Synthetic Broadcast Replays and Ghost Matches : The Unregulated IP Frontier of Nostalgia Sports Media

Introduction : What if you could witness the famous Indian victory over the ‘unbeatable’ West Indies in the 1983 World Cup final in a completely different way? Ultra-High-Definition streaming quality, multi-angle synthetic replays, virtual camera movements that never existed, and commentary from your favourite modern-day commentators. Surely an exciting prospect, right?

Synthetic Broadcast Replays, a technological extension of ‘synthetic broadcasts’ originated in Australia in the 1930s for the purpose of overcoming transmission delays, is making all of this possible. Synthetic broadcast replays involve usage of Generative AI to alter, reconstruct or interject missing frames of sports broadcasts. This allows networks to generate new angles, fill in camera blind spots, or enhance low-resolution historical footage. From the lens of a sports fan, it’s a celebration. From the legal perspective, it’s an IP nightmare. Another concept that has baffled the legal profession and has been the centre of modern legal debates is Ghost matches. Ghost matches refer to fabricated sporting events invented by scammers for illegal gambling. These ‘Ghost matches’ merged with the technological support of Synthetic Broadcast Replays are helping gamblers, legal and illegal, make money by taking advantage of the insatiable demand for sports and the information rich- perhaps too rich environment that fuels it. 

The Dillema

This technological loophole has caused significant injury to traditional broadcasting frameworks. It also sets a deadlock between three important aspects of Intellectual Property

1. Broadcasters vs Tech firms : The original broadcaster’s static archive reproduction rights are affected. Traditional broadcasting copyright functions entirely on the notion of fixation i.e. it is a pre-compiled, scheduled transmission from a central node to multiple endpoints. Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957 grants the broadcaster a 25-year monopoly over a specific broadcast (broadcast reproduction right). This right is innately acquiescent; it protects the exact audio-visual signal transmitted on a particular date in history. However, Generative AI deals with extraction of the semantic data of the archival footage rather than the audio-visual signal and that is where things get interesting.

   
   

   The AI then creates an entirely new, unfixed synthetic simulation based on that data. This is a vital point in the legal debate as broadcasters argue that since the synthetic output (the simulation) is derived based entirely on the data of the original broadcast tape, it constitutes as a derivative work, protected under Section 2(a) of the Copyright Act. At the same time, tech firms and federations argue that an alternative camera angle (e.g. showing a foul committed in an old football match from an angle where no camera was positioned) visualised by a machine is an entirely original digital asset.

2. Federation vs Broadcasters : The sports federation’s ownership of the telemetry data is compromised. While broadcasters own the copyright over the original video footage, sports federations claim absolute ownership over the factual statistical data and match telemetry (ball speed, player biometrics, heat maps, positional coordinates, etc.). Ghost matches rely on the telemetry data from the footage to modify the physical movements of the players in a three-dimensional digital space. The sports federations have a proprietary right over the commercial exploitation of the underlying sports event, and reconstruction of that event – with any reference to the old broadcast – requires a fresh license from the governing body. This situation leads to an impasse with the archive owner (the broadcaster). 

   
   

   The debate heats up by pointing out that if a broadcaster owns the copyright to the footage of a certain sports event, they should also own the right to extract the mathematical co-ordinates of the players’ physical movements from that footage. According to the doctrine of ‘modicum of creativity’ established in the landmark case of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Vs D.B. Modak, raw match data, lacks the minimal, non-trivial degree of intellectual creativity that justifies its copyright protection. Thus, federations rely on aggressive, retroactive contract claims to assert dominion over historical data, setting up a clash with major legacy broadcasters who claim their media archives are completely separate assets. In a country like India, the non-existence of sui generis database rights like the European Union, complicates the situation further.

3. Athletes vs Algorithmic Avatars : Lastly, the most explosive element of this triad is the athlete’s individual, dynamically evolving personality and publicity rights. The athletes that feature in these synthetic broadcast replays hold independent legal resistance. Traditional broadcasting relies entirely on Section 38 of the Copyright Act,1957 which states that if a performer consents to the incorporation of their performance in a cinematograph film or sound recording via a written agreement, they generally cannot object to its broadcast and its subsequent commercial enjoyment by the broadcaster. However, traditional broadcasting fails to keep up with the dynamic expansion of athletes’ personality rights. Generative AI plays with the conventional definition of personality rights and attempts to flip the narrative by fitting its modus operandi within Section 38.

   
   

   However, while athletes consent to having their performance broadcast during the transmission of the said event, they do not consent to having their digital likeness extracted, reincarnated into a hyper-realistic 4K avatar and embedded into an interactive virtual simulation where people can play against them. Sections 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957 further solidify the statutory position on this aspect. According to Section 38A, athletes qualify as ‘performers’ executing a visual display of skill. Synthetic alteration of their historical performance amounts to distortion of their actual performance, violating their Right to Integrity under Section 38B.

   
   

   Multiple recent rulings such as Mr. Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak & Ors. (2025) and Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Ltd. (2026) have firmly validated the expansion of personality rights to include associative attributes such as name, image, voice, likeness, signature, monikers, and other indicia of identity. From Landmark legacy rulings such as K. Puttuswamy vs Union of India, which emphasized the importance of informational privacy i.e. absolute informational autonomy over the commercial exploitation of their digital footprint, to present day rulings such as Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life & Ors and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff Vs. The Peppy Store which threw light on an individual’s commercial identity as a dynamic, evolving asset protected under the Right to Privacy under Article 21 - all concur that personality rights override unsolicited digital advances.

Infrastructural Gap

These dilemmas create a three-way deadlock between the Broadcasters, Sports Federations and Athletes. Nevertheless, the real issue does not lie in the deadlock itself. Courts have maintained through rulings like Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware (2023) that publicity rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the freedom of public expression and celebration of sports folklore. The real problem lies in the ineffectiveness of our current legal infrastructure. The Copyright Act, 1957 is ill-equipped for an era where footage is not only copied, but completely simulated and reimagined by Artificial Intelligence.

Conclusion

The need for a mechanism specifically tailored to property authorization has never been more urgent. Working towards a solution means creating a sophisticated system prepared to withstand the fluid nature of Artificial Intelligence. The adoption of a specialized regulatory framework under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) establishing ‘Synthetic Merchandising & Media Licensing’ standards is seen as the next rational step. The objective is to move away from treating synthetic media as a hazard and instead regulate it as a licensed economic asset class. It should mandate tripartite IP audit that includes source authorization (legal acquisition of the archival footage with an explicit Generative license), telemetry clearance (compensation to the data collectors/federations for spatial co-ordinates) and athlete consent (a royalty agreement) in a comprehensive manner. This breaks the deadlock between the concerned parties while retaining the commercial viability of the output.

In today’s profit centric economy, solutions should be adopted considering all the stakeholders involved. The advent of Artificial Intelligence creates a conflict with the law and exposes the shortcomings of archaic legislations. These conflicts must be handled carefully considering the dynamic character of technology while safeguarding the rights of the parties involved. Nostalgia sports media acts as a form of cultural currency and has a massive appeal towards all generations. The best possible solution would be to create a regulated channel instead of completely closing the door on it. Proactive frameworks which anticipate prospective challenges can help mitigate a subsequent crisis.

Author: Manal Kawle in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. Copyright Act, 1957 - https://copyright.gov.in/documents/copyrightrules1957.pdf

2. Digital Collectibles vs Galactus - https://cgfoetestsite.mystagingwebsite.com/cases/digital-collectibles-v-galactus/

3. India's 2026 IT Rules On Synthetic Media: What Platforms And Publishers Must Change Now - 2026 IT Rules And Synthetic Media In India - https://www.mondaq.com/india/it-and-internet/1786556/indias-2026-it-rules-on-synthetic-media-what-platforms-and-publishers-must-change-now-2026-it-rules-and-synthetic-media-in-india

4. India’s New Law Governing Synthetic Media - https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/88502/

5. Sui generis rights: Separate Regime for Protecting Non-Original Databases - https://thelaw.institute/commerce-and-cyberspace/sui-generis-rights-non-original-database-protection/

6. EBC Publishing vs DB Modak - http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Studentmodules/Judgments/MANU-SC-4476-2007-JUD.pdf

7. Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life - https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2025/02/19/understanding-the-relevance-of-the-anil-kapoor-vs-simply-life-india-ors-case/

8. Delhi HC restrains entities from infringing Jackie Shroff’s publicity and personality rights including his name, voice and image for commercial gains - https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/21/dhc-restrains-entities-infringing-jackie-shroff-publicity-personality-rights/https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/21/dhc-restrains-entities-infringing-jackie-shroff-publicity-personality-rights/

9. Delhi High Court protects Jubin Nautiyal’s personality rights; Directs take down of AI generated deep fakes - https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/02/26/delhi-hc-protects-jubin-nautiyals-personality-rights/https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/02/26/delhi-hc-protects-jubin-nautiyals-personality-rights/

10. K Puttuswamy vs Union of India - https://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_1044_2017