Delhi HC directs YouTuber Mohak Mangal to take down video on ANI, allows re-upload after edits

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal said Mangal may re-upload the video after removing the objectionable parts, but only after sharing the revised version with ANI for review. The direction came after senior advocate Chander M. Lall, appearing for Mangal, agreed to take down the objectionable parts and submit a redline version (marked up to show the changes) of the edited video. 

Also read: India’s meme marketing boom faces legal reckoning as copyright battles heat up

"Mr. Lall submits that defendant 1 (Mangal) shall put the impugned video in private mode and make the necessary amendments in the video so as to remove objectionable portions as indicated in the hearing. The redline version of the video, after removing the portions, shall be supplied to plaintiff counsel during the course of the day," Justice Bansal said. The video may be re-published only once changes have been reviewed, he added. The judge said ANI could approach the court again if it had any issues with the revised version.

The court also directed comedian Kunal Kamra, who has over 2.5 million followers on X, formerly Twitter, to take down his ‘defamatory’ post in which he shared Mangal’s video. “This video, on the face of it, is disparaging," Justice Bansal said after the court viewed the video in question. The court will hear the case next at the end of July. 

The case stems from a video Mangal posted on 25 May, in which he accused ANI of blackmail and extortion. He alleged that a representative of ANI had demanded more than ₹40 lakh to lift copyright strikes issued against his channel for using ANI’s footage without permission.

ANI’s argument

ANI said in its plea, which Mint has reviewed, that the allegedly defamatory video hurt its business, goodwill and reputation. “The defamatory and disparaging statements made by [Mangal] in the impugned video have a demonstrable adverse impact on the plaintiff's business, goodwill, and public credibility," the plea stated. It added that the video triggered widespread backlash, abusive messages, and boycott calls on social media.

“Following the publication of the impugned video, the plaintiff has experienced significant condemnation on public platforms… Numerous individuals have called for a boycott of the plaintiff's services and unsubscribed from its platforms."

ANI also alleged that Mangal used AI tools to impersonate the voice of its employee and misrepresented telephonic conversations between the employee and one Mr. Babu. “[Mangal] has derived substantial commercial benefit from the unauthorised use of the plaintiff's copyrighted works… The first infringing video alone has garnered over 2.9 million views," the plea noted. It also named Kamra and Alt News co-founder and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair for their allegedly defamatory posts on X and for amplifying what ANI described as a “defamatory campaign".

“These defendants (Kamra and Zubair) have independently published further false, baseless, and malicious statements targeting the plaintiff and its founders. These statements are devoid of any factual or legal foundation and are clearly intended to malign the plaintiff's reputation and lower the plaintiff's estimation in the eyes of the public," ANI’s plea said.

Also read: A.R. Rahman case revives a frequent clash. But the remedy is hard to find

Amit Sibal, senior counsel representing ANI, also told the court that Mangal had repeatedly used ANI’s video clips without permission. ANI issued copyright strikes through YouTube’s automated system, two of which were upheld. The controversy, he said, began ahead of a third strike, when Mangal went public instead of using formal channels.

Sibal said ANI had offered Mangal a subscription licence, which he declined. He argued that Mangal was now trying to portray legitimate copyright enforcement as coercion. He said the video used inflammatory language like “extortion" and “goondaraj", which sparked online abuse against ANI and its staff. Sibal also sought a John Doe order to prevent the video’s dissemination by unknown parties and said ANI would file a separate copyright infringement suit.

Mangal’s response

Mangal’s counsel Chander M. Lall argued that ANI’s ₹40-lakh demand to lift the copyright strikes was itself extortion. He added that ANI could not claim exclusive rights over footage related to news of public interest, and that it was targeting Mangal unfairly.

Lall also said several news reports had raised concerns about ANI’s conduct and alleged extortion practices against content creators. “ANI has not refuted those reports," he told the court.

‘ANI may have gone slightly overboard’

Meanwhile, in a response to Mint's queries, Mohammed Zubair said that he agreed to delete his tweet.

“The purpose of my tweet on the issue is that there is a larger discussion on this topic of copyright and fair use policy. Now that the discussion is indeed happening, The purpose of my tweet is served. Hence, deleted it," Zubair added.

Legal experts said the copyright aspect and the defamation issue were separate questions. “ANI may have gone slightly overboard in asserting copyright infringement by Mangal, as the use of their videos by Mangal appears to be for criticism or review purposes," said Aditi Verma Thakur, intellectual property lawyer and senior partner at Ediplis Counsels. “Whether the criticism by Mangal has been constructive or whether there is a case of defamation against Mangal are completely different questions," she added.

Also read | Celebrities' legal fight for intellectual property: A double-edged sword

Explaining how Indian copyright law deals with such cases, Thakur said generally, under the fair-dealing provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, some non-commercial activities in connection with copyrighted subjects do not attract infringement liabilities. These include limited use of works for education, reporting, commentary, review, parody, etc. 

She added that while there is no specific formal guideline on the time limits, when an extremely small part of copyrighted work is used – like 8 to 10 seconds in a 10- to 15-minute video – it may be considered 'de minimis' or inconsequential use.