#FactCheck -Viral Image of ‘Saudi Son’ Meeting Hindu Mother Found to Be Misleading

Executive Summary

‍

A video showing a modern highway flyover illuminated at night is being widely shared on social media. The bridge features bright white light poles and illuminated barriers. The video is being falsely claimed to be from Patna, Bihar. A CyberPeace Research Wing research has found the claim to be false. Our verification shows that the viral video is not real but AI-generated and is being circulated with misleading claims.

‍

Claim:

‍

A user on YouTube shared the viral video, claiming it shows a flyover in Patna. The post, along with its archive link and screenshots, can be seen below:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j9jU-QVKcrw 

https://archive.ph/5AyNs 

‍

‍

Meanwhile, the BJP also shared the same video on its official Facebook page, writing: “Don’t be surprised, this is Patna, the capital of Bihar! Where there is BJP-NDA government, development moves at a fast pace.” The post link, archive link, and screenshots are available below:

https://archive.ph/5AyNs 

https://www.facebook.com/bjp4bihar 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

A careful review of the viral video raised suspicions that it may be AI-generated. The footage was analysed using the AI detection tool HIVE MODERATION, which indicated that the video is approximately 84% likely to be AI-generated.

‍

‍

We also analysed the video using another AI detection tool, SIGHTENGINE, which produced an even stronger result, indicating a 99% likelihood of AI generation.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral video being circulated as a flyover from Patna is not real. It is AI-generated and is being shared with misleading claims.

‍

Introduction

Sexual Offences against children have recently come under scrutiny after the decision of the Madras High Court which has ruled that watching and downloading child sexual porn is an inchoate crime. In response, the Supreme Court, on 23 September 2024, ruled that Section 15 of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act penalise any form of use of child pornography, including storing and watching such pornographic content. Along with this, the Supreme Court has further recommended replacing the term “Child Pornography” which it said acts as a misnomer and does not capture the full extent of the crime, with a more inclusive term “Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material” (CESAM). This term would more accurately reflect the reality that these images and videos are not merely pornographic but are records of incidents, where a child has either been sexually exploited and abused or where any abuse of children has been portrayed through any self-generated visual depiction.

Intermediaries cannot claim exemption from Liability U/S 79 

Previously, intermediaries claimed safe harbour by only complying with the requirements stipulated under the  MOU. As per the decision of the SC, now, an intermediary cannot claim exemption from the liability under Section 79 of the IT Act for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it unless due diligence is conducted by it and compliance is made of these provisions of the POCSO Act. This is as per the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the POCSO read with Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules which have a mandatory nature.

The due diligence under section 79 of the IT Act includes the removal of child pornographic content and immediate reporting of such content to the concerned police units in the manner specified under the POCSO Act and the Rules. In this way, the Supreme Court has broadened the Interpretation and scope of the ‘Due Diligence’ obligation under section 79 of the IT Act. It was also stated that is to be duly noted that merely because an intermediary complies with the IT Act, will not absolve it of any liability under the POCSO. This is unless it duly complies with the requirements and procedure set out under it, particularly Section 20 of the POCSO Act and Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules.

Bar on Judicial Use of the term ‘Child Porn’

Supreme Court found that the term child pornography can be trivialised as pornography is often seen as a consensual act between adults. Supreme Court emphasised using the term Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material  (CESAM) as it would emphasise the exploitation of children highlight the criminality of the act and shift the focus to a more robust framework to counter these crimes. The Supreme Court also stated that the Union of India should consider amending the POCSO Act to replace the "child pornography" term with "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM). This would reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences. Supreme Court also directed that the term "child pornography" shall not be used in any judicial order or judgment, and instead, the term "CSEAM" should be endorsed.

Curbing CSEAM Content on Social Media Platforms

Social Media Intermediaries and Expert Organisations play an important role in curbing CESAM content. Per the directions of the Apex Court, a need to impart positive age-appropriate sex education to prevent youth from engaging in harmful sexual behaviours, including the distribution, and viewing of CSEAM is important and all stakeholders must engage in proactive measures to counter these offences which are under the umbrella of CSEAM. This should entail promoting age-appropriated and lawful content on social media platforms and social media platforms to ensure compliance with applicable provisions.  

Conclusion 

In light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, it is imperative to acknowledge the pressing necessity of establishing a safer online environment that shields children from exploitation. The shift towards using "Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material" (CSEAM) emphasizes the severity of the crime and the need for a vigilant response. The social media intermediaries must respect their commitment to report and remove exploitive content and must ensure compliance with POCSO and IT regulations. Furthermore, comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education can also be used as a preventive measure, educating young people about the moral and legal ramifications of sexual offences, encouraging respect and awareness and ensuring safer cyberspace. 

References

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/23/storing-watching-child-pornography-crime-supreme-court-pocso-it-act/#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%3A%20The%20bench%20of,watching%20of%20such%20pornographic%20content
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-viewing-child-porn-is-offence-under-pocso-it-acts/articleshow/113613572.cms
• https://bwlegalworld.com/article/dont-use-term-child-pornography-says-sc-urges-parliament-to-amend-pocso-act-534053  
• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/child-pornography-law-pocso-it-supreme-court-9583376/

‍

For more than a century, cinema has evolved alongside technology. Sound transformed silent films, colour changed visual storytelling, computer-generated imagery expanded the limits of imagination, and streaming reshaped how audiences experience films. Each transformation brought uncertainty, but Artificial Intelligence represents a different kind of shift. It is not merely changing how films are made; it is beginning to challenge who, or what, gets to create and perform them.

This debate has moved from theory to reality with Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated performer created by Particle 6 through its AI talent division Xicoia. After months of discussion surrounding the role of artificial performers in entertainment, Norwood is now set to headline her own feature film, Misaligned which is a project that places artificial intelligence at the centre of both the production process and the story itself. The film is described as a comedy-drama following an AI character without a tangible existence. The story follows that, guided by another AI character, she begins developing ambitions, emotions, and a desire to understand what it means to become “human” The premise of the movie is intentionally self-reflective. An AI performer, whose very existence has raised questions about authenticity and creativity, will now portray a character experiencing those same conflicts.

‍

AI as storyteller?

‍

Using Artificial Intelligence in filmmaking is not recent, for years production studios have used technology for visual effects, editing assistance, restoration, recommendation systems, and production planning. The emergence of AI-generated performers, however, introduces a far more complex question, can AI replace the actors who are core to storytelling?

When Tilly was first introduced at the Zurich film festival in late 2025 by the Dutch producer Eline Van Der Velden, CEO and Founder of Particle 6,  introduced it as a hybrid model of film-making, where there are directors, producers, production team but a "synthetic performer" in the lead role and a comprehensive AI-experts team. Van Der Velden argued that human creativity was not being replaced but supplemented by AI.

This was not well received by the film community. Actors like Emily Blunt and SAG-AFTRA (the Screen Actors Guild- American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) a US labor organization representing roughly 160,000 professionals across the entertainment and media industries, including actors, performers, journalists, musicians, and voice actors, released a statement condemning this project with synthetic performer. They emphasised that ‘creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics.’ 

‍

The Question of Authenticity

‍

Acting has historically been understood as an interpretation of human experience. Performers bring personal histories, emotions, cultural backgrounds, and individual perspectives into their roles.  The criticism is that an AI actor does not exist in a tangible form and essentially has no real story or background of any kind. Particle 6 describes Tilly only as a twenty-something who lives in London and loves coffee which is a very shallow context and has no personality at all. The film is also set in the fictional "Tillyverse," not a real place and exists on some cloud system reinforcing the sense that there is no lived reality behind the character.

At their core, AI performers are outputs of generative systems rather than individuals with lived experience or personal artistic interpretation. These systems learn by identifying patterns from vast datasets and generating results based on existing material, which raises questions about whether such performances can be considered original creative expression at all. Tilly Norwood's music video ‘Taking the Lead’ illustrated this gap in practice, drawing attention to inconsistencies in natural emotion, visual continuity, and expression across scenes.

Human actors, by contrast, bring authenticity and emotional depth shaped by real experience and creative interpretation which are qualities that recognition and awards have traditionally been built around. If a performance is produced through algorithms trained on existing creative patterns, a fundamental question follows: what exactly is being celebrated, the technology, the final output, or the humans guiding the system?

‍

Creativity, Consent, and the Legal Grey Areas

‍

AI performers also raise significant questions about intellectual property, personality rights, consent, and compensation. Existing legal and contractual frameworks were primarily designed around human performers who are individuals who negotiate compensation, own aspects of their identity, and participate in the wider cultural ecosystem surrounding cinema. However, an AI actor challenges these traditional assumptions. If a digital performer does not possess legal personhood, creative ownership, or independent rights, questions emerge regarding who should receive recognition and financial benefits: the developers, production studios, directors, or the human creators involved in building the technology?

Also if a digital actor’s expressions, movements, or style are influenced by thousands of existing performers, determining ownership becomes complicated. Who controls an AI-generated performance? Who deserves credit? Should performers have rights over how their likeness, voice, or style influences future AI systems?

‍

Any advantages?

‍

The most significant advantage of AI-assisted filmmaking may lie in what it offers smaller production houses and independent creators. By reducing certain production costs, AI tools could let filmmakers with limited resources attempt ambitious ideas that were previously out of reach. Beyond this production advantage, however, the acceptance of AI performers themselves remains uncertain. Projects like Misaligned are therefore less a proven shift in cinema than an industry experiment testing how far technology can move into a traditionally human creative space.

‍

The Future of Cinema: Replacement or Reinvention?

‍

Every major technological transformation in cinema has created fears about what might be lost, yet cinema has consistently adapted by absorbing new technologies into its storytelling. AI may follow a similar path, but the stakes are different as it does not simply change the tools available to artists, it challenges the definitions of creativity, authorship, and performance itself.

Much of cinema's economic and cultural life is really built on the bond between audiences and actors. It's actors who drive ticket sales, build loyal fan followings, and become cultural figures in their own right, through interviews, public appearances, and the visible journey of training, struggle, and growth that shapes a career. An AI-generated performer can mimic parts of that celebrity image, but it can't actually show up for any of it the way a person can. Handing central creative roles to artificial personalities also raises a fairness question, especially at a time when so many human performers are already struggling to find work.

Whether audiences will really embrace fully synthetic performers as stand-ins for human actors is still an open question. Misaligned may end up being the first real test of that. Early reaction to Tilly Norwood has been largely critical within the industry and among audiences. How viewers respond to Misaligned itself will be an early test of whether that scepticism holds. 

Cinema has always found ways to absorb new technology, but AI is testing something deeper than the tools filmmakers use. As machines get better at telling human stories, the real challenge is making sure the human element behind those stories doesn't get lost.

‍

References

‍

• https://theprint.in/feature/tilly-norwood-tillyverse-misaligned-particle6-ai-actor/2980654/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tilly-norwood-ai-generated-actor-feature-film/ 
• https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement-synthetic-performer
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-movie-debut-misaligned-1236638719/

‍

‍