application seeking ad interim injunction in the matter. The matter will now be heard on October 29.
Read order here.
Sony and Tata Play clash over removal of channels, legal action considered
Broadcaster Sony Pictures Networks India and direct-to-home (DTH) operator Tata Play are embroiled in a dispute over the removal of Sony channels from Tata Play’s consumer packs, according to a report by The Economic Times. Tata Play cites declining popularity and cost savings for consumers as reasons for the removal, while Sony claims the move is retaliatory following their request to audit Tata Play’s subscriber management system (SMS). Sony is considering legal action due to an existing contract between the two companies.
This controversy mirrors a previous issue between Sony and Tata Play over the removal of SonyLIV from Tata Play’s Binge OTT service due to payout disagreements. The recurring conflicts highlights the ongoing tensions in the industry as traditional TV faces competition from digital platforms.
Sony has accused Tata Play of retaliating after the broadcaster requested an audit of Tata Play’s SMS due to apparent discrepancies. The report indicates that Sony is exploring legal options, arguing that the two companies renewed their contract in the first quarter of this year. Sony also criticised Tata Play for making the decision without prior notice or consideration for subscriber preferences.
Tata Play CEO defended the removal of Sony channels, stating it complies with regulations and will save customers Rs 50-60. He emphasised that Tata Play’s SMS is regularly audited by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) auditors and is open for broadcaster audits. Nagpal noted that Sony channels could still be subscribed to individually, highlighting that despite the removal, only 18,000 out of one million users requested to add Sony channels back.
Freedom Of Expression Doesn’t Grant License To Exploit Celebrity’s Persona: Bombay HC ‘Protects’ Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights
Expressing shock over the fact that celebrities particularly performers are vulnerable to being ‘targeted ‘by unauthorised Artificial Intelligence (AI) content creators, the Bombay High Court last week restrained third parties from violating the ‘personality’ rights of Bollywood Singer Arijit Singh.
Justice Riyaz Chagla restrained several entities from using Arijit Singh’s name, voice / vocal style and technique / vocal arrangements and interpretations, mannerism/manner of singing, photograph, image or its likeness, signature, persona, and/or any other attributes of his personality in any form, for any commercial and personal gain and otherwise by exploiting them in any manner whatsoever, without his consent and or authorisation.
The bench underlined, “Even though freedom of speech and expression allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to protect the Plaintiff against any wrongful exploitation of his personality rights and right to publicity.”
This order will also apply on the use of any technology to unauthorisedly use any of Arijit’s personality traits in any form or media, including online platforms, publications, advertisements, promotional materials, merchandise, domain names, or any other commercial endeavour, creating or using artificial intelligence voice models, or voice conversion tool, synthesised voices or digital avatars, caricatures, that imitate or mimic or represent his personality traits, and artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence, machine learning, deepfakes, face morphing and / or GIFs, or any of them, on any medium or formats including but not limited to the physical medium, the virtual medium such as websites, Metaverse, social media.
The court passed the ex-parte order on a suit filed by Singh, highlighting how various third parties have been misusing his personality traits. The singer pointed out that some AI creators were using his voice and mannerisms, some online platforms had been selling various articles or products with his photo, signature or name on them, and some websites were being run in his name. All this, the counsel said was being done without his client’s prior permission.
With these observations, the bench ordered various entities to remove content that violates the personality rights of Singh. The matter would be again heard on September 2.
Read order here.
Supreme Court Dismisses Asianet News Plea To Quash Actress Divya Spandana’s Defamation Complaint
The Supreme Court on August 2nd, 2024, dismissed the petition filed by Asianet News Network, Kannada channel Asianet Suvarna News and journalist Vishweshwar Bhat challenging the Karnataka High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal defamation complaint filed by actor Divya Spandana for allegedly linking her to IPL spot-fixing scam.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, hearing the plea by Asianet, noted that the news bulletin repeatedly mentioned the actress’s photos and videos during the telecast and a genuine case to quash the defamation proceedings wasn’t made out.
The Counsel for the petitioners however contended that the telecast nowhere mentioned her involvement in the betting scam. However, the bench refused to entertain the matter any further.
Spandana had filed a defamation case against the petitioners under S. 500 of the IPC over the bulletin titled ‘Betting Queens’ which allegedly suggested her involvement in the betting scam. The Trial Court, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued a summons to the accused by order dated 13.06.2016.
It was alleged that the accused on 31.05.2013 had telecast the news of the alleged involvement of the Kannada Film Actresses in the betting and spot-fixing scandal and the complainant was time and again named and her photos and videos were shown while the news was being telecasted.
The HC order rejected the contention that petitioners fell under the fourth exception to Section 499 of IPC, and could not be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 500 IPC. The court held that the petitioners failed to produce any material to show that there were any proceedings against the complainant regarding her involvement with cricket betting or spot-fixing.
It stated that to fall within the fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, the publication should have been a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings, but since the petitioners failed to produce any such material before the Court, their contention was rejected.
Read order here.
‘X’ Corp Does Not Perform ‘Public Function’, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that X Corp, formerly Twitter, does not perform “public function” or discharges public duty and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the social media platform operates as a “private entity” under “private law” and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations.
The Court made the observations while dismissing the plea filed by one Sanchit Gupta, a professional with degrees in both Technology and Law, against suspension of his account on X Corp. He alleged that there was a breach of principles of natural justice, equity and fairness.
He contended that he received notification from X Corp that his account’s monetization was paused due to suspension of his account. According to him, this was done without any prior show cause notice, intimation or warning. It was his case that X Corp is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it performs a ‘public function’ by facilitating public discourse through its social media platform.
Rejecting the plea, the court said that though X Corp., plays a critical role in information dissemination and influencing public opinion, its core function is to provide a platform for expression—a service that has ‘public discourse’ as consequence, yet is private in operation as it is a privately owned entity that operates without specific governmental delegation or statutory obligations to perform any public duty.
It added that the social media platform is not mandated to carry out public duties, observing that X Corp is voluntary and user-driven, distinguishing it from entities that operate under a compulsion of law or provide services that are essential public utilities and therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as currently interpreted by jurisprudence on this issue.
The court observed that Gupta’s legal recourse appeared more appropriate for a claim breach of contract rather than a constitutional violation. The proper venue for addressing such a breach would be the civil courts, where contractual disputes are adjudicated, it said.
Read order here.
