Intellectual property rights Archives | Page 3 of 43

India AI governance faces court, privacy and cyber pressures

An opinion article published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals says India’s data protection and AI governance environment is facing growing pressure as compliance work around the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) unfolds, court challenges continue, and regulators widen oversight into new sectors. The piece, published on 26 March, is labelled as an opinion article and includes an editor’s note stating that the IAPP is policy neutral and publishes contributed opinion pieces to reflect a broad spectrum of views.

The article says several legal and regulatory developments are unfolding simultaneously. One example cited is a public interest litigation filed before India’s Supreme Court by journalist Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Centre, India, challenging parts of the DPDPA on constitutional and rights-related grounds. According to the piece, the Supreme Court later issued a notice to the Government of India on 12 March.

Concerns outlined in the article include the absence of journalistic exemptions, the lack of compensation for data breach victims when penalties are imposed to the government, broad state powers to exempt departments from the law, and questions about the independence of the Data Protection Board given the government’s control over appointments. The article notes that similar petitions had already been filed, but says this was the first time the court issued notice to the government.

The article also turns to proceedings before the Kerala High Court involving privacy concerns about biometric and personal data collected through Digi Yatra, a not-for-profit foundation that operates airport passenger-processing infrastructure in India. According to the piece, a public interest litigation filed by C R Neelakandan asked for a temporary restraint on the sharing of collected personal data and its commercial use without proper authorisation.

The article says the Kerala High Court issued notice to the Digi Yatra Foundation and sought clarification from the government on whether the Data Protection Board had been established to oversee such matters.

Alongside the litigation, the opinion piece points to government efforts to show legal preparedness for AI-related risks. It says Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw outlined existing safeguards during the ongoing parliamentary session, referring to the Information Technology Act, the DPDPA, and subordinate rules, along with published guidelines on AI governance, toy safety, harmful content, awareness-building measures, and cyber safety.

Cybersecurity developments also feature in the article. It says the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, working with the SatCom Industry Association, issued guidelines on 26 February for space, including satellite communications. According to the piece, the framework is intended to strengthen resilience in India’s space ecosystem.

It applies to covered entities, including government agencies, satellite service providers, ground station operators, terminal equipment vendors, and private space entities. Incident reporting within six hours and annual audits are among the measures described.

A further section of the article draws on Thales’ 2026 Data Threat Report. The piece says 64% of surveyed organisations in India identified AI-driven transformation as their biggest security risk, while 55% said they had to deal with reputational damage caused by AI-generated misinformation. It also says 65% reported deepfake-driven attacks, 35% had a complete view of their data, and 36% could fully classify their data.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

OpenAI details Sora 2 safeguards for likeness, audio, and harmful content

OpenAI has published a new overview of the safety measures built into Sora 2 and the Sora app, setting out how the company says it is approaching provenance, likeness protection, teen safeguards, harmful-content filtering, audio controls, and user reporting tools. The Sora team published the note on 23 March 2026.

OpenAI says every video generated with Sora includes visible and invisible provenance signals, and that all videos also embed C2PA metadata. The company adds that many outputs feature visible moving watermarks that include the creator’s name, while internal reverse-image and audio search tools are used to trace videos back to Sora.

A substantial part of the update focuses on likeness and consent. OpenAI says users can upload images of people to generate videos, but only after attesting that they have consent from the people featured and the right to upload the media. OpenAI also says image-to-video generations involving people are subject to stricter safeguards than Sora Characters, and that images including children and young-looking persons face stricter moderation. Shared videos generated from such images will always carry watermarks, according to the company.

OpenAI also sets out controls linked to its characters feature, which it says is intended to give users stronger control over their likeness, including both appearance and voice. According to the company, users can decide who can use their characters, revoke access at any time, and review, delete, or report videos featuring their characters. OpenAI says it also applies additional restrictions designed to limit major changes to a person’s appearance, avoid embarrassing uses, and maintain broadly consistent identity presentation.

Protections for younger users form another part of the update. OpenAI says teen accounts are subject to stronger limitations on mature output, that age-inappropriate or harmful content is filtered from teen feeds, and that adult users cannot initiate direct messages with teens. Parental controls in ChatGPT can also be used to manage teen messaging permissions and to select a non-personalised feed in the app, while default limits apply to continuous scrolling for teens.

OpenAI says harmful-content controls operate at both creation and distribution stages. Prompt and output checks are used across multiple video frames and audio transcripts to block content including sexual material, terrorist propaganda, and self-harm promotion. OpenAI also says it has tightened policies for video generation compared with image generation because of added realism, motion, and audio, while automated systems and human review are used to monitor feed content against its global usage policies.

Audio generation is treated separately in the note. OpenAI says generated speech transcripts are automatically scanned for possible policy violations, and that prompts intended to imitate living artists or existing works are blocked. The company also says it honours takedown requests from creators who believe an output infringes their work.

User controls and recourse are presented as the final layer. OpenAI says users can choose whether to share videos to the feed, remove published content, and report videos, profiles, direct messages, comments, and characters for abuse. Blocking tools are also available, according to the company, to stop other users from viewing a profile or posts, using a character, or contacting someone through direct message.

OpenAI’s post is framed as a product-safety explanation rather than an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the measures in practice. Much of the note describes controls that the company says it has built into Sora 2, but it does not provide external evaluation data in the published summary.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

OpenAI sunsets Sora app after 6 months of scrutiny

OpenAI is moving to shut down the Sora app, its consumer-facing AI video platform, according to an official X post on 24 March. The move follows months of scrutiny around AI-generated video, including concerns over deepfakes, copyright, and harmful synthetic media.

The reported shutdown comes shortly after OpenAI retired Sora 1 in the United States on 13 March 2026 and replaced it with Sora 2 as the default experience. OpenAI’s help documentation says the older version remains available only in countries where the newer one has not yet launched, while support pages for the standalone Sora app are still live. The product changes also follow the announcement of new copyright settings for the latest video generation model.

That makes the current picture more complex than a simple sunset. Public OpenAI help pages still describe tools on iOS, Android, and the web, while news reports say the company has now decided to wind down the app itself. OpenAI had also recently indicated that it plans to integrate Sora video generation into ChatGPT, which could help explain why the standalone product is being reconsidered.

Sora became one of OpenAI’s most visible consumer media products, but it also drew sustained scrutiny over deepfakes, non-consensual content, and copyrighted characters. Such concerns remained central even as OpenAI added additional controls to the platform, including new consent and traceability measures to enhance AI video safety. AP reported that pressure from advocacy groups, scholars, and entertainment-sector voices formed part of the backdrop to the shutdown decision.

For users, the immediate issue is preservation of existing content. OpenAI’s Sora 1 sunset FAQ says some legacy material may be exportable for a limited period before deletion, but the company has not yet published a detailed standalone help document explaining the full shutdown. Based on the information now available, the clearest distinction is that OpenAI first retired one legacy version in some markets and is now reportedly ending the standalone app more broadly.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

US releases national AI policy framework

The Trump Administration unveiled a national AI framework to boost competitiveness, security, and benefits for Americans. The plan seeks to ensure that AI innovation supports all citizens while maintaining public trust in the technology.

Six key objectives form the foundation of the policy. These include protecting children online, empowering parents with tools to manage digital safety, strengthening communities and small businesses, respecting intellectual property, defending free speech, and fostering innovation.

The framework also prioritises workforce development to prepare Americans for AI-driven job opportunities.

Federal uniformity is considered critical to the plan’s success. The Administration warns that a patchwork of state regulations could stifle innovation and reduce the United States’ ability to lead globally.

Congress is encouraged to collaborate closely to implement the framework nationwide.

The Administration emphasises that the United States must lead the AI race, ensuring the benefits of AI reach all Americans while addressing challenges such as privacy, security, and equitable access to opportunities.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UK drops AI copyright opt-out plan amid growing industry divide

The UK Government has abandoned its previous preference for an AI copyright opt-out model, signalling a shift in policy following strong opposition from creative industries.

Ministers now acknowledge that there is no clear consensus on how AI developers should access copyrighted material.

Concerns from writers, artists and rights holders focused on the use of their work in training AI systems without permission.

Liz Kendall confirmed that extensive consultation exposed significant disagreement, prompting the government to step back from its earlier position that would have allowed the use of copyrighted content unless creators opted out.

A joint report from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states that further evidence is required before any legislative change.

Policymakers in the UK will assess how copyright frameworks influence AI development, while also examining international regulation, licensing models and ongoing legal disputes.

Government strategy now centres on balancing innovation with fair compensation.

Officials emphasise that creators must retain control over how their work is used, while AI developers require access to high-quality data to remain competitive. Potential measures include labelling AI-generated content to reduce risks linked to disinformation and deepfakes.

No timeline has been set for reform, reflecting the complexity of aligning economic growth with intellectual property protection.

The debate unfolds alongside broader ambitions outlined by Rachel Reeves, who has identified AI as a central driver of future economic expansion, with the UK aiming to lead adoption across the G7.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI in filmmaking raises job fears as creative roles face pressure

Growing concern over AI in filmmaking emerged at a major conference, where veteran director Steven Spielberg rejected its use as a replacement for human creativity. He emphasised that storytelling should remain in human hands rather than being driven by automation.

Rapid advances in AI video tools have unsettled the industry, raising fears among editors and visual effects workers. Joshua Davies, chief innovation officer at a video platform, pointed to concerns over jobs, copyright and future production methods.

Current tools remain limited, particularly when handling complex camera movements or maintaining consistency across scenes. AI is instead being used to support production by filling gaps where footage cannot be filmed due to time or budget limits.

Studios are already exploring how AI can be integrated into production pipelines following recent disruptions. A fast and low-cost Super Bowl advert highlighted its potential, although human creative input remained essential.

Lower production costs are expected, but full automation is still unlikely in the near term. AI could help independent creators compete, while strong storytelling continues to define success.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU urged to push digital tax despite US opposition

Calls for an EU-wide digital services tax are growing, as Pasquale Tridico, chair of the European Parliament’s subcommittee on tax matters, urged Brussels to act despite strong opposition from the US. He argued that such a measure would make Europe’s tax system fairer in a market dominated by foreign tech firms.

Tensions have increased as Washington threatens tariffs on countries introducing digital taxes targeting major platforms. Existing national levies in countries like France contrast with the absence of a unified EU approach due to member state control over taxation.

The proposal comes amid wider strain in transatlantic relations, with disputes over trade, regulation and influence on EU policymaking. US criticism has also focused on European rules such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act.

Supporters argue that a digital tax would apply equally to global companies, not only US firms, while addressing imbalances between sectors. Digital businesses can generate large profits without the same physical costs faced by traditional industries.

Further proposals include new approaches to taxing wealth, reflecting how digitalisation blurs the line between income and capital. Advocates say such reforms are needed to adapt taxation to the modern economy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Publishers challenge OpenAI over alleged copyright infringement

Legal pressure is increasing on OpenAI as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster file a lawsuit accusing the company of large-scale copyright violations.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 copyrighted articles were allegedly used without authorisation to train large language models. Publishers also argue that AI-generated outputs can reproduce parts of their content, raising concerns about unauthorised distribution.

Additional claims focus on how AI systems retrieve and present information. The lawsuit argues that retrieval-augmented generation tools may rely on proprietary databases, potentially undermining publishers’ business models by reducing traffic to original sources.

Concerns are also raised about inaccurate outputs attributed to publishers, which could affect trust in established information providers. The case highlights ongoing tensions between AI development and intellectual property protections.

Growing legal disputes involving media organisations, including The New York Times, suggest that courts will play a key role in defining how copyrighted material can be used in AI training.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Human made labels emerge as industries react to AI expansion

Organisations around the world are developing certification labels designed to show that products or creative work were made by humans rather than AI. New badges such as ‘Human made’, ‘AI free’ and ‘Proudly Human’ are appearing across books, films, marketing and websites as industries respond to the rapid spread of AI tools.

At least eight initiatives are now attempting to create a label that could achieve global recognition similar to the Fair Trade mark. Experts warn that competing definitions and inconsistent certification systems could confuse consumers unless a universal standard is agreed upon.

Some schemes allow creators to download AI-free badges with little or no verification, while others use paid auditing processes that rely on analysts and AI detection tools. Researchers note that defining ‘human-made’ is increasingly difficult because AI technologies are embedded in many everyday software tools.

Creative industries are at the centre of the debate as generative AI rapidly produces books, films and music at lower cost and higher speed. Advocates of certification argue that verified human-created content may gain greater value if consumers can clearly distinguish it from AI-generated work.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Writer files lawsuit against Grammarly over AI feature using experts’ identities

A journalist has filed a class action lawsuit against Grammarly after the company introduced an AI feature that generated editorial feedback by imitating well-known writers and public figures without their permission.

The legal complaint was submitted by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who argued that the tool unlawfully used the identities and reputations of authors and commentators.

The feature, known as ‘Expert Review’, produced automated critiques presented as if they came from figures such as Stephen King, Carl Sagan and technology journalist Kara Swisher.

Such a feature was available to subscribers paying an annual fee and was designed to simulate professional editorial guidance.

Critics quickly questioned both the quality of the generated feedback and the decision to associate the tool with real individuals who had not authorised the use of their names or expertise.

Technology writer Casey Newton tested the system by submitting one of his own articles and receiving automated feedback attributed to an AI version of Swisher. The response appeared generic, casting doubt on the value of linking such commentary to prominent personalities.

Following criticism from writers and researchers, the feature was disabled. Shishir Mehrotra, chief executive of Grammarly’s parent company Superhuman, issued a public apology while defending the broader concept behind the tool.

The lawsuit reflects growing tensions around AI systems that replicate creative styles or professional expertise.

As generative AI technologies expand across writing and publishing industries, questions surrounding consent, intellectual labour and identity rights are becoming increasingly prominent.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!