Sanctimonia Binocs, Bhubaneswar, 28 May 2025
YouTuber vs. ANI: Copyright Fight Sparks Fair Use Debate
A recent public dispute between prominent Indian YouTuber Mohak Mangal and news agency Asian News International (ANI) has thrust the complex issues of copyright enforcement, fair use, and the monetization of content in the digital age into the spotlight. Mangal’s allegations that ANI is engaging in “extortion” by demanding substantial sums to remove copyright strikes have resonated with other content creators, sparking a wider conversation about the practices of news agencies and the ambiguities within India’s copyright laws.
The Spark: Allegations of Excessive Demands
The controversy erupted when Mohak Mangal released a video detailing how his YouTube channel received a copyright strike from ANI on May 20th. For YouTube creators, a copyright strike occurs when a copyright holder claims unauthorized use of their content. Accumulating three such strikes within a 90-day period can lead to the permanent deletion of the creator’s channel.
Upon contacting ANI to resolve the issue, Mangal’s team was allegedly informed that the strikes would be removed only if they paid ₹48 lakhs (approximately $57,500 USD). The claim stemmed from Mangal’s use of a few seconds of ANI’s video footage in his educational content. Mangal characterized this demand as “extortion,” contrasting ANI’s approach with that of other major copyright holders like the International Cricket Council (ICC). He noted that while the ICC has also issued strikes, the typical outcome is the removal or demonetization of the infringing video, not demands for hefty payments. Reports suggest other creators have faced similar demands from ANI, with figures ranging from ₹18 lakhs to ₹50 lakhs, leading to accusations that this is a revenue-generating tactic rather than purely copyright protection.
ANI’s Take: A News Wire’s Rights
ANI operates primarily as a news wire service, akin to international agencies like Reuters (which holds a minority stake in ANI) or India’s Press Trust of India (PTI). These services gather news, including articles and video footage, and then license this content to various media houses. This syndicated content often appears across multiple platforms under different headlines. This licensing is a significant revenue stream; a 2018 report by The Ken indicated that ANI’s monthly subscriptions could reach up to ₹6 lakhs, with an additional 50% charge for digital rights.
From ANI’s perspective, the unauthorised use of its footage by YouTubers, who may monetize their own content, represents a direct infringement on its business and intellectual property. Legally, under India’s Copyright Act, ANI, as the copyright holder, possesses the right to decide how its content is used, distributed, and monetized. The law does not stipulate that the fees charged for such use must be “reasonable” by any external standard; if ANI values its content at a specific price, it is largely within its legal rights to demand it.
The Murky Waters of ‘Fair Dealing’
Fair dealing provisions in Indian copyright law permit the limited use of copyrighted material without permission for specific purposes, such as criticism, review, education, research, and news reporting. The argument is that using a brief segment of footage within a larger, transformative work for educational or informational purposes should fall under this doctrine.
However, ‘fair dealing’ is a notoriously grey area in copyright law. There are no definitive rules quantifying what constitutes “limited use” or precisely what transforms a use into “fair dealing.” Consequently, interpretation often falls to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Legal precedents, such as the Ashdown vs. Telegraph Group case, have attempted to establish tests, considering factors like whether the use competes commercially with the original, if the original has been made public, and the proportion of the work copied. The NDTV vs. ICC case offered a different test for sports content, focusing on reporting results rather than extensive commentary. Applying these varied tests to cases like Mangal’s reveals the inherent ambiguity. While his videos are monetized, he argues the primary purpose is educational, not direct competition with ANI’s news dissemination.
This lack of legal clarity has led to challenges previously. In 2023, several YouTubers faced copyright strikes from Ziiki Media over public domain clips, reigniting the fair use debate. An article in Exchange4Media highlighted the concern that “Failing to consider fair use and using copyright coercively is an abuse of legal tools.”
Navigating the Future: A Call for Clarity and Compromise
The burgeoning digital content landscape and the rapidly growing creator economy, projected to reach ₹10 lakh crores in revenue by 2030 in India, necessitate a more robust and clear copyright framework. The current standoff between ANI and content creators underscores this need.
The resolution of Mangal’s specific case, particularly if it proceeds to court, could provide important legal interpretations. Interestingly, ANI is also reportedly in a legal dispute with OpenAI over the alleged use of its copyrighted content for training AI models, a separate but related issue that could further shape copyright discourse in the digital era.
In the interim, some observers suggest a middle ground. ANI could adopt greater transparency regarding its fees or penalties for copyright infringement. Conversely, content creators might need to consider revenue-sharing models with copyright holders, especially when copyrighted material forms a part of their monetized content. Ultimately, a re-evaluation of reliance on repurposed copyrighted content without clear licensing or adherence to well-understood fair dealing principles may be necessary for creators. Until India’s copyright laws evolve to adequately address the nuances of the digital age, such disputes are likely to continue, leaving both copyright holders and creators navigating an uncertain terrain.
