Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Stay in PPL vs. Azure Hospitality Copyright Dispute
In Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court on June 19, 2025, clarified its earlier interim order dated April 21, 2025. The Court stated that the stay on paragraph 27 of the impugned Delhi High Court order would apply only between the parties to CS(COMM) 714 of 2022 (PPL and Azure), and not beyond. The matter has been tagged with SLP (C) No. 13597/2025 for further hearing on July 21, 2025. Read order here.
FIR Registered Against Vijay Deverakonda Under SC/ST Act for Remarks on Tribals
An FIR has been filed against Vijay Deverakonda under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for allegedly making derogatory remarks against tribal communities during recent promotion event.
The complaint, lodged by a tribal rights group in Raidurgam, alleges that Arjun’s statements during a film promotion were discriminatory and hurtful to tribal sentiments where he made some remarks related to the situation between India and Pakistan and likened Pakistan to a tribal community.
The Actor issued a clarification on “X” saying there was no intention to offend or target any group. The case is handed is now handed over to the assistant commissioner of police (ACP), Madhapur, for investigation.
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to ‘Manjummel Boys’ Producers in Cheating Case
The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to actor Soubin Shahir and other producers of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys in a cheating case filed by co-producer Shawn Antony.
Antony alleged that the team failed to acknowledge him and repay his investment despite profits.
The Court noted that the relationship between the parties is governed by Annexure A2 agreement. Thus, the relationship between the parties is governed primarily by business transaction and that the dispute falls in the commercial sphere. However, the Court also observed that there can be instances where commercial and criminal elements can converge.
Justice Viju Abraham came to the conclusion that this a case where custodial interrogation is not necessary since majority of these matters could be governed by documentary evidence. However, the court was of the opinion that limited custody of the petitioners can be granted in the case to complete the investigation and directed them to appear before the Investigating Officer
US Court Dismisses Copyright Lawsuit Against Meta Over AI Training
A federal judge of the US District Court sided with Facebook parent Meta Platforms in dismissing a copyright infringement lawsuit from a group of authors who accused the company of stealing their works to train its artificial intelligence technology.
Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed parts of the lawsuit filed by comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Meta copied or reproduced their works in a legally infringing way.
The Court opined that while concerns over AI training datasets are significant, mere ingestion of publicly available content without proof of direct reproduction or market harm falls short of copyright infringement. The decision could set an early precedent in shaping AI-era copyright jurisprudence.
“We have Ram, Sita in film titles, why is Janaki a problem?” Kerala HC Questions CBFC Over Film Title Objection
The Kerala High Court has pulled up the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for raising objections over the use of the name “Janaki” in a film title, while allowing names like “Ram” and “Sita” in past titles.
Hearing the plea filed by Cosmos Entertainments, the producer of ‘JSK-Janaki Vs State of Kerala’, the Court questioned the selective sensitivity of the Board and noted that religious figures’ names have long been part of film narratives.
The bench stressed the need for CBFC to act within constitutional principles and artistic freedom, especially when no express incitement or misuse is apparent.
ED Issues Notice to Leading Newspapers Over Surrogate Ads for Betting Platforms
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has reportedly issued notices to several top national newspapers for carrying surrogate advertisements promoting illegal offshore betting platforms.
These ads, masquerading as content for fantasy games or sports news, allegedly violate the Public Gambling Act and FEMA regulations.
The ED action follows warnings from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and comes amid a broader crackdown on unlawful gambling promotion. Experts have raised concerns about the growing trend of media platforms being used to indirectly endorse illegal betting networks under the garb of editorial partnerships.
Chepauk Super Gillies Owner Moves Madras HC Against TNOGA Notice on Gaming Endorsement
Metronation, a media company that owns Chepauk Super Gillies, a leading participant in the Tamil Nadu Premier League (TNPL) organised by the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (TNCA), has approached the Madras High Court against a notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA), warning it of penal action over an alleged indirect endorsement of an online gambling website.
The Petitioner submitted that the TNOGA’s notice insisting that Chepauk Super Gillies remove the endorsement had been issued on June 26, 2025, when the TNPL 2025, which began on June 5 and is expected to end on July 6. The Court issued notice to TNOGA and instructed it to keep all further action in abeyance till July 16.
The issue pertains to the signage MELBAT found on the jersey of the Chepauk Super Gillies. TNOGA alleges that displaying the logo/signage of MELBAT on the jersey amounts to indirectly promoting the betting/gambling website MELBET, and that this was in violation of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed .
The Petitioner on the other hand denies all the charges and submits that the logo displayed on the jersey was that of ‘MELBAT LIVE,’ a website engaged in sports news. The company asserted that the logo did not contain any language, imagery, or context that could be construed as promoting betting or gambling. However, TNOGA sticks to its claim stating that Section 8 of the Act prohibits not only direct but also indirect advertisement of online gambling.
The case is likely to test the contours of recent state legislation aimed at curbing online gaming and betting, especially in light of ongoing constitutional challenges.
Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of YouTube Channel Using Deepfake Impersonations Of Aaj Tak’s Anjana Om Kashyap
The Delhi High Court has ordered Google LLC to take down a “fake” YouTube channel using news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor (Special Projects) of Aaj Tak news channel. The Court also asked Google to disclose details of the users who uploaded the impugned content.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the alleged YouTube channel @AnajanaomKashya prima facie appears to be fake and is using the identity of the Aaj Tak anchor for wrongful gain.
The court held that such fake YouTube pages or fake profiles being made using the Plaintiffs’ goodwill, reputation and personality would be contrary to law. The proliferation of fake YouTube pages of a well-known organisation or a Personality could result in enormous damage and dissemination of misinformation as the same would lack editorial control.
The Court further went on to observe that in the area of news broadcasting, responsibility has to be taken by the broadcaster and the anchor to ensure that incorrect or misleading news is not disseminated because if fake Youtube pages using the name and image of Anjana Kashyap are allowed to come up and be disseminated, the same would violate her personality rights. Even if the content is original content, the same cannot be permitted to be disseminated by anyone other than the Plaintiffs who own the Broadcast Reproduction Rights in all their broadcasts.
Read order here.
Ejaz Lakdawala Files Defamation Suit Against ‘Aashram’ Makers Over Drug Cartel Depiction
Gangster-turned-approver Ejaz Lakdawala has filed a defamation suit before a Mumbai court against the producers of the OTT series Aashram, alleging that a character in the show falsely resembles him and maligns his reputation by depicting involvement in a drug cartel. This comes after, in one of the scenes gangster’s photo is used as a man behind the drug cartel.
The magistrate court has issued notice to all the respondents, including producer Prakash Jha.
Lakdawala has sought damages and a public apology, arguing that the show’s narrative harms his legal standing and falsely implicates him in criminal conduct post-rehabilitation.
The matter throws light on the fine line between fictional storytelling and real-life allusion, particularly when dealing with reformed individuals or ongoing judicial matters.
No Relief for O.P. Ralhan’s Estate: Court Upholds Perpetual Music Rights Assigned to Saregama
In a significant judgment dated June 11, 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed Rupali Shah v. Adani Wilmar Ltd. & Anr., holding that the rights assigned under copyright agreements executed by the late O.P. Ralhan (the plaintiff’s father) in favor of the defendants were valid, perpetual, and extended to both physical and non-physical (digital) media. The Court emphasized that the original agreements, particularly one from 1967, used expansive language such as “by any and every means whatsoever,” clearly allowing exploitation across future formats.
The plaintiff’s argument—that the assignments were limited to physical mediums like gramophone records and did not include digital use—was rejected. The Court further ruled that the plaintiff’s pleadings focused only on expiry of the assignment period but did not support her digital-restriction argument, and hence such a shift in position could not be entertained at the final stage.
The Court also relied on the parties’ conduct (including receipt of royalties) and dismissed claims of copyright infringement, damages, and injunctions. Notably, the Court found that the 2012 Copyright Act amendment could not retroactively undo pre-existing contractual rights.
