The Bombay High Court has ruled that photographer Tukaram Karve is prima facie guilty of breaching a woman's privacy by uploading her photographs on Shutterstock without her explicit consent. However, the court clarified that the governments of Maharashtra and Telangana, along with various political parties and agencies that purchased these images legally, cannot be held liable for privacy infringement.
A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna observed that Karve clicked photographs of the petitioner, Namrata Kawale, and uploaded them on Shutterstock without thoroughly reviewing the platform’s terms and conditions. The court stated:
"They (petitioner) may not have any problem if you click photos, but did you tell her that you will be uploading them on a third-party website? You are the problem. You have created this mess... You have infringed her right to privacy... You knew that this content would be commercially utilized (as per the contract)."
The court highlighted that people often fail to read terms and conditions before using online services, which leads to such legal complications. The bench remarked:
"These websites are very professional, but you don't read terms and conditions... You just want to put your hobby on their site."
Read Also:- No Fundamental Right To Cremation Or Burial At A Specific Location: Bombay High Court
Karve’s defense argued that since the petitioner had no objections to him taking the photos and had even received a print copy for free, she could not later claim a privacy violation. However, the court dismissed this argument, questioning whether Karve had taken explicit prior permission to upload the images. Justice Kulkarni stated:
"Please show that you took prior permission of the petitioner? If we aren’t satisfied, then we will hold you guilty... You cannot say that you took photos and gave print copies, so you have the copyright. Prima facie, he (Karve) is the problem... He has created this blunder... Political parties and even the governments have their legal transactions."
The court noted that various agencies in India have agreements with Shutterstock, through which government bodies and political entities legally purchase images after paying subscription fees. In this case, the Maharashtra government and a local MLA had procured the petitioner’s images via Mahata Multimedia, an authorized agency for Shutterstock. The agency reportedly receives an annual payment of Rs 4.39 lakhs for such services.
"Somebody has purchased the photos. You cannot find fault with the State of Maharashtra and Telangana or the political parties because they have purchased the photos through proper and legal means... Shutterstock is a foreign company, its agent Mahata is there, and the respondents have paid money to this agency to purchase the photos."
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Judgment on Invocation of Section 9 & Section 11 of Arbitration Act
While addressing Karve’s liability, the court noted that it is yet to be determined whether he uploaded the photos in ignorance of their commercial use or knowingly violated privacy norms. The judges emphasized:
"He didn’t read the terms and conditions... The whole problem with all these internet contracts is that people do not read conditions... If you read the conditions, you won’t subscribe to these apps... We find no fault with the other respondents except the photographer."
The court advised the petitioner to reconsider proceeding against the political parties and government agencies, as they had acted within legal bounds by purchasing the images through legitimate means. The bench further stated:
"Content so far as Shutterstock is concerned is legal content. You need to take instructions (as against other respondents), otherwise, we will have to dismiss it."
Case Background
The case originated from a petition filed by Namrata Ankush Kawale, who alleged that photographer Tukaram Nivrutti Karve had taken her photographs in her village several years ago and later uploaded them on Shutterstock without her consent. She contended that various political parties, private agencies, and state governments—including those of Maharashtra, Telangana, Odisha, Karnataka, and the Ministry of Rural Development—used her photographs in advertisements, hoardings, and digital platforms without her permission.
As a result, Kawale sought a permanent injunction restraining all respondents from using, displaying, distributing, sharing, or selling her photographs on their websites, social media platforms, advertisements, or any other media.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Affirms Developer’s Statutory Obligation to Pay Transit Rent Despite Insolvency
The court has adjourned the matter for further hearings, directing the photographer to clarify whether he uploaded the photos dishonestly. The case remains pending as the legal aspects of the photographer’s responsibility are further examined.
This ruling highlights the importance of obtaining clear consent before uploading images to third-party platforms and underscores the legal distinctions between content creators and lawful purchasers in cases of digital content rights and privacy.
