#FactCheck-AI-Generated Image Falsely Shows Iranian Soldiers Near Downed Helicopter

Introduction

Global cybersecurity spending is expected to breach USD 210 billion in 2025, a ~10% increase from 2024 (Gartner). This is a result of an evolving and increasingly critical threat landscape enabled by factors such as the proliferation of IoT devices, the adoption of cloud networks, and the increasing size of the internet itself.  Yet, breaches, misuse, and resistance persist. In 2025, global attack pressure rose ~21% Y-o-Y ( Q2 averages) (CheckPoint) and confirmed breaches climbed ~15%( Verizon DBIR). This means that rising investment in cybersecurity may not be yielding proportionate reductions in risk. But while mechanisms to strengthen technical defences and regulatory frameworks are constantly evolving, the social element of trust and how to embed it into cybersecurity systems remain largely overlooked.   

‍

Human Error and Digital Trust  (Individual Trust) 

‍

Human error is consistently recognised as the weakest link in cybersecurity. While campaigns focusing on phishing prevention, urging password updates and using two-factor authentication (2FA) exist, relying solely on awareness measures to address human error in cyberspace is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Rather, it needs to be examined through the lens of digital trust. As Chui (2022) notes, digital trust rests on security,  dependability, integrity, and authenticity. These factors determine whether users comply with cybersecurity protocols. When people view rules as opaque, inconvenient, or imposed without accountability, they are more likely to cut corners, which creates vulnerabilities. Therefore, building digital trust means shifting from blaming people to design: embedding transparency, usability, and shared responsibility towards a culture of cybersecurity so that users are incentivised to make secure choices. 

‍

Organisational Trust and Insider Threats (Institutional Trust)

At the organisational level, compliance with cybersecurity protocols is significantly tied to whether employees trust employers/platforms to safeguard their data and treat them with integrity. Insider threats, stemming from both malicious and non-malicious actors, account for nearly 60% of all corporate breaches (Verizon DBIR 2024). A lack of trust in leadership may cause employees to feel disengaged or even act maliciously.  Further, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review finds that adhering to cybersecurity protocols adds to employee workload. When they are perceived as hindering productivity, employees are more likely to intentionally violate these protocols.  The stress of working under surveillance systems that feel cumbersome or unreasonable, especially when working remotely, also reduces employee trust and, hence, compliance.  

‍

Trust, Inequality, and Vulnerability (Structural Trust)

Cyberspace encompasses a social system of its own since it involves patterned interactions and relationships between human beings. It also reproduces the social structures and resultant vulnerabilities of the physical world. As a result,  different sections of society place varying levels of trust in digital systems.  Women, rural, and marginalised groups often distrust existing digital security provisions more, and with reason. They are targeted disproportionately by cyber attackers, and yet are underprotected by systems, since these are designed prioritising urban/ male/ elite users.  This leads to citizens adopting workarounds like password sharing for “safety” and disengaging from cyber safety discourse, as they find existing systems inaccessible or irrelevant to their realities. Cybersecurity governance that ignores these divides deepens exclusion and mistrust.

‍

Laws and Compliances (Regulatory Trust)

Cybersecurity governance is operationalised in the form of laws, rules, and guidelines. However, these may often backfire due to inadequate design, reducing overall trust in governance mechanisms. For example, CERT-In’s mandate to report breaches within six hours of “noticing” it has been criticised as the steep timeframe being insufficient to generate an effective breach analysis report. Further, the multiplicity of regulatory frameworks in cross-border interactions can be costly and lead to compliance fatigue for organisations. Such factors can undermine organisational and user trust in the regulation’s ability to protect them from cyber attacks, fuelling a check-box-ticking culture for cybersecurity.  

‍

Conclusion 

Cybersecurity is addressed primarily through code, firewall, and compliance today. But evidence suggests that technological and regulatory fixes, while essential, are insufficient to guarantee secure behaviour and resilient systems. Without trust in institutions, technologies, laws or each other, cybersecurity governance will remain a cat-and-mouse game.  Building a trust-based architecture requires mechanisms to improve accountability, reliability, and transparency.  It requires participatory designs of security systems and the recognition of unequal vulnerabilities. Thus, unless cybersecurity governance acknowledges that cyberspace is deeply social,  investment may not be able to prevent the harms it seeks to curb. 

‍

References 

• https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-29
• https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-surge-21-in-q2-2025
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2025-dbir-executive-summary.pdf 
• https://insights2techinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Building-Digital-Trust-Challenges-and-Strategies-in-Cybersecurity.pdf 
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cyberviolence/cyberviolence-against-women 
• https://www.upguard.com/blog/indias-6-hour-data-breach-reporting-rule 

‍

Introduction
‍

In May 2025, at Mumbai’s first-ever World Audio Visual and Entertainment Summit (WAVES), PM Narendra Modi marked a turning point: the rise of what he called India's Orange Economy. Here lies a new path to growth - one built less on factories, more on invention, artistry, and spreading thought globally. While aiming for massive economic scale, India finds its creative industries movies, sound, games, cartoons, clothing design, books, online media stepping forward. 

First appearing in a 2013 guide from the Inter-American Development Bank, the phrase 'orange economy' emerged through work by Felipe Buitrago Restrepo and Iván Duque Márquez, suggesting past neglect in defining how culture connects with economic activity. Because orange stands for imagination and heritage in many societies, it became the label for this particular sector of economic life..

According to UNESCO’s 2022 Global Report Reshaping Policies for Creativity, the cultural and creative sectors account for 3.1% of world GDP and employ 6.2% of the global workforce – more than the total number of people employed in car manufacturing in Europe, Japan and the U.S. Meanwhile, UNCTAD's 2024 Creative Economy Outlook shows cross-border trade in creative services hit $1.4 trillion in 2022, up nearly a third from five years ago, demonstrating how imagination is remaking modern commerce.

In his book The Creative Economy, economist John Howkins states that the creative economy is essentially about the relationship between creativity and economics, where ideas themselves are products, and imagination becomes a form of capital.

‍

India’s Slice of Orange 

‍

The Scale of Opportunity
‍

Despite its potential, India’s role in the global creative economy remains largely untapped. According to the FICCI-EY Media and Entertainment Report, the country’s media and entertainment sector ranks among the world’s most rapidly expanding, fueled by a youthful demographic that is increasingly online and earning more. Boasting over 600 million people using the internet, it hosts a vibrant network of creators - musicians in Guwahati, podcasters in Kochi, game developers in Bengaluru, filmmakers in Punjab - who together form a rich pool of talent unlike any other.

Now comes a shift at the WAVES Summit, where PM Modi framed content, creativity, and culture as core to an emerging economy. Not just products but ideas take center stage here, he suggested, during what he described as the ideal time to build from India for global impact. While earlier efforts pushed factory output under Make in India, this approach turned toward thinking work - where stories, visual forms, and online expression shape progress. Thought becomes product; imagination fuels industry.

‍

Creative Industries Leading Change
‍

What many people don’t know is that India makes more films than any other country. The films made in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam or Kannada are also widely circulated outside India, not just the output of Mumbai. Streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime carry these works, reaching far beyond local audiences. Furthermore, India’s gaming industry is nascent but growing rapidly, and is attracting increasing attention from policy makers. Until recently, studios around the world have not relied on Indian teams for animation and visual effects. Now, local creators are slowly building their own game franchises. Momentum is shifting - original ideas once rare now appear more often across the country. Deep within India’s craft traditions handwoven textiles, carved block patterns, intricate metallic threadwork lies a quiet fusion of legacy and modern expression. Viewed anew through the framework of creative enterprise, such practices reveal dual value: access to global markets alongside sustenance for village-based makers. Rather than mere relics, they function as living systems where art meets income. Changes in perception make them economic opportunities, rather than local crafts. Every stitch, every weave, is not just technique but the weight of continuity in the face of change. And today, streaming platforms allow independent musicians in India to connect directly to listeners worldwide.

‍

The Three T’s: Technology Talent Tolerance
‍

Richard Florida, an economist, in his work The Rise of the Creative Class once proposed a model where city progress ties closely to innovation, skilled individuals, and openness. His idea - crafted originally for U.S. urban areas fits well when viewing India today. Growth now depends less on old industries, more on environments that attract capable minds through flexibility. Regions thrive not just by building tech hubs but by welcoming diverse lifestyles. One factor feeds another: talent flows where freedom exists, ideas grow where tools are available. A place gains momentum only if it supports all three at once.

Technology

A tool opens doors. Low-cost internet, budget phones, together with government-backed digital expansion, made making content possible for nearly anyone. The focus should be on accessibility and last mile delivery. 

Talent

Home to the youngest population on Earth, it sees countless imaginative minds emerge yearly from schools that now encourage original thinking. Still, despite rising worldwide interest in what these individuals produce, many cannot cover basic needs - a gap highlighted by UNESCO’s 2022 findings. But this contradiction lacks for systems that ensure fair pay, protect ideas, and offer stability beyond fleeting projects.

Tolerance

Openness to difference, trial, and unusual thinking shapes the trickier part of the equation. The wide mix of tongues, beliefs, and cultural expressions in India adds real value. Still, fostering innovation demands systems willing to adapt with rules safeguarding free expression, fair access for women in arts sectors, smoother paths for excluded groups.

‍

Challenges on the Path to “Create in India”
‍

India has millions of creators who influence culture but struggle to make a regular income from their work. Platforms take the lion’s share of profits, but those creating content, especially outside the big cities, often don’t have legal help, fair contracts or links with brands.

Another issue is Intellectual Property Literacy, IP rules such as copyright, trademark and patent systems empower the creative economy. Still, uneven understanding and spotty enforcement across India put many creators at risk of unfair use. Surprisingly, UNESCO’s 2022 assessment points to missing global standards for measuring creative sectors. Because of this gap, India faces challenges in shaping precise policy moves. Without detailed cultural satellite accounts, tracking progress remains uneven. Sector-specific figures would help fill these blind spots. Otherwise, decisions rely on incomplete information.Lastly, across the world, female professionals in artistic fields hold fewer top roles while earning less than men - a gap clearly seen in India too. To shape a fairer cultural sector, intentional strategies must elevate women, indigenous makers, and creators with disabilities.

‍

Conclusion
‍

In India, where young energy meets tradition through digital tools. Stories once shared locally now move across borders, carried by platforms that turn art into income. Because of this shift, music and fashion gain reach but only if creators can protect their work. Without fair pay or legal backing, even brilliant ideas fade quietly. Support systems matter, not just ambition. Recognition from society shapes whether fresh voices endure. In 2022, UNESCO’s report showed that although more people want to do creative work, those who create it still find it hard to make a living. New ideas offer a way forward, not to copy what exists, culture is then voice and value all at once.

‍

References
‍

1. https://sprf.in/from-make-in-india-to-create-in-india-charting-indias-orange-economy-frontier/ 
2. https://www.unesco.org/reports/reshaping-creativity/2022/en 
3. https://iasscore.in/current-affairs/indias-orange-economy 
4. https://indiasworld.in/the-dawn-of-indias-orange-economy/ 
5. Marta-Christina Suciu, "The Creative Economy" (Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest)
6. John Howkins, The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas (2001)
7. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (2002)
8. UNCTAD, Creative Economy Outlook 2024
9. SPRF, "From Make in India to Create in India" (December 2025)
10. IDB, The Orange Economy: An Infinite Opportunity (2013)

‍

Introduction
‍

The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how individuals search for information, buy and compare products online. Unlike the traditional search engines like Google  that presents the user with a set of links and directs users to websites, AI-powered systems provide synthesised answers and recommendations which means we don't have to click through every link to find what we are looking for, we simply have to ask an LLM and it provides recommendations based on our needs expressed through prompt. This development has raised important legal and commercial questions, one such question was addressed in the judgement of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738) decided by HMJ Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High court on 20 May 2026. If an AI platform becomes a primary source of information, can a business demand inclusion in its responses? Is it a legal injury if the LLM omits a business? More fundamentally, how do the existing laws classify technologies that not only process information, but also generate new content? These were the questions that came before Calcutta High Court. Although the dispute arose from Indiamart’s complaint regarding visibility on ChatGPT search, the judgement explored beyond the disagreement between two private entities.

‍

The Dispute
‍

IndiaMart is one of India’s largest electronic business-to-business marketplaces since 1996, serving millions of buyers and sellers across India. They also have registered trademarks and their entire business depends on visibility on the internet considering the digitalisation of the market. Open AI launched ChatGPT search in October 2024, which is a feature that supplements AI responses with links to relevant web sources. Indiamart alleged that ChatGPT was not displaying links to their online platform in the same way that it displayed links to other competing services or individual sellers. A major grievance raised by Indiamart was that ChatGPT allegedly bypassed IndiaMart market listings by directing users to sellers’ individual websites while continuing to provide platform level links for other competing platforms. Hence, they contended that this practice diverted users away from their platform and negatively affected their business interests. The company argued that such exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment and resulted in economic harm, diluted its trademarks and amounted to disparagement. They alleged that it violated their rights under article 14, 19, 21 under the constitution and rights under IT Act and IT Rules also. When IndiaMart sought an explanation from OpenAI, the company stated that its decision was influenced by the inclusion of IndiaMart in the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2024, a U.S. government report that identifies online and physical marketplaces alleged to facilitate intellectual property infringements. IndiaMart challenged this justification, arguing that the USTR report has no statutory or binding force in India. It further alleged selective discrimination, pointing out that several other platforms featured on the same USTR list including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continued to remain accessible through ChatGPT-generated responses. Consequently, IndiaMart approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief directing ChatGPT to display and provide access to IndiaMart links in its responses.

‍

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT

‍

IndiaMart's contentions: They argued that ChatGPT, because its search feature, performs the role of an "intermediary" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act and is therefore required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Relying on Rule 3(1)(n), IndiaMart argued that an intermediary cannot engage in discriminatory treatment of platforms or selectively restrict access to information. IndiaMart further maintained that users have a right to access information relating to its platform and that the omission of IndiaMart links from ChatGPT's responses violated this interest. They alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the broader principle of a user's "right to know", to argue that OpenAI owed an obligation to display IndiaMart listings in response to relevant queries. In addition, IndiaMart alleged that the exclusion of its links caused commercial harm, diluted its trademarks, amounted to disparagement, and constituted an unfair trade practice that adversely affected its business and reputation.

OpenAI's contentions: OpenAI asserted that IndiaMart had no legally enforceable ‘Right to visibility’ on ChatGPT. They argued that neither contract, statute, nor constitutional law imposed any obligation on OpenAI to display, prioritise, or recommend IndiaMart links in response to user queries. In the absence of any recognised legal right, there could be no actionable injury and therefore no valid cause of action. OpenAI also challenged the classification of ChatGPT as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to OpenAI, ChatGPT does not merely host, transmit, or facilitate access to third-party content but also generates responses through its large language model (LLM) and therefore functions more closely as an "originator" than an intermediary. Consequently, the obligations applicable to intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including those relied upon by IndiaMart, were inapplicable. With respect to the USTR Notorious Markets List, OpenAI submitted that its reliance on the report formed part of its internal risk-management and business policies. Such decisions, it argued, were matters of private commercial judgment and not ordinarily subject to judicial review. OpenAI further pointed out that IndiaMart had also previously blocked ChatGPT from accessing and crawling its website that weakened the company's demand for greater visibility within ChatGPT-generated responses.

Court’s decision: The court rejected Indiamart's claim that they were entitled to be displayed in ChatGPT searches. The court emphasised the autonomy of private businesses, the court held that the right to carry on trade and business is "inviolable" and that no law can compel one private entity to operate their platform for the benefit of another, which is based on foundational economic philosophy of laissez faire. Unless there is a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation, a platform has no duty to the other platform to promote or advance their economic interest. Applying this principle, the court found no such duty or “vested legal right” that entitled IndiaMart’s visibility on ChatGPT. The court reasoned that even if users possess the ‘right to know’, Indiamart could not convert that interest into an enforceable claim under article 19(1)(g) or other legal provision. The court looked at the dispute as one arising from commercial disadvantage rather than violation of any legally protected right. Although the reduced visibility may have had economic consequences, economic harm does not by itself create a cause of action.

The court also took into consideration whether ChatGPT should be classified as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or as an originator under Section 2(1)(za). This was an important distinction, because the intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT act, but the originators cannot. The court expressed a preliminary view that ChatGPT is generative capabilities, place it closer to an originator than an intermediary because, unlike conventional search engines, which identify and rank existing information, Generative AI systems, analyse the data and produce new output based on algorithms, which is in response to the user’s prompt. The Court also referenced the NITI Aayog National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (pages 7 to 12) to support its observations that ChatGPT does not merely store, host or transmit information, it can produce essays, research material, code, creative writing, and other forms of content that did not previously exist in that exact form, hence extending beyond the conventional understanding of an intermediary. The court also recognised that it is a vexed issue and remains unsettled because AI systems operate in response to users instructions and do not function independently, which is why the court refrained from providing a definitive classification and acknowledged that the question may ultimately require legislative clarification as well.

In addition to this, the Court took the view that the IndiaMart’s grievances did not amount to an Intellectual property dispute, as they found no trademark infringement or dilution because any reference to the "IndiaMart" mark was merely descriptive and did not constitute commercial use "in the course of trade" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. IndiaMart also hadn’t demonstrated any false or misleading use of its trademark.

Similarly, the Court found that claims of disparagement, trade libel, and injurious falsehood were unsustainable because such claims require the publication of a false statement that harms reputation and since ChatGPT had not published any derogatory statement about IndiaMart, the mere omission of links could not amount to disparagement or libel. The Court relied on Tech Plus Media v. Jyoti Janda, that allegations of unfairness or copyright infringement must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment shed light on the growing difficulty of applying legal categories created for an earlier internet era to generative AI systems. The Information Technology Act was enacted at a time when internet regulation focused primarily on websites, service providers, and electronic communications and therefore existing classifications may not adequately address the hybrid nature of contemporary AI technologies. The Court acknowledged OpenAI's concern that granting IndiaMart's request could trigger floodgates of litigation on similar claims from businesses dissatisfied with AI-generated visibility, however, it clarified that such concerns cannot outweigh genuine legal claims or fundamental rights. The Court suggested that legislative intervention may eventually be necessary.

‍

Conclusion
‍

This judgement not only addressed the visibility issue in AI generated responses, but also whether visibility itself can become a legally protected interest in AI-driven searches? As more and more users rely on AI generated output for their preference rather than traditional search engine output, the power to decide what information is displayed and what is not will eventually become economically significant. The Calcutta High Court through this judgement declined to create any such right through judicial interventions and also highlighted that the existing legal framework is not adequately equipped to address the novel challenges posed by generative AI.

‍(This blog is based on the judgment in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on May 20, 2026 by the Calcutta High Court, and related reporting by LiveLaw and SCC Times.)

‍

References
‍

• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/no-right-to-visibility-exists-on-private-ai-platforms-calcutta-high-court-refuses-to-direct-chatgpt-to-display-indiamart-links-536891
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/03/chatgpt-intermediary-originator-it-act-calcutta-high-court/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198449710/

‍