#FactCheck - Manipulated Image Alleging Disrespect Towards PM Circulates Online

18th November 2022 CyberPeace Foundation in association with Universal Acceptance has successfully conducted the workshop on Universal Acceptance and Multilingual Internet for the students and faculties of Royal Global University under CyberPeace Center of Excellence (CCoE). CyberPeace Foundation has always been engaged towards the aim of spreading awareness regarding the various developments, avenues, opportunities and threats regarding cyberspace. The same has  been the keen principle of the CyberPeace Centre of Excellence setup in collaboration with various esteemed educational institutes. We at CyberPeace Foundation would like to take the collaborations and our efforts to a new height of knowledge and awareness by proposing a workshop on UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE AND MULTILINGUAL INTERNET. This workshop was instrumental in providing the academia and research community a wholesome outlook towards the multilingual spectrum of internet including Internationalized domain names and email address Internationalization.

‍Date –18th November 2022

‍Time – 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM

‍Duration – 2 hours

‍Mode - Online

‍Audience – Academia and Research Community

‍Participants Joined- 130

‍Crowd Classification - Engineering students (1st and 4th year, all streams) and Faculties members

‍Organizer : Mr. Harish Chowdhary : UA Ambassador Moderator: Ms. Pooja Tomar, Project coordinator cum trainer

‍GuestSpeakers:Mr. Abdalmonem Galila, Abdalmonem: Vice Chair , Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) ,Mr. Mahesh D Kulkarni: Director, Evaris Systems and Former Senior Director, CDAC, Government of India, Mr. Akshat Joshi, Founder Think Trans First session was delivered by Mr. Abdalmonem Galila, Abdalmonem: Vice Chair , Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) “Universal Acceptance( UA) and why UA matters?”

• What is universal acceptance?
• UA is cornerstone to a digitally inclusive internet by ensuring all domain names and email addresses in all languages, script and character length.
• Achieving UA ensures that every person has the ability to navigate the internet.
• Different UA issues were also discussed and explained.
• Tagated systems by the UA and implication were discussed in detail.

Second Session was delivered by Mr. Akshat Joshi, Founder Think Trans on “Universal Acceptance to the IDNsand the economic Landscape”

• What is Universal Acceptance?
• The internet has had standards that allow people to use domain names and email addresses in their native scripts. Software developers need to bring their applications up-to-date so that consumers can use their chosen identity.
• A typical problem is that an IDN email address is not recognised by a website form as a valid email address.
• The importance of adopting IDNs z Enable citizens to use their own identity online (correct spelling, native language) z Relates to language, culture and content z Promotes local and regional content z Allows businesses and politicians to better target their messages.

Third session was delivered by Mr. Mahesh D Kulkarni, ES Director Evaris on the topic of “IDNs in Indian languages perspective- challenges and solutions”.

• The multilingual diversity of India was focused on and its impact.
• Most students were not aware of what Unicode, IDNS is and their usage.
• Students were briefed by giving real time examples on IDN, Domain name implementation using local language.
• In depth knowledge of and practical exposure of Universal Acceptance and Multilingual Internet has been served to the students.
• Tools and Resources for Domain Name and Domain Languages were explained.
• Languages nuances of Multilingual diversity of India explained with real time facts and figures.
• Given the idea of IDN Email,Homograph attack,Homographic variant with proper real time examples.
• Explained about the security threats and IDNA protocols.
• Given the explanation on ABNF.
• Explained the stages of Universal Acceptance.

In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.

The Case: Meta vs. Authors

In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.

Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.

A Tenuous Win

Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.

Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content. 

Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.

Implications for India

The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.

Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.  

Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include: 

• Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises. 
• Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
• Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
• Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.

Conclusion

The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.

References

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors 
• https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/ 
• https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets. ‍
• https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt

Risk Management

‍

The ‘Information Security Profile’ prioritises and informs cybersecurity operations based on the company's risk administration procedures. It assists in choosing areas of focus for security operations that represent the desired results for producers by supporting periodic risk evaluations and validating company motivations. A thorough grasp of the business motivations and safety requirements unique to the Production system and its surroundings is necessary in order to manage cybersecurity threats. Because every organisation has different risks and uses ICS and IT in different ways, there will be variations in how the profile is implemented.

Companies are currently adopting industry principles and cybersecurity requirements, which the Manufacturing Information is intended to supplement, not replace. Manufacturers have the ability to identify crucial operations for key supply chains and can order expenditures in a way that will optimise their impact on each dollar. The Profile's primary objective is to lessen and manage dangers associated with cybersecurity more effectively. The Cybersecurity Framework and the Profile are not universally applicable methods for controlling security risks for essential infrastructure.

Producers will always face distinct risks due to their distinct dangers, weaknesses, and tolerances for danger. Consequently, the ways in which companies adopt security protocols will also change.

‍

Key Cybersecurity Functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover

‍

1. Determine 

Create the organisational knowledge necessary to control the potential hazards of cybersecurity to information, systems, resources, and competencies. The Identify Function's tasks are essential for using the Framework effectively. An organisation can concentrate its efforts in a way that aligns with its approach to risk mitigation and company needs by having a clear understanding of the business environment, the financial resources that assist with vital operations, and the associated cybersecurity threats. Among the outcome characteristics that fall under this function are risk evaluation, mitigation strategy, the administration of assets, leadership, and the business environment.

‍

2.  Protect

Create and put into place the necessary measures to guarantee the provision of crucial infrastructure amenities. The Protect Function's operations enable the limitation or containment of the possible impact of a cybersecurity incident. Instances of results Access Management, Knowledge and Instruction, Data Safety and Security, Data Protection Processes and Instructions, Repair, and Defensive Systems are some of the classifications that fall under this role.

‍

3. Detect

Create and carry out the necessary actions to determine whether a cybersecurity event has occurred. The Detect Function's operations make it possible to find vulnerability occurrences in an efficient way. This function's result subcategories include things like abnormalities and incidents, constant security monitoring, and identification processes.

‍

4. React

Create and carry out the necessary plans to address a cybersecurity event that has been discovered. The Response Function's operations facilitate the capacity to mitigate the effects of a possible cybersecurity incident. Within this Scope, emergency planning, interactions, analysis, prevention, and enhancements are a few examples of result categories.

‍

5. Recover

Create and carry out the necessary actions to uphold resilience tactics and restore any services or competencies that were hampered by a cybersecurity incident. In order to lessen the effects of a vulnerability incident, the Recovery Function's efforts facilitate a prompt return to regular operations. The following are a few instances of outcome subcategories under this role: communications, enhancements, and recovery planning.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The Information Security Profile, when seen in the framework of risk mitigation, offers producers a tactical method to deal with the ever-changing cybersecurity danger scenario. The assessment directs safeguarding operations prioritisation by recognising specific business reasons and connecting with corporate goals. The Profile enhances the cybersecurity standards and established industry guidelines by taking into account the differences in vulnerabilities and organisational subtleties among producers. It highlights the significance of a customised strategy, acknowledging that every business has unique risks and weaknesses. 

The fundamental tasks of the Framework, to Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover, serve as a thorough roadmap, guaranteeing a proactive and flexible approach to cybersecurity. The Profile's ultimate goal is to increase the efficacy of risk mitigation techniques, understanding that cybersecurity is a constantly shifting and evolving subject for the manufacturing sector.

‍

References

• https://csrc.nist.gov/news/2020/cybersecurity-framework-v1-1-manufacturing-profile
• https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8183r1.pdf
• https://mysecuritymarketplace.com/reports/cybersecurity-framework-version-1-1-manufacturing-profile/

‍