ANI versus Mohak Mangal reignites the debate of ‘fair dealing' in copyright infringement
HighlightsYouTuber Mohak Mangal accused Asian News International of extortion, claiming they demanded INR 50 lakh to retract copyright strikes on his videos analyzing news content, which he argued fell under fair use. Other creators, including a political commentator identified as Sumit, have also reported similar experiences with Asian News International, alleging they were pressured to pay substantial amounts to resolve copyright claims. The debate over copyright enforcement highlights the ambiguity of fair dealing provisions in India's Copyright Act, leading to challenges for content creators navigating the evolving digital landscape.
'
ANI
pressured me, saying that if I didn't pay INR 50 lakh, my channel would be deleted,' said
YouTuber
Mohak Mangal. The claim followed two copyright strikes by Asian News International (ANI) against Mangal, one for using a 10–11-second clip in his video analysing the R.G. Kar rape case, and another for incorporating a 9-second ANI clip in his video on
Operation Sindoor
featuring Defence Minister
Rajnath Singh
.
Mangal added that ANI extorted up to INR 50 lakh from another creator as well. Citing media reports, he mentioned that Sumit (name changed in the report), who built a following as a political commentator, received more than three copyright strikes by ANI and paid INR 15-20 lakh to resolve the copyright claim.
In return, ANI lifted the copyright strikes and granted Sumit a one-year access to its audiovisual and written news content, the report noted.
A
YouTube
creator who goes by the name Thugesh reported that he received a copyright strike and was asked to pay INR 15 lakh for using a 2-second clip in his video.
According to YouTube's policy, if a channel receives three copyright strikes, it is frozen pending review. After receiving two copyright strikes, Mangal published a video on his YouTube channel claiming that ANI asked for INR 48 lakh plus GST to retract the strikes or else the channel will be 'deleted.'
Mangal perceives this attempt by ANI as extortion under the guise of a copyright strike, despite his video falling under the fair use policy.
With more than 5.3 million views on Mangal's YouTube video, support is pouring in favour of Mangal and creators are calling ANI's actions 'daylight robbery.'
This fire caught more flames when Member of Parliament Saket Gokhale, in a post shared on X, articulated, 'Use of copyright strikes in order to extract high payments from independent creators even in cases of "fair dealing" (as it is called in India) of news agency content is a form of quasi privately-imposed censorship aided by a govt which favors one news agency over another.'
But, before you berate ANI, let's take a look at what the law has to say about fair dealing.
Fair dealing under Section 52 of India's Copyright Act, 1957 permits 'limited' use for criticism, commentary, or education. This provision serves as an exception to
copyright infringement
, recognising that certain uses of protected content serve the public interest or creative expression without unduly harming the rights of the original creator.
Unlike U.S. fair use laws, which use a four-factor test (purpose, nature, amount, and market effect), India's fair dealing is less defined, leading to ambiguity in enforcement.
Indian courts assess fair dealing based on the specific context, making it challenging for creators to predict outcomes. YouTube's Content ID system operates globally and often misses the nuances in India's fair dealing provisions.
YouTube's Content ID technology, an automated digital fingerprinting system, scans every uploaded video against a database of copyrighted material provided by rights holders, facilitating efficient copyright enforcement.
This technology offers mutual benefits for creators and rights holders. Creators can avoid copyright strikes and ensure compliance with copyright laws, while original content creators can automatically claim, monetise, block, or track videos containing their material.
However, the system sometimes struggles with the nuances of fair use policies. For instance, reporting a public lecture is not considered copyright infringement under Indian law. Yet, YouTube's Content ID system, operating within the framework of Indian law, grants 'original creators' of content the rights to block or monetise YouTube videos containing their content, creating a legal grey area.
Let's examine a few examples to gain a clearer understanding of how copyright cases function.
In October 2021, Newslaundry's YouTube channel was frozen after Aaj Tak filed copyright notices over Newslaundry's critique videos that included Aaj Tak clips and made fun of their anchors' on their reportage.
Soon after, TV Today Network (which owns Aaj Tak) sued Newslaundry in the Delhi High Court, alleging copyright infringement and defamation, demanding the takedown of YouTube videos and INR 2 crore in damages.
The Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction (an official order), recognising that commentary on TV broadcasts is protected as free speech and fair use must be decided at trial. Newslaundry's videos are still online.
Moreover, in the
Prasar Bharati
versus Abhisar Sharma (a journalist and YouTuber) case in 2023, the public broadcaster, which runs Doordarshan and Sansad TV, sent Sharma YouTube copyright claims on at least two of his news commentary videos.
The claims didn't strike the channel but demonetised those videos (redirecting ad revenue to the claimant).
This sparked a debate, since many consider parliamentary proceedings as public information not subject to restrictive copyright, and the move as censorship, noting that Parliament footage was intended to be freely accessible.
Prasar Bharati officials quickly responded that the agency never intentionally issues copyright takedowns on public service content and suggested the claims may have been automated or erroneous.
Shifting focus to another copyright case, in the ANI (and Others) versus OpenAI case, major Indian media houses, including ANI, claimed that OpenAI scraped and used their data without a licence to train its AI models.
The suit argued that OpenAI's data scraping and storage of ANI's copyrighted reports to train its AI models constitute infringement, and even claimed that ChatGPT sometimes generates ANI articles or cites 'fake' ANI stories, harming its reputation. OpenAI responded that it has ceased using ANI's site in training and that its use of publicly available content is protected by fair use principles.
The court in initial hearings had issued notice to OpenAI to respond to the claims. For now, OpenAI has put ANI's content on an internal 'do not train' list to halt ongoing use.
Let's take a look at the case of Civic Chandran versus Ammini Amma (1996), which is one of the earliest and most important Indian legal decisions on the subject of fair dealing in copyright law, especially in the context of criticism and commentary.
This case started when a playwright named Civic Chandran wrote a new drama that was meant to be a counter-response to an existing play written by Ammini Amma. The original play was called Ningalenne Communistakki (You Made Me a Communist), which was a famous political drama supporting communist ideology. Civic Chandran's new play, titled Ningal Are Communistakki (Whom Did You Make a Communist?), used some parts of the original play in its script and performance. However, the purpose of his play was to criticise and challenge the original ideas, especially how the ideology was portrayed.
Ammini Amma, the author of the original drama, went to court claiming that Civic Chandran had copied significant parts of her work and violated her copyright. She argued that even if the intention was to critique her play, he could not legally use portions of it without her permission.
The case went to the Kerala High Court. The key legal issue was whether this act of copying came under the exception of fair dealing for criticism, which is allowed by the law.
The court ruled in favour of Civic Chandran. It said that his use of parts of the original play was not copyright infringement because he used them to critique and comment on the original ideas, which is allowed under the fair dealing clause of the Indian Copyright Act.
This was a landmark decision because it was the first time an Indian court clearly said that fair dealing covers criticism, even if the new work borrows substantially from the original. In the years that followed, this judgment has been cited in other cases involving media, literature, and online content to support fair use in criticism and commentary.
Traditional intellectual property laws presume a clear distinction between producers and consumers, but YouTube's ecosystem thrives on transformative content, such as commentary, remixes and analysis, that blurs these boundaries.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
19 minutes ago
- NDTV
"That Shouldn't Be Allowed": Shashi Tharoor's Quip After Son Asks Question In US
Shashi Tharoor made it clear at the outset that the person questioning him at the press conference in New York is his son, Ishan Tharoor, adding with a big smile that "it shouldn't be allowed". Mr Tharoor, leading the all-party delegation on Operation Sindoor, India's diplomatic effort launched to combat terrorism and disinformation following the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, is in the United States to brief key stakeholders on India's efforts following the deadly attack. It was during one such press conference at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York that Ishan Tharoor got up to ask a question. "You have to stand up. That shouldn't be allowed. This is my son," said Shashi Tharoor with a big smile. "Ishan Tharoor of the Washington Post," the son replied, with a straight face. #WATCH | Washington DC: On a question asked by his son about whether any country had asked the delegation for evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam attack and about Pakistan's repeated denials of any role in the attack, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "I'm very glad… — ANI (@ANI) June 5, 2025 "Definitely asking a question in a personal capacity. And mostly to say hi before you go off to your next engagement," said the Junior Tharoor, who is a foreign affairs columnist at the Washington Post. The columnist son asked his father that as he has been touring countries in the western hemisphere as part of India's diplomatic outreach efforts, have any of your "government interlocutors asked you to show evidence of Pakistan's culpability in the initial attacks". "Well, I'm very glad you raised this, Ishan. I didn't plant it, I promise you. This guy does this to his dad," said the Senior Tharoor, before switching gears to answer the question. "Very simply, no one had any doubt and we were not asked for evidence. But the media have asked in two or three places. Let me say very clearly that India would not have done this without convincing evidence. But there were three particular reasons I want to draw your attention to all of you. The first is that we've had a 37-year pattern of repeated terror attacks from Pakistan, accompanied by repeated denials. I mean, Americans haven't forgotten that Pakistan didn't know, allegedly, where Osama bin Laden was until he was found in a Pakistani safe house right next to an army camp in a cantonment city. That's Pakistan. Mumbai attacks - they denied having anything to do with we know what Pakistan's all about. They will dispatch terrorists, they will deny they did so until they're actually caught with red hands..." said Mr Tharoor.
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Political class showed mutual understanding': RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat calls for lasting political unity post-Pahalgam attack, warns against forced conversions
NEW DELHI: chief on Thursday urged that the political consensus and swift government response seen after the Pahalgam terror attack in April should become a lasting feature of India's national security approach. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking at the concluding event of the Karyakarta Vikas Varg in Nagpur, he praised the collective political will and military resolve demonstrated in the aftermath of the attack. 'Action was taken after the heinous terror attack in Pahalgam. The valour of our Army shone once again in it. The firmness of the administration was also seen. The political class showed mutual understanding. The society gave the message of unity. This should continue and become a permanent feature,' Bhagwat said, referring to retaliatory actions under , including strikes on terror hubs in Pakistan and PoK. He said the people were angry after the massacre of tourists in Pahalgam on April 22 and wanted justice, which led to the military response. Operation Sindoor marked a significant escalation, with Indian armed forces bombing terror-linked airbases in Pakistan and repelling drone attacks. Bhagwat warned that enemies were engaged in a proxy war against India. 'Those who can't win a direct fight with India want to bleed our country by the policy of a thousand cuts,' he said, invoking Winston Churchill's WWII speech to highlight societal resilience. 'Churchill had said that society was the true lion, and he merely roared on its behalf.' He further called for national unity and restraint, cautioning against provocation and internal conflict. 'No group or class should come into conflict with another. Acting impulsively or taking the law into one's own hands is not in the country's interest.' Bhagwat came down strongly against religious conversion through coercion or inducement, calling it a form of violence. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'Conversion is violence. We are not against it when done by choice. But luring, forcing and pressurising is something we are against,' he said, adding that such acts insult people's ancestors and heritage. 'We are with you (in the fight against conversion),' he told tribal leader and former Union minister Arvind Netam, who was present as chief guest. Netam, hailing from Chhattisgarh, echoed these concerns and criticised successive governments for ignoring religious conversions in tribal areas. 'I think RSS is the only institution which can help us in this area,' he said, urging the Sangh to push the central government for a post-Naxalism action plan to prevent recurrence. He also criticised the non-implementation of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), saying it was vital for tribal self-governance and community empowerment. Earlier, in an interview with Organiser, Bhagwat had said India must become militarily and economically self-reliant, asserting, 'We have no option but to be powerful as we have been witnessing the wickedness of the evil forces on all our borders.' He emphasised that true strength must be matched with righteousness, or it risks becoming directionless and violent. The RSS chief concluded that unity, moral strength, and readiness are the pillars of a resilient and powerful India. 'Our roots lie in unity, not in division,' he said.
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Pakistan likes to dangle nuclear bogey to get the world excited, Tharoor says in Washington
There was no significant risk that the recent fighting between India and Pakistan, following the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, was approaching a nuclear threshold, according to Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. 'I think what happened was so far short of anything remotely approaching a nuclear threshold that the proposition, frankly, is laughable,' he said at a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC on Thursday (June 5, 2025). Mr Tharoor, who heads the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, is leading a multi-party delegation of lawmakers and former Ambassadors on a diplomatic outreach tour of Guyana, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, and the U.S. Seven such delegations have been dispatched around the world following the armed conflict between India and Pakistan in early May. 'Our Pakistani friends, I think, like to dangle this nuclear bogey to get all of you excited and anxious,' he said, when asked if the conflict came close to a nuclear war and if nuclear brinkmanship was to be expected in the future. 'We've got a nuclear power engaged in the war right now for two-and-a-half years in Europe, and no one has talked about nukes yet,' he said, asking why there was such a discussion just after a few days of fighting in India. [Mr. Tharoor was presumably referring to the Russia-Ukraine war which began in February 2022. There have been repeated discussions about and reporting on the risk of Russia using nuclear weapons]. Mr. Tharoor urged people not to worry about India using nuclear weapons, as he emphasised India's 'no first use' policy and Pakistan's lack of one. India's response via Operation Sindoor and the subsequent fighting with Pakistan was 'calibrated retribution' (for the attack in Pahalgam) and did not pose an existential threat to Pakistan, he said. 'Mediation not a term we will entertain' In his time in Washington so far, Mr. Tharoor has repeatedly pushed back against the prospect of U.S. mediation, a subject that has come up given U.S. President Donald Trump's claims that he brokered the May 10 ceasefire between the two countries and used trade with the U.S. as leverage to achieve it. 'I would never presume to tell the U.S. to stay the heck out of anything it wants to get involved in. But mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain,' he said, when asked if it was useful to have the U.S. as a mediator or broker or 'transmitter of signals'. 'Mediation' implied an equivalence, Mr. Tharoor said, arguing that there was no equivalence between terrorists and their victims. 'There is no equivalence between a country that provides safe haven to terrorism and a country that's a flourishing multi-party democracy that's trying to get on with its business,' he added. Acknowledging the calls between officials in the Trump administration and Modi government, while the conflict was under way, Mr. Tharoor said the Americans perhaps wanted to keep themselves informed. He guessed that perhaps U.S. officials persuaded the Pakistanis to stop fighting, as it was Islamabad that needed persuading to call off the confrontation. Mr. Tharoor hit out at Pakistan's Army chief, Asim Munir, for a speech he had made a few days before the April 22 attack, in which he had asserted that Hindus and Muslims are fundamentally different. Mr. Munir's assertion was 'astonishingly bigoted', Mr. Tharoor said. Mr. Tharoor was asked by his son, who is a journalist, if any of the delegation's interlocutors had asked for evidence of who had carried out the April 22 attack. 'Very simply, no one had any doubt, and we were not asked for evidence, but media have asked,' the senior Tharoor said. He listed Pakistan's history of ties to terror attacks, the fact that former al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan before being killed by U.S. forces in 2011. He also said The Resistance Front had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack initially and pointed to Pakistani military presence at the funerals of terrorists killed by India in counter-strikes. 'This showed all the hallmarks of a sophisticated, planned, deliberate operation,' Mr. Tharoor said.
