Home India

What is Humans of Bombay, owned by Karishma Mehta, being trolled on X?

The Delhi High Court has summoned to People of India, in a copyright infringement suit filed by the storytelling platform Humans of Bombay.

By Ground Report 23 Sep 2023

New Update

What is Humans of Bombay, owned by Karishma Mehta, being trolled on X?

The Delhi High Court has officially summoned an online portal, People of India. This summons is part of a copyright infringement suit that has been filed by the well-known storytelling platform, Humans of Bombay.

The suit itself revolves around serious allegations of copyright infringement and blatant content replication. As a result, this legal dispute has sparked a significant debate on various social media platforms.

The controversy caught the attention of Brandon Stanton, the creator of 'Humans of New York' (HONY), who expressed his views on the matter via Twitter. Stanton commented, "I've stayed quiet on the appropriation of my work because I think @HumansOfBombay shares important stories, even if they've monetized far past anything I'd feel comfortable doing on HONY. But you can't be suing people for what I've forgiven you for."

This development has undoubtedly sparked heated discussions on various social media platforms. As the intellectual property dispute unfolds, many individuals have taken sides, expressing their opinions and viewpoints on the matter.

One Twitter user exclaimed, "I have said it before, and I will say this again, Karishma Mehta is a thief, and @HumansOfBombay should be sued by @humansofny. That lady and her company have the balls to file a case against the 'People of India' for allegedly copying them. ARE YOU FOR REAL?"

Another Twitter user criticized Karishma Mehta and her platform: "Karishma Mehta is an embarrassment, a fascism enabler, and worst of all super cringe. Please sue the living daylights out of HOB, thank you."

What is Humans of Bombay?

Humans of Bombay (HoB) is a captivating Indian photoblog that brilliantly shares compelling stories about the people of Mumbai. Interestingly, it was initiated in 2014 by the visionary Karishma Mehta.

Humans of New York (HoNY) strongly inspires the platform, and it showcases unique, inspirational, and relatable stories of individuals from all walks of life.

With great enthusiasm, HoB shares photos of individuals from diverse backgrounds, accompanied by short narratives detailing their life experiences. These narratives are consistently heartwarming, inspirational, and relatable. HoB's stories feature individuals of all ages, genders, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

With her dedicated team, Mehta meticulously documents the stories of individuals and skillfully showcases them to the world. This is achieved through engaging social media posts and a well-maintained website.

Why Humans of Bombay and People of India fighting each other?

Humans of Bombay asserts that People of India fully replicated its unique storytelling format and released it to the public. Consequently, the lawsuit aims to prevent people in India from infringing upon Humans of Bombay's copyrighted works, including their content, literary works, films, and creative expressions that they have published on their website, Instagram handle, and YouTube channel.

Moreover, Justice Prathiba M Singh issued notice on Humans of Bombay’s plea seeking interim relief in the suit and listed the matter for hearing on October 11. While perusing the images posted by Humans of Bombay and People of India, Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that, prima facie, there was “substantial imitation” in the content, and that in some cases, the photograph or images were “identical or imitative”.

Furthermore, the court has requested that you submit an affidavit within one week in response to its inquiry regarding the jurisdiction in this matter. Advocates Abhishek Malhotra, Shilpa Gamnani, and Ishita Goel appeared for the plaintiff.

Advocate Abhishek Malhotra, appearing for HOB, stated that the defendant has started an identical portal/service named People of India, which has identical content. He further argued that the defendant has replicated images/videos from HOB's platform and has utilized them on its own platform.

Additionally, referring to a comparative table of some of the images mentioned in the application, Malhotra said that the same would show that the defendant has completely replicated the business model and in some cases the stories themselves.

The HC carefully examined the comparative table, and in response, it stated, "Upon perusal of the same, it becomes evident that there is substantial imitation. In certain instances, the photos are indeed identical."