1. AI, Copyright and Intellectual Property

The central question: Is training AI on copyrighted works "fair use"?

The Emerging Rule - The Fair Use Triangle:
Courts are now drawing a line between lawfully acquired data vs pirated / proprietary data.

Case Laws:

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre v. ROSS Intelligence Inc. [D. Del., Feb 2025]: First major training-data decision. ROSS scraped Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal research tool. Court rejected fair use defence at summary judgment and held infringement. Takeaway: Scraping proprietary, curated content to build a direct competitor is high risk.

Bartz v. Anthropic [N.D. Cal., June 2025]: Judge Alsup held training on lawfully acquired books was "quintessentially transformative" and fair use, but creating and retaining a "central library" of pirated books was NOT fair use. Case settled for reported $1.5 Billion, showing stakes.

Kadrey v. Meta [N.D. Cal., 2025] and NYT v. OpenAI / Microsoft [2023-present]: Companion cases in N.D. Cal found fair use more defensible where content was lawfully sourced. In NYT v. OpenAI, court issued preservation order and ordered OpenAI to produce ∼20 million ChatGPT logs as evidence.

ANI v. OpenAI [Delhi High Court, 2024-2026]: Asian News International sued OpenAI for training LLMs on ANI's copyrighted work. Delhi HC refused to grant interim injunction restraining training at initial stage but issued notice in appeal - India's first major AI training case.

Thaler v. Perlmutter [US]: US courts held AI-generated works without human authorship cannot be copyrighted.[2025]

2. Deepfakes, Synthetic Media and Personality Rights - India's De Facto Deepfake Law

India has no statutory right of publicity. Until Feb 2026 there was no law on synthetic media. The gap is filled by High Courts.

Legislative Update:
IT Amendment Rules, 2026 (notified 10 Feb 2026): First direct law. Defines "Synthetically Generated Information" (SGI), mandates clear labelling and embedded provenance metadata, requires significant intermediaries to verify user declaration, and compresses takedown from 36 hours to 3 hours, and to 2 hours for intimate imagery/impersonation.

Landmark Indian Case Laws:

• Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi [Delhi HC, 2022]: Granted broad ad-interim injunction protecting name, image and voice.
• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India [Delhi HC, 2023]: Extended protection to catchphrase, mannerism and expressly to AI-generated morphing.
• Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP [Bombay HC, 2024]: India's first on AI voice cloning. Restrained platforms offering voice conversion tools trained on singer's voice - personality rights extend to vocal identity.
• Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf (Jackie Shroff) v. Peppy Store and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com [9 Sept 2025] and Abhishek Bachchan v. Bollywood Tee Shop [10 Sept 2025]: Court directed Google/YouTube to furnish subscriber info in sealed cover.[2024]
• Asha Bhosle and Akkineni Nagarjuna [Bombay & Delhi HC, Oct 2025]: Holding that making tools available to convert any voice into celebrity voice without permission itself violates personality rights.

Doctrine: All rights are judge-made from Article 21 after K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which recognized informational privacy and dignity. Remedy is available practically only to celebrities - no jurisprudence for ordinary persons, especially women facing non-consensual sexual imagery.

3. Data Protection and Privacy

Emerging Issue: Right to be Forgotten vs AI training data, and consent.

• Google Spain SL v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez (2014, EU): Established Right to be Forgotten - search engines must delist irrelevant personal data.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017, SC): Expanded Article 21 Right to Privacy to include protection against unlawful access to personal data.
• Laksh Singh Yadav v. Union of India [Delhi HC, 29 May 2025]: Held right to be forgotten forms part of fundamental right to privacy - can seek removal/masking from online platforms. Raises question: can AI be forced to erase personal info embedded in training data.
• Under India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 - Rules notified 13 Nov 2025, substantive obligations from 13 May 2027. Between Jan 2025-Jan 2026, average daily breach notifications in Europe rose 22% and GDPR penalties hit €7.1 billion. US saw ∼4000 online privacy cases in 2024 vs 200 in 2023.

4. AI-Washing and Consumer Protection

• FTC Operation AI Comply [US, 2024-2025]: FTC brought at least a dozen "AI-washing" cases. In Aug 2025 sued Air AI for deceptive claims that its agentic AI could fully replace human sales reps. Lesson: Claiming "full automation" or "no humans needed" without proof is deceptive.

5. New Regulatory Frameworks

• EU AI Act: Entered into force 1 Aug 2024. Feb 2, 2025 - ban on unacceptable-risk AI (social scoring). Aug 2, 2025 - GPAI obligations. Aug 2026-27 - high-risk framework.
• Colorado AI Act SB 24-205: Signed 2024, effective 1 Feb 2026. First comprehensive US AI statute - risk-based approach focused on preventing algorithmic discrimination.
• US v. Heppner : Defendant used public AI chatbot to analyze legal exposure - Court ruled these interactions were entirely discoverable - warning on privilege.[2026]

6. Other Emerging Issues for Exams

• Environment - Massachusetts v. EPA (2007, US): Foundation for climate litigation - EPA can regulate greenhouse gases.
• Technology Evidence - Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Read down Section 79(3)(b) IT Act to stop intermediaries being forced to adjudicate legality - directly relevant to 2026 Rules' 2-hour takedown.

Strategy for 2026 compliance:

1. Maintain documented data-provenance
2. Honest AI marketing
3. AI inventory and risk mapping
4. Prepare for massive log preservation in litigation