The ongoing conflict between Asian News International (ANI) and Indian YouTubers has sparked a heated debate about copyright law, fair use, and the dynamics of power in India’s digital media landscape. At the heart of the issue is ANI’s issuance of copyright strikes against content creators like Mohak Mangal, Nitish Rajput, and Dhruv Rathee, who have accused the news agency of exploiting YouTube’s copyright enforcement system to demand exorbitant licensing fees, sometimes as high as ₹48 lakh plus GST.
The YouTubers claim this practice stifles creative freedom and amounts to digital extortion, while ANI defends its actions as legitimate protection of intellectual property. This tussle raises critical questions about the balance between copyright enforcement and fair use, the role of legacy media in the digital age, and the vulnerabilities of independent creators in a system skewed toward powerful institutions. While both sides have valid points, a nuanced analysis reveals that ANI’s aggressive tactics tip the scales toward exploitation, though the YouTubers are not entirely blameless.
ANI, as India’s largest news agency, produces a vast archive of video footage, images, and reports that are widely used by media outlets and, increasingly, by digital creators. The agency argues that its content, created through significant effort and resources, is its core commodity. When YouTubers use ANI’s footage without permission, even in small clips, they are engaging in unauthorized commercial activity. Copyright law, both in India and globally, grants content owners the right to control how their work is used, particularly when it generates revenue.
ANI’s position is straightforward: creators who monetize videos containing its footage should pay licensing fees, just as traditional media outlets do. This stance is bolstered by YouTube’s copyright policies, which allow rights holders to issue strikes that can lead to video takedowns or channel terminations after three violations. ANI’s demands for substantial payments to resolve these strikes or grant licenses are, in their view, a fair enforcement of their legal rights.
However, the YouTubers counter that their use of ANI’s footage falls under the doctrine of fair use (or fair dealing in India), which permits limited use of copyrighted material for purposes like commentary, criticism, or education without requiring permission. Mohak Mangal, for instance, has highlighted that one of his videos, a 33-minute analysis supporting India’s Operation Sindoor, was struck for using just nine seconds of ANI footage. Other creators, like Dhruv Rathee, argue that their videos provide transformative commentary, adding significant value through analysis and context, which aligns with fair use principles.
They contend that ANI’s strikes are not about protecting intellectual property but about exploiting YouTube’s opaque copyright system to extract money from creators who lack the resources to fight back legally. The agency’s reported practice of issuing multiple strikes in quick succession, threatening channel deletion, and then offering to resolve the issue for hefty fees has led to accusations of extortion. Influential voices like comedian Kunal Kamra have called for YouTube to ban ANI for “blackmailing creators,” reflecting widespread outrage in the creator community.
To assess who is right, we must first consider the legal and ethical dimensions of fair use. In India, Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, allows for fair dealing in cases of private use, criticism, review, or news reporting. However, the law is ambiguous about what constitutes “fair” use, particularly in terms of the duration or proportion of copyrighted material used. YouTube’s global policies, which govern content on its platform, also recognize fair use but leave it to copyright holders and creators to interpret, creating a gray area.
The YouTubers’ argument that their use of short clips for educational or analytical purposes qualifies as fair dealing has merit, especially when the footage is transformative and not the primary focus of their content. For example, a nine-second clip in a 33-minute video is unlikely to undermine ANI’s commercial interests, particularly when the creator’s work promotes a narrative aligned with national interests, as in Mangal’s case. ANI’s response—demanding millions of rupees or threatening channel termination—seems disproportionate and punitive, suggesting an intent to intimidate rather than protect legitimate business interests.
Yet, the YouTubers are not without fault. Many creators, especially those running monetized channels, may not fully understand or respect the complexities of copyright law. Using ANI’s footage without seeking permission, even in small amounts, can be seen as a cavalier approach to intellectual property, particularly when their videos generate significant ad revenue. ANI’s point that producing high-quality news footage requires substantial investment is valid, and creators who benefit commercially from such content should, in principle, compensate the original producer.
The failure to seek licenses or clarify usage rights beforehand weakens the YouTubers’ position, as it implies a disregard for the legal frameworks that govern content creation. However, the scale of ANI’s demands—fees that far exceed what most independent creators can afford—raises questions about the agency’s motives. If ANI were genuinely interested in fair licensing, it could offer tiered pricing models accessible to smaller creators rather than blanket demands that seem designed to exploit YouTube’s strike system.
The power imbalance between ANI and the YouTubers is a critical factor in this dispute. ANI, with its institutional backing and legal resources, holds significant leverage over individual creators who rely on their channels for their livelihoods. YouTube’s copyright system, which prioritizes the rights holder’s claims and places the burden of proof on the accused, exacerbates this imbalance.
A single strike can demonetize a video, while three strikes can lead to channel termination, a devastating outcome for creators like Mangal, who has 4.16 million subscribers. ANI’s reported strategy of issuing multiple strikes in quick succession, as alleged by creators, suggests a calculated approach to maximize pressure and extract payments. This tactic, combined with the agency’s alleged state backing, as noted in some social media posts, fuels perceptions that ANI is weaponizing its influence to silence voices or profit disproportionately from the creator economy.
The broader implications of this tussle extend beyond the immediate parties. It highlights the vulnerabilities of India’s digital creator economy, which has flourished as a platform for independent voices but remains at the mercy of corporate and legal pressures. The controversy also underscores the need for clearer guidelines on fair use in India, particularly in the digital space, where traditional media and new media often clash. YouTube’s role as a platform is also under scrutiny, as its copyright enforcement mechanisms appear to favor powerful entities over individual creators. The public outcry, amplified by figures like Rathee and Kamra, has sparked calls for legal reform and greater transparency in how copyright claims are handled.
In conclusion, while ANI is within its legal rights to protect its intellectual property, its aggressive tactics and exorbitant demands tip the scales toward exploitation. The YouTubers, while not entirely blameless for using copyrighted material without permission, are justified in arguing that their transformative use of short clips falls under fair dealing and that ANI’s actions threaten creative freedom.
The dispute reveals a deeper systemic issue: the lack of clear, equitable frameworks for resolving copyright conflicts in the digital age. To address this, India needs updated copyright laws that balance the rights of content owners with the creative freedoms of digital creators, and YouTube must reform its strike system to prevent abuse. Until then, this tussle serves as a cautionary tale about the precarious position of independent creators in a landscape dominated by powerful institutions.