The ANI Vs YouTubers Dispute: Copyright, Claims And The Question Of Fair Use

Advertisement

Last Updated:May 28, 2025, 14:30 IST

After YouTuber Mohak Mangal alleged ANI misused copyright strikes to request payment, the quality has opened a wider statement connected just use, creator rights, and level accountability

YouTube allows rights holders to record copyright complaints done an automated process. Three strikes wrong 90 days typically effect successful transmission termination. (Representative Image)

A question of allegations against Asian News International (ANI), 1 of India’s largest quality agencies, has triggered a integer uproar. Prominent YouTubers including Mohak Mangal person accused ANI of misusing YouTube’s copyright onslaught strategy to people autarkic creators and past allegedly demanding hefty sums successful speech for withdrawing those strikes.

The contention has since escalated into a larger statement implicit the boundaries of just use, the relation of copyright successful public-interest content, and YouTube’s mechanisms for quality resolution.

The Allegations

The contention began with YouTuber Mohak Mangal’s video titled Dear ANI, released connected May 26. In the 13-minute video, Mangal accused quality bureau ANI of exploiting YouTube’s copyright enforcement mechanics to contented takedown notices against creators. Specifically, helium alleged that ANI had issued 2 copyright strikes against his transmission for utilizing video clips lasting conscionable 9 and 11 seconds, drawn from ANI footage related to the Kolkata rape lawsuit and Operation Sindoor.

Mangal argued that these clips were utilized wrong the model of commentary and analysis, qualifying arsenic just dealing nether Indian copyright law. However, the much superior allegation was what followed. According to Mangal, ineligible representatives acting connected ANI’s behalf contacted him privately and demanded a outgo betwixt Rs 45–50 lakh to retract the copyright strikes. He claimed helium was told that nonaccomplishment to comply would effect successful a 3rd strike, which would trigger automatic deletion of his transmission nether YouTube’s three-strike policy.

Mangal’s video rapidly gained traction, prompting different creators to talk out. YouTuber Rajat Pawar alleged helium had faced a akin situation. He said ANI had issued 2 strikes connected his videos and past offered to region them if helium either paid a punishment oregon signed up for an yearly licensing bundle worthy Rs 18 lakh. Pawar claimed helium was warned that nonaccomplishment to cooperate could besides effect successful his transmission being taken down.

Shortly after, fashionable comedian and contented creator Thugesh said helium excessively had been struck by ANI for a 2-second video snippet. In his case, helium alleged that ANI representatives demanded Rs 15 lakh to assistance the strike. Thugesh described the request arsenic excessive, particularly fixed the negligible magnitude of the clip and the broader discourse of humour and commentary successful which it was used.

What Is Fair Dealing Under Indian Law?

Under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, definite uses of copyrighted worldly are not considered infringement. These include:

• Fair dealing for backstage oregon idiosyncratic use, including research
• Criticism oregon review, whether of that enactment oregon of immoderate different work
• Reporting of existent events and affairs, including the work successful a paper oregon mag oregon broadcast
• Educational use, including schoolroom teaching

Fair dealing does not let wholesale reproduction, but abbreviated clips utilized with commentary, critique, oregon for quality purposes are wide accepted arsenic non-infringing successful India’s ineligible framework. The creators reason that their usage of ANI’s footage was transformative and fell wrong these boundaries.

ANI Responds, PTI Offers Alternative

ANI has defended its actions successful effect to the allegations, stating that arsenic the exclusive copyright holder of its content, it has the ineligible close to power its organisation and licensing. In a connection to The Reporters’ Collective, the bureau said: “Enforcing these rights—through mechanisms similar YouTube’s copyright argumentation oregon ineligible action—is not extortion. It is the lawful extortion of property, arsenic guaranteed by copyright law. Anyone disputing our rights is escaped to question ineligible recourse."

In a related development, ANI Editor-in-Chief Smita Prakash shared an sentiment nonfiction titled “Piracy is not escaped speech: Why YouTubers indispensable wage for ANI’s content" connected X, reinforcing the agency’s presumption connected intelligence spot and licensing successful the integer era.

Meanwhile, the Press Trust of India (PTI) addressed broader concerns faced by contented creators. In a connection directed astatine the YouTube creator community, PTI said it remains committed to credible journalism and ethical concern practices.

To enactment liable contented creation, it announced “highly affordable access" to its video footage for usage connected YouTube and different societal media platforms.

YouTube’s Copyright Strike Policy

YouTube allows rights holders to record copyright complaints done an automated process. Three strikes wrong 90 days typically effect successful transmission termination. Critics reason that this strategy lacks nuance and disproportionately empowers ample copyright holders implicit idiosyncratic creators.

YouTube Responds, But Keeps Distance

While YouTube has not issued a wide nationalist connection connected the ANI controversy, a institution spokesperson did respond to Financial Express, clarifying the platform’s role. “It’s not up to YouTube to determine who owns the rights to content," the spokesperson said, adding that the level provides tools for some copyright holders to marque claims and for uploaders to quality them.

The level said it reviews takedown requests to guarantee they conscionable ineligible requirements and bash not grounds signs of systemic abuse. YouTube besides highlighted that users whitethorn record counter-notifications if they judge their contented qualifies for copyright exceptions specified arsenic just usage oregon just dealing.

YouTube India And Previous Copyright Disputes

This is not the archetypal clip YouTube India has been astatine the centre of specified disputes:

• In 2020, respective creators raised concerns erstwhile their videos featuring abbreviated clips from TV quality were removed pursuing complaints by quality channels.
• In 2022, an autarkic journalist’s transmission was temporarily suspended aft a quality bureau issued strikes for utilizing 15-second quality excerpts successful an explainer.
• Legal appeals successful these cases typically resulted successful reinstatement, but the process was dilatory and opaque.

These incidents item systemic issues with automated takedowns, a deficiency 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 connected YouTube’s copyright enforcement policies. In his nationalist statement, helium alleged that copyright strikes were being utilized arsenic a signifier of extortion against autarkic creators and said the substance merited parliamentary scrutiny.

A Call for Reform

The quality has amplified ongoing conversations astir the mode copyright is enforced connected integer platforms, peculiarly erstwhile it involves little quality footage oregon commentary. In the aftermath of the allegations, respective contented creators, journalists, and integer observers person pointed to structural gaps successful existent systems — and discussed areas wherever greater clarity and safeguards whitethorn beryllium needed.

Some of the cardinal issues being highlighted include:

Lack of clarity connected just use/fair dealing successful integer spaces

While India’s Copyright Act provides just dealing exemptions for criticism, review, and quality reporting, creators accidental these provisions are often overlooked successful level enforcement. There is increasing treatment astir the request for clearer guidance — some from platforms and media rights holders — connected what constitutes permissible usage successful video commentary oregon explainers.

Absence of a reappraisal measurement earlier strikes are issued

Concerns person been raised astir the easiness with which copyright holders tin contented takedown notices, adjacent for abbreviated clips. Some creators and commentators person suggested that platforms could see introducing a basal reappraisal oregon notification process — peculiarly successful cases involving constricted usage for commentary oregon acquisition — earlier ceremonial strikes are applied.

Limited options for entreaty earlier transmission termination

Under YouTube’s three-strike policy, a transmission tin beryllium removed wrong 90 days if strikes are not successfully challenged. Creators person pointed retired the deficiency of a dedicated entreaty furniture oregon quality moderation earlier specified a large enactment is taken — and person questioned whether the existent strategy gives smaller contented producers capable country to support themselves.

Need for transparency successful however enforcement tools are used

As allegations of ample fiscal demands linked to copyright strikes person surfaced, determination is renewed involvement successful whether platforms tin show and disclose however often specified tools are used, and by whom. Some journalists and integer rights advocates person said that greater transparency could assistance forestall imaginable misuse.

While creators person questioned the intent and interaction of ANI’s copyright enforcement, others reason that the agency’s actions bespeak modular media manufacture practice. News agencies put importantly successful gathering, producing, and distributing contented — and trust connected licensing gross arsenic a cardinal root of sustainability. Protecting that worldly from unlicensed reuse, adjacent if lone for a fewer seconds, is legally wrong their rights.

Moreover, nether existent level policies, copyright holders indispensable show and emblem unauthorised usage themselves. In this framework, enforcement often falls disproportionately connected rights holders, who whitethorn edifice to proactive ineligible oregon method tools to support power implicit their footage — peculiarly successful an situation wherever contented is rapidly remixed and redistributed without recognition oregon compensation.

At the aforesaid time, creators, journalists, and integer argumentation advocates proceed to rise concerns astir the opacity and rigidity of these systems. With allegations of ample fiscal demands linked to copyright strikes, the statement has shifted to broader questions astir transparency, owed process, and fairness.

These tensions bespeak a cardinal challenge: however to equilibrium the ineligible and commercialized rights of media organisations with the originative and expressive freedoms of integer contented creators — particularly arsenic the boundaries betwixt news, opinion, and online commentary proceed to blur.

Location :

First Published:

News india The ANI Vs YouTubers Dispute: Copyright, Claims And The Question Of Fair Use