Primer: YouTubers vs ANI: Fair-use in the spotlight

What is the allegation against ANI?

Creators such as Mohak Mangal, who make long videos explaining news and current affairs, often use short clips from news providers such as ANI in their content. They now say ANI has been reporting such videos for copyright violations. As per YouTube’s policy, any channel that receives three copyright strikes is at risk of being deleted from the platform. Mangal alleged that representatives of ANI were using the threat of copyright strikes against his channel to force him to buy an ANI subscription—worth ₹10-40 lakh per year. He had used a nine-second clip from ANI footage for a video on Operation Sindoor.

What exactly is the problem here?

ANI says it is merely enforcing its copyright and protecting its intellectual property. But Mangal and other creators allege that this tactic–threatening their channels with copyright strikes and then offering annual subscriptions worth tens of lakhs of rupees—is practically “extortion". They argue that using a few seconds of a clip, even if copyrighted, is legal under fair use exceptions to India’s copyright laws. This is because, they say, their YouTube videos are meant to provide reporting, general knowledge and critique to the public, all purportedly part of fair dealings in matters of intellectual property rights.

At which stage is the legal battle?

No creator has moved a court of law against ANI and its alleged extortion. In his video on the issue, Mohak Mangal said he wrote an appeal to Ashwini Vaishnaw, minister of information and broadcasting. He also urged other creators facing ANI’s copyright strikes to reach out to the minister with details of ANI’s actions. The video has nearly 6 million views.

So does ANI have a case?

They might. Earlier this month, in response to a report by The Reporters’ Collective, the news agency said it “invests heavily in original news gathering" and had the right to defend itself from copyright theft. It added that enforcing copyright claims was not extortion. ANI has sued Mangal for defamation in the Delhi High Court, along with creator Kunal Kamra and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair. On Thursday, 29 May, the court ordered Mangal to remove some 'objectionable' portions from his video on the issue.

What does Indian law say about this?

The definition of fair use in India is rather narrow and does not completely capture the nuances of online content creation. Fair use clauses cover research and criticism but may not protect slick YouTube videos backed by ads and brand integration. Creators argue that using an 8-10 second clip is protected under fair use, but legal experts say copyright violation depends not just on quantitative use (the length of a clip) but also qualitative use—for example, if the clip is crucial to the content, like the hook line of a song.