#FactCheck - Viral Video of Aircraft Carrier Destroyed in Sea Storm Is AI-Generated

Executive Summary
‍

A 22-second video is circulating on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) with a claim that a shooting incident took place at Patna High School in Bihar. The video shows several masked men running around with weapons in their hands, accompanied by the sound of gunfire. A text overlay on the video reads "Patna High School." However, an research by the CyberPeace Research Wing has revealed that this claim is entirely fake and misleading. The video does not depict a real shooting; it captures an authorized movie/web series shooting on the school premises.

‍

The Claim
‍

Social media users are sharing the video claiming that a real firing incident occurred at Patna High School in Patna, Bihar. https://x.com/IraRuhi/status/2070334893830357499

‍

‍

Fact Check

Keyframes from the viral video were analyzed using reverse image search. This led to identical videos uploaded on Facebook and Instagram on June 25, 2026. The captions on both uploads explicitly stated that the footage was from a movie and web series shoot. Furthermore, a closer inspection of the videos revealed professional filmmaking equipment, such as a black flag and a skimmer, visible on the set. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2160248068089642 

‍

‍

https://www.instagram.com/p/DaBE0gQglUF/

‍

‍

A targeted keyword search led to a YouTube video uploaded on June 20, 2026. The visuals in this video perfectly matched the viral footage, and the individuals seen in the viral clip could be spotted wearing the exact same clothes.  "Regarding the video/photo being circulated on social media (Patna High School, Gardanibagh), it is clarified that this is part of an authorized film shooting, for which due permission was previously granted by the competent authority." 

‍

‍

To verify further, official statements were checked. The Patna Police issued a formal press release on June 26, 2026, completely dismissing the viral rumors.  https://x.com/PatnaPolice24x7/status/2070501501529960581

‍

‍

Conclusion
‍

The evidence gathered confirms that there was no shooting incident at Patna High School. The viral video is behind-the-scenes footage from a pre-approved film production.

‍

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

‍

In October 2024, when the comedian's phone rang, and the voice at the other end claimed to be a FedEx representative, comedian Ankita Shrivastav thought it was a simple issue of misdelivery or customer grievance. The caller said that a parcel in her name was detected being shipped to Iraq and contained illegal drugs. The phone was soon handed over to what appeared to be police personnel in uniform, and she was told that she was under investigation and placed under a so-called digital arrest. For seven hours, she was ordered not to disconnect the call, leave her home, or contact anyone. Through fear, authority, constant surveillance, and psychological pressure, the scammers coerced her into transferring ₹9 lakh in the FedEx parcel scam.

This is the anatomy of one of India's fastest-spreading cyber frauds, and it is costing victims everything.

‍

The Modus Operandi

‍

The most concerning part is the sheer consistency of the script. It usually starts with an unsolicited call, made on a spoofed number that could show up as a legitimate courier or government agency. The caller acts as a FedEx/DTDC executive and claims that a parcel dispatched in the victim’s name to either Taiwan, Iraq, Thailand, or Cambodia has been intercepted and contains drugs, forged passports, or fake credit cards.

As the victim tries to establish that they have no knowledge of this, the scammers smoothly shift the conversation to someone must have impersonated the victim’s Aadhaar number. The victim is now both accused and victim and, therefore, more easily manipulated.

The call is "transferred" to a fake NCB officer or cybercrime cell official. The victim sees a person dressed in uniform seated behind a mock police station set with official-looking documents scattered on the desk. A fake arrest warrant that carries the victim’s real name, address, and Aadhaar number, presumably acquired from stolen databases, is presented to the victim.

This is what the scammers call the "digital arrest." The victim is commanded not to move from the camera, nor leave the house, nor speak to anybody. Scammers take turns monitoring the call, who eventually ask the victim to transfer cash into a "secure government account" for RBI or CBI verification. 

‍

The Psychology of Fear

‍

"The art of scamming is psychological rather than technological," journalist and author Soumya Gupta opines. The scammers use two deeply primal fears: the fear of the police and the fear of social disgrace. Their victims are manipulated into believing that ending the call is tantamount to pleading guilty and that confessing to friends and family will only exacerbate their current circumstances. The victims' isolation is deliberately induced and combined with fatigue and disorientation.

"From a young age, we are taught to be scared of the police and not to question them,” comedian Ankita Shrivastav, who fell victim in October 2024, explains that childhood condition silenced the alarm bells ringing in my head. Shrivastav admitted that her fear of damage to her reputation made her more susceptible to the scam.

‍

The Human Cost

‍

The FedEx parcel scam is targeting everyone, irrespective of age, income, background, or education. Victims of this scam show the kind of different people they are: A 70-year-old veteran journalist was psychologically tortured for eight days in Bangalore, losing 1.2 crores, whereas a 61-year-old retired executive of a multinational was video watched for almost a fortnight in Bangalore, losing 9.14 crores, and additionally, a 25-year-old woman lost 10 lakhs through a video call scam in Coimbatore.

Such a varied mix of victims in such different cases suggests how hard it is to stereotype the ones being swindled: there can be individuals of different age groups ranging from 25 to 70 years old, both educated and non-educated.

‍

Why the Scam Is Spreading?

‍

This FedEx parcel scam is a result of a highly industrialised, sophisticated cybercrime system. The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal records over 45,000 complaints tagged as specifically 'courier-impersonation fraud' in 2024 alone, where a 1,200-crore loss was registered in that category. 

This scam is powered by stolen Personal Identifiable Information (PII), illegally gathered by scammers through compromised e-commerce stores and rogue registry sites. This data enables the scammers to personalise and tailor the conversation to each individual to make it more believable. Furthermore, fake arrest warrants can be produced within minutes using official-looking templates, and the scammers utilise AI voice cloning and deep-fake videos of government officials. Vast networks of call centres (some based out of India and some overseas, including scam compounds in Cambodia and Myanmar) operate this scam with teams working in shifts. Money is quickly laundered into accounts of 'mule' account holders and quickly into cryptocurrency wallets. Post 24 hours of receiving the funds, recovering money is nearly impossible.

‍

What You Must Do If You Get This Call?

‍

One should always remember: no genuine government official will ever carry out an arrest over a video call. There is no "digital arrest," and this process has absolutely no basis in Indian law. If you do get such a call:

• Cut the call immediately: The scammers have you where they want you if you stay on the line. It is not illegal to hang up on them.
• Do not transfer money under threat or compulsion: No authentic investigative process ever requires you to move money to a "secure government account."
• Never share: your Aadhaar details, bank details, OTP, or passwords with anyone you speak to on the phone.
• Do not provide video statements: Whatever you say can be recorded and used to blackmail you further.
• Verify information independently: Call FedEx India (1800-22-6161) or any courier company using numbers from their official website, never numbers provided to you by the caller.
• Lock: your UPI, cards and Aadhaar biometrics instantly if you feel you have shared information with them.
• Call: 1930 within an hour of money transfer. The rate of recovery is 40-60% within one hour and less than 5% after 24 hours.
• File a complaint at cybercrime.gov.in and an FIR at your local cyber police station.
• Tell someone: Isolation is the scammer's greatest tool. Breaking it breaks the scam

‍

Conclusion

‍

The FedEx parcel scam is also based on a very basic human reaction: the fear of being accused, the urge to obey any figure that represents authority, and the desire to avoid public humiliation. It is designed to skip any part of the brain that may be used to rationalise anything. The only real prevention is to realise, before answering, that the call is never about the FedEx parcel, never from FedEx.

‍

References

‍

• https://www.aol.com/news/fedex-says-parcel-drugs-scam-220400617.html
• https://righttoinformation.wiki/fedex-courier-scam-recovery
• https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/beware-of-fedex-scam-bengaluru-journalist-loses-rs-12-crore
• https://www.digit.in/news/general/coimbatore-woman-loses-rs-10-lakh-in-shocking-courier-scam-heres-what-happened.html
• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/fedex-courier-scam-a-tale-of-terror-trickery-and-deceit-2804802
• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/fedex-frauds-con-scared-retiree-of-rs-9-crore-2810169
• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/fedex-frauds-hold-woman-in-digital-captivity-for-8-days-2848168
• https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/how-to-fight-fedex-courier-scam-2836566
• https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/fedex-scam-lawyer-blackmailed-424883-2024-04-09
• https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/2CrimeinIndia2024-VolumeII.pdf‍
• https://www.newsmobile.in/fraud-and-scam/indian-comedian-falls-victim-to-fedex-digital-arrest-scam-loses-rs-9-lakh/