#FactCheck- AI-Generated Video Falsely Claims Iran Attack on Apple, Microsoft in Israel

Executive Summary 

‍

A video widely circulated on social media claims to show a confrontation between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi during the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026. The video alleges that General Dwivedi made sensitive remarks regarding ‘Operation Sindoor’, including claims that the operation was still ongoing and that diplomatic intervention by former US President Donald Trump had restricted India’s military response. Several social media users shared the clip while questioning the Indian Army’s operational decisions and demanding accountability over the alleged remarks. The CyberPeace concludes that the viral video claiming to show a discussion between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on ‘Operation Sindoor’ is misleading and digitally manipulated. Although the visuals were sourced from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026, the audio was artificially created and added later to misinform viewers. The Army Chief did not make any remarks regarding diplomatic interference or limitations on military action during the briefing.

‍

Claim:

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user, Abbas Chandio (@AbbasChandio__), shared the video on January 14, asserting that it showed a Zee News journalist questioning the Army Chief about the status and outcomes of ‘Operation Sindoor’ during a recent press conference. In the clip, the journalist is purportedly heard challenging the Army Chief over his earlier statement that the operation was “still ongoing,” while the COAS is allegedly heard responding that diplomatic intervention during the conflict limited the Army’s ability to pursue further military action. Here is the link and archive link to the post, along with a screenshot.

‍

• https://x.com/AbbasChandio__/status/2011359054980161870?s=20 
• https://archive.ph/5BgLx 

‍

The reverse image search also directed to an extended version of the footage uploaded on the official YouTube channel of India Today. The original video was identified as coverage from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Conference 2026, held on January 13 in New Delhi and addressed by COAS General Upendra Dwivedi. Upon reviewing the original press briefing footage, CyberPeace found no instance where a Zee News journalist questioned the Army Chief about ‘Operation Sindoor’. There was also no mention of the statements attributed to General Dwivedi in the viral clip.

In the authentic footage, journalist Anuvesh Rath was seen raising questions related to defence procurement and modernization, not military operations or diplomatic interventions. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot.

‍

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqn8RLWLOc&t=3997s 

‍

‍

To further verify the claim, CyberPeace extracted the audio track from the viral video and analysed it using the AI-based voice detection tool Aurigin. The analysis revealed that the voice heard in the clip was artificially generated, indicating the use of synthetic or manipulated audio. This confirmed that while genuine visuals from the Army’s official press briefing were used, a fabricated audio track had been overlaid to falsely attribute controversial statements to the Army Chief and a Zee News journalist.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The CyberPeace concludes that the viral video claiming to show a discussion between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on ‘Operation Sindoor’ is misleading and digitally manipulated. Although the visuals were sourced from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026, the audio was artificially created and added later to misinform viewers. The Army Chief did not make any remarks regarding diplomatic interference or limitations on military action during the briefing. The video is a clear case of digital manipulation and misinformation, aimed at creating confusion and casting doubts over the Indian Army’s official position.

‍

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

Introduction

As e-sports flourish in India, mobile gaming platforms and apps have contributed massively to this boom. The wave of online mobile gaming has led to a new recognition of esports. As we see the Sports Ministry being very proactive for e-sports and e-athletes, it is pertinent to ensure that we do not compromise our cyber security for the sake of these games. When we talk about online mobile gaming, the most common names that come to our minds are PUBG and BGMI. As news for all Indian gamers, BGMI is set to be relaunched in India after approval from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

Why was BGMI banned?

The Govt banned Battle Ground Mobile India on the pretext of being a Chinese application and the fact that all the data was hosted in China itself. This caused a cascade of compliance and user safety issues as the Data was stored outside India. Since 2020 The Indian Govt has been proactive in banning Chinese applications, which might have an adverse effect on national security and Indian citizens. Nearly 200 plus applications have been banned by the Govt, and most of them were banned due to their data hubs being in China. The issue of cross-border data flow has been a key issue in Geo-Politics, and whoever hosts the data virtually owns it as well and under the potential threat of this fact, all apps hosting their data in China were banned.

Why is BGMI coming back?

BGMI was banned for not hosting data in India, and since the ban, the Krafton Inc.-owned game has been engaging in Idnai to set up data banks and servers to have a separate gaming server for Indian players. These moves will lead to a safe gaming ecosystem and result in better adherence to the laws and policies of the land. The developers have not declared a relaunch date yet, but the game is expected to be available for download for iOS and Android users in the coming few days. The game will be back on app stores as a letter from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has been issued stating that the games be allowed and made available for download on the respective app stores.

Grounds for BGMI

BGMI has to ensure that they comply with all the laws, policies and guidelines in India and have to show the same to the Ministry to get an extension on approval. The game has been permitted for only 90 days (3 Months). Hon’ble MoS Meity Rajeev Chandrashekhar stated in a tweet   “This is a 3-month trial approval of #BGMI after it has complied with issues of server locations and data security etc. We will keep a close watch on other issues of User harm, Addiction etc., in the next 3 months before a final decision is taken”. This clearly shows the magnitude of the bans on Chinese apps. The ministry and the Govt will not play the soft game now, it’s all about compliance and safeguarding the user’s data.

Way Forward

This move will play a significant role in the future, not only for gaming companies but also for other online industries, to ensure compliance. This move will act as a precedent for the issue of cross-border data flow and the advantages of data localisation. It will go a long way in advocacy for the betterment of the Indian cyber ecosystem. Meity alone cannot safeguard the space completely, it is a shared responsibility of the Govt, industry and netizens.

Conclusion

The advent of online mobile gaming has taken the nation by storm, and thus, being safe and secure in this ecosystem is paramount. The provisional permission form BGMI shows the stance of the Govt and how it is following the no-tolerance policy for noncompliance with laws. The latest policies and bills, like the Digital India Act, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, etc., will go a long way in securing the interests and rights of the Indian netizen and will create a blanket of safety and prevention of issues and threats in the future.