Latest news with #AsianNewsInternational
News18
7 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Delhi HC Orders YouTuber Mohak Mangal To Take Down Defamatory Content Against ANI
Last Updated: Mangal, uploaded a video titled 'Dear ANI' suggesting that ANI's copyright enforcement and licensing fee requirements on YouTube were akin to extortion. The Delhi High Court on Thursday ordered YouTuber Mohak Mangal to remove objectionable content from his video accusing the news agency Asian News International (ANI) of extortion and blackmail. The court's decision was in response to ANI's defamation suit, which alleged the video spread falsehoods, damaging its reputation. Mangal, who has around 4.21 million subscribers, uploaded a video titled 'Dear ANI', suggesting that ANI's copyright enforcement and licensing fee requirements on YouTube amounted to extortion. Justice Amit Bansal stated that Mangal should have expressed his opinion more civilly. ''Hafta wasooli', 'gunda raaj'… You will take this down… Do it today. Whoever is using this kind of language, please follow instructions." Senior advocate Amit Sibal and advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, argued before the court that the content was both defamatory and inflammatory. 'He started a media campaign against me (ANI) that spiralled into a concerted campaign which is nothing short of vilifying and, per se, defamatory. They are calling me a thug, extortionist, gunda," Sibal said. 'If they have a grievance against me, they can't call me and extort money… that I will block your channel if you don't pay," Lall said. First Published: May 30, 2025, 08:07 IST
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Delhi High Court Orders YouTuber Mohak Mangal to Remove Defamatory Video Against ANI, ET LegalWorld
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed YouTuber Mohak Mangal to remove objectionable portions from his video where he had accused a news wire agency of "extortion". A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal was dealing with a defamation suit filed by wire agency Asian News International (ANI) against Mangal's YouTube video titled "Dear ANI". In his video, the popular YouTube content creator, having around 4.21 million subscribers, alleged that the news wire agency was committing "extortion" and "blackmail" in the guise of seeking to enforce its copyright over its content. In its defamation suit filed before the Delhi High Court, the wire agency stated that the video deliberately spread falsehoods with the intent to target and malign its public image. Advt "I offered a license. They could have rejected my offer, but to put pressure on me, defamatory material is put by them. This is in retaliation to my offer," said senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing on the plaintiff's behalf."He (Mohak Mangal) starts a media campaign against me that has spiralled into a concerted campaign which is nothing short of vilifying and, per se, defamatory. They are calling me (ANI) thugs, extortionists, gunda, and other expletives," he the course of the hearing, Alt-news co-founder Mohammed Zubair, who was arrayed as a co-defendant in the defamation suit for amplifying Mangal's post on social media platform X, also agreed to take down his online the Delhi High Court ordered stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, another co-defendant, to delete his first tweet of the several posted on X. Kamra's counsel contended that his social media posts were covered under the right to free speech and he was commenting on a matter of larger public interest. However, the Justice Bansal-led Bench opined that such language was not palatable to the court and calling someone "thugs" and "mafia" was matter is listed for further hearing in July. Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App
Scroll.in
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: YouTuber agrees to drop parts of ANI video, US deported 1,080 Indian since January & more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. YouTuber Mohak Mangal told the Delhi High Court that he would remove portions in his video about Asian News International that were purportedly objectionable. His submission came after the court directed Mangal to take down some sections, observing that they contained defamatory language about the news agency. The judge said that the YouTuber should have put out his message in a more civilised manner. The court was hearing a defamation suit filed by ANI against Mangal for posting the allegedly defamatory video accusing the news agency of extortion and blackmail. The suit also listed comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, among others, as defendants for sharing Mangal's video on social media. Read on. One thousand and eighty Indians have been deported from the United States since January, the Ministry of External Affairs said. Sixty-two percent of them had come back on commercial flights, the ministry said. This came amid the tightening of immigration regulations under the Donald Trump administration, which took office in January. In some cases, the US government had used military aircraft to repatriate undocumented migrants. Read on. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that the people living in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are a part of the Indian family and will return to India voluntarily. Most people in the region felt a 'deep connection' with India and only a few of them have been 'misled', Singh said. 'We have full faith that those of our brothers who are geographically and politically separated from us today will also return to the mainstream of India someday listening to their voice of soul,' Singh added. Read on. The Karnataka High Court set aside the state government's decision to withdraw 43 criminal cases, including those related to the 2022 Hubballi riots. In October, the state had directed public prosecutors to file applications to withdraw the cases. The petitioner claimed that the cases are related to 'highly influential personalities' such as former ministers and MLAs, which indicated 'ulterior motives'. The state did not have the discretion to direct public prosecutors to withdraw cases, the petitioner had argued. Read on. A court in the United States blocked tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on imports into the country under a law that gives him extraordinary powers in emergency situations. The New York-based Court of International Trade said that the US Constitution gave Congress exclusive authority to regulate international commerce, and that the president's emergency powers did not override this. The court passed an injunction blocking all of Trump's tariff-related orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
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.
News18
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- News18
The ANI Vs YouTubers Dispute: Copyright, Claims And The Question Of Fair Use
Last Updated: After YouTuber Mohak Mangal alleged ANI misused copyright strikes to demand payment, the dispute has opened a wider debate on fair use, creator rights, and platform accountability A wave of allegations against Asian News International (ANI), one of India's largest news agencies, has triggered a digital uproar. Prominent YouTubers including Mohak Mangal have accused ANI of misusing YouTube's copyright strike system to target independent creators and then allegedly demanding hefty sums in exchange for withdrawing those strikes. The controversy has since escalated into a larger debate over the boundaries of fair use, the role of copyright in public-interest content, and YouTube's mechanisms for dispute resolution. The Allegations The controversy began with YouTuber Mohak Mangal's video titled Dear ANI, released on May 26. In the 13-minute video, Mangal accused news agency ANI of exploiting YouTube's copyright enforcement mechanism to issue takedown notices against creators. Specifically, he alleged that ANI had issued two copyright strikes against his channel for using video clips lasting just 9 and 11 seconds, drawn from ANI footage related to the Kolkata rape case and Operation Sindoor. Mangal argued that these clips were used within the framework of commentary and analysis, qualifying as fair dealing under Indian copyright law. However, the more serious allegation was what followed. According to Mangal, legal representatives acting on ANI's behalf contacted him privately and demanded a payment between Rs 45–50 lakh to retract the copyright strikes. He claimed he was told that failure to comply would result in a third strike, which would trigger automatic deletion of his channel under YouTube's three-strike policy. Mangal's video quickly gained traction, prompting other creators to speak out. YouTuber Rajat Pawar alleged he had faced a similar situation. He said ANI had issued two strikes on his videos and then offered to remove them if he either paid a penalty or signed up for an annual licensing package worth Rs 18 lakh. Pawar claimed he was warned that failure to cooperate could also result in his channel being taken down. Shortly after, popular comedian and content creator Thugesh said he too had been struck by ANI for a 2-second video snippet. In his case, he alleged that ANI representatives demanded Rs 15 lakh to lift the strike. Thugesh described the demand as excessive, especially given the negligible length of the clip and the broader context of humour and commentary in which it was used. What Is Fair Dealing Under Indian Law? Under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, certain uses of copyrighted material are not considered infringement. These include: Fair dealing does not allow wholesale reproduction, but short clips used with commentary, critique, or for news purposes are widely accepted as non-infringing in India's legal framework. The creators argue that their use of ANI's footage was transformative and fell within these boundaries. ANI Silent, PTI Offers Alternative While ANI has not issued any public statement on the allegations, the Press Trust of India (PTI) addressed the broader concerns faced by content creators. In a post directed at the YouTube creator community, PTI said it remains committed to credible journalism and ethical business practices. To support responsible content creation, PTI announced that it is offering individual YouTube creators 'highly affordable access" to its video footage for use on YouTube and other social media platforms. YouTube's Copyright Strike Policy YouTube allows rights holders to file copyright complaints through an automated process. Three strikes within 90 days typically result in channel termination. Critics argue that this system lacks nuance and disproportionately empowers large copyright holders over individual creators. YouTube Responds, But Keeps Distance While YouTube has not issued a broad public statement on the ANI controversy, a company spokesperson did respond to Financial Express, clarifying the platform's role. 'It's not up to YouTube to decide who owns the rights to content," the spokesperson said, adding that the platform provides tools for both copyright holders to make claims and for uploaders to dispute them. The platform said it reviews takedown requests to ensure they meet legal requirements and do not exhibit signs of systemic abuse. YouTube also highlighted that users may file counter-notifications if they believe their content qualifies for copyright exceptions such as fair use or fair dealing. This is not the first time YouTube India has been at the centre of such disputes: In 2020, several creators raised concerns when their videos featuring short clips from TV news were removed following complaints by news channels. In 2022, an independent journalist's channel was temporarily suspended after a news agency issued strikes for using 15-second news excerpts in an explainer. Legal appeals in these cases typically resulted in reinstatement, but the process was slow and opaque. These incidents highlight systemic issues with automated takedowns, a lack of culturally localised moderation, and inadequate redress mechanisms for smaller creators. Political Reactions Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale has written to Google LLC, seeking clarity on YouTube's copyright enforcement policies. In his public statement, he alleged that copyright strikes were being used as a form of extortion against independent creators and said the matter merited parliamentary scrutiny. ImportantRegarding copyright strikes against YouTube creators in India for use of clips from wire agencies Have received messages from numerous YouTube creators in India about their content being subject to copyright strikes merely for the use of a news clip from a news wire… — Saket Gokhale MP (@SaketGokhale) May 26, 2025 A Call for Reform The dispute has amplified ongoing conversations about the way copyright is enforced on digital platforms, particularly when it involves brief news footage or commentary. In the wake of the allegations, several content creators, journalists, and digital observers have pointed to structural gaps in current systems — and discussed areas where greater clarity and safeguards may be needed. Some of the key issues being highlighted include: Lack of clarity on fair use/fair dealing in digital spaces While India's Copyright Act provides fair dealing exemptions for criticism, review, and news reporting, creators say these provisions are often overlooked in platform enforcement. There is growing discussion about the need for clearer guidance — both from platforms and media rights holders — on what constitutes permissible use in video commentary or explainers. Absence of a review step before strikes are issued Concerns have been raised about the ease with which copyright holders can issue takedown notices, even for short clips. Some creators and commentators have suggested that platforms could consider introducing a basic review or notification process — particularly in cases involving limited use for commentary or education — before formal strikes are applied. Limited options for appeal before channel termination Under YouTube's three-strike policy, a channel can be removed within 90 days if strikes are not successfully challenged. Creators have pointed out the lack of a dedicated appeal layer or human moderation before such a major action is taken — and have questioned whether the current system gives smaller content producers enough room to defend themselves. Need for transparency in how enforcement tools are used As allegations of large financial demands linked to copyright strikes have surfaced, there is renewed interest in whether platforms can monitor and disclose how frequently such tools are used, and by whom. Some journalists and digital rights advocates have said that greater transparency could help prevent potential misuse. While ANI has not issued a statement in response to the allegations, it's worth noting that under copyright law, media organisations do have the right to protect proprietary footage — even if it appears briefly in third-party videos. In India and globally, news agencies often monetise their video archives, and protecting the commercial value of their material is a standard industry practice. top videos View all Moreover, platforms like YouTube typically require rights holders to actively monitor unauthorised usage themselves. This may explain why agencies employ enforcement tools proactively — particularly in an environment where content is quickly replicated and redistributed without licensing. These tensions reflect a broader challenge: how to balance the legitimate rights of media organisations with the creative freedoms of independent creators — especially when the line between news, opinion, and digital commentary continues to blur. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : copyright YouTube Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: May 28, 2025, 14:03 IST News india The ANI Vs YouTubers Dispute: Copyright, Claims And The Question Of Fair Use
