Recently, Mohak Mangal, an Indian YouTuber, accused the news agency Asian News International (ANI) of abusing copyright law. He alleged that ANI had slapped copyright strikes on his educational commentary videos for using mere seconds of their news footage. There were already two strikes against his channel, and the third would mean deletion under YouTube’s three-strike rule. Mangal’s team contacted ANI, and they allegedly quoted ₹45-50 lakh to withdraw the strikes and obtain a license for the clips. Beneath this story lies a complex web of Indian copyright law and platform policy. It is a battle about whether a few seconds of news clips in a critical video are covered by the fair-dealing exceptions.

Fair Dealing Exceptions

The issue before the court has been covered by the interpretation of Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Indian law lacks the concept of “fair use” as practised in America. India’s fair-dealing provision is interpreted with considerable laxity, at least when it concerns criticism, review, education, and reporting on current events. Mangal’s videos would lie comfortably within the ambit of such protection. They were not reproductions of ANI’s content but rather journalistic pieces that used small clips as evidentiary materials to explain complex issues. They did not substitute or replicate ANI’s own product in any manner. Moreover, they did not stand alone as a separate means of commercialising ANI’s content.

What do the Indian Courts say?

Indian courts have articulated several principles to help analyse when a ‘use’ falls under the ambit of fair dealing. These include the purpose and character of use, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, the effect of the use on the potential market for original work, and whether the use was made in good faith. In Civic Chandran v. C. Ammini Amma, the Kerala High Court confirmed that the use of copyright content without permission may still fall under the ambit of fair dealing if it is for a critical or transformative purpose. Similarly, in India TV v. Yashraj Films, the Delhi High Court recognised that the usage of songs in an India TV programme does not amount to copyright infringement.

Relevancy in Mangal’s Case

In Mangal’s case, all these factors tilt in his favour. It was a political analysis and social critique. The video duration was minimal, i.e., 9 and 11 seconds in videos of 16 and 38 minutes, respectively. The market impact is non-existent, as no reasonable person would consider Mangal’s videos a substitute for ANI’s raw news reporting. But most importantly, the use was transformative and made in good faith. It has a wider narrative than simply republishing content for the sake of it. If this is not fair dealing, the exception itself would mean nothing.

Yet, ANI’s alleged actions present how copyright law can be used as a tool of intimidation. Demanding amounts in tens of lakhs to retract strikes over such glaringly limited use can never be construed as customary infringement enforcement. ANI may claim it was merely asking for licensing fees. If you really think about it, that claim does not stand true, as the video they seek to claim already has protection as per law. Under Indian copyright law, whenever the use of content falls under fair dealing, the copyright owner cannot ask for any royalties from such use. The moment they make such a demand; they convert legal remedies into commercial bargaining solutions.

Structural Challenges for Creators

On top of the procedural vacuum, problems arise from the automated copyright system on YouTube. The platform’s three-strike policy hurls a devastating blow against the principle of audi alteram partem, especially after the third strike. Once a channel receives three copyright strikes, it only has 7 days before it gets terminated. However, no practical recourse is available to the users during this period. They can either wait 90 days for the strike to expire or ask the claimant to retract it. The first resource is useless anyway, as there are already three strikes. The second resource depends on the claimant’s goodwill because there is no mandate for the claimant to revoke it.

One can file a counter-notification, but legal procedures require time, and there is no guarantee that this issue will be resolved within the seven days. These combined factors leave the aggrieved YouTuber with practically no opportunity to defend themselves. Essentially, these stipulations rob one of their fair hearing in digital content governance.

As an intermediary, YouTube has protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, a platform can only avail that protection when it operates as a neutral system. Once a platform begins enforcing rights without examining the content’s legality or the applicability of fair dealing, it ceases to be neutral. The 2021 Intermediary Guidelines require due diligence, transparency, and speedy resolution of grievances, but these are contradicted the moment creators are silenced without a hearing or having the right to be heard.

Legislative Gaps in Indian Copyright Law

This issue shows the inner depths of an even more serious legislative failure. Indian copyright law, in its current shape, is structurally unable to deal with modern digital, user-driven content creation. Section 52 sets out a narrow and outdated list of uses permitted by law. It does not clearly cover contemporary forms of commentary, reaction videos, memes, or journalistic explainers such as Mangal’s. There is no clear test for transformative use nor a safe harbour for good-faith creators.

The US Copyright Act grants protection to transformative fair use. European frameworks seem to be heading in the direction of balancing copyright versus freedom of expression rights. Meanwhile, Indian copyright law is used to stifle public-interest speech, using rigid statutes and glacial court processes.

Furthermore, no dedicated appellate body exists that can fast-track the resolution of such matters. Traditionally, the Copyright Board used to act as an appellate authority in copyright disputes. However, in 2017, the government established the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), only to be abolished in 2021. With the powers of IPAB transferred to commercial benches of High Courts, this transition has brought with it a few deliberations on whether copyright matters are not efficiently adjudicated under the present system. Most creators simply cannot afford to litigate. Hence, the law practically elevates an aggrieved right-holder to disallow an otherwise justifiable use from putting up any kind of defence.

Final Remarks

The dispute between Mangal and ANI is a textbook case of the erosion of creator rights. It demonstrates that copyright, a promoter of creativity, can be used as a sword to destroy it. It, in turn, reveals that if YouTube’s platform governance goes unchecked, it can act as an automated censorship system. Yet perhaps most damningly, it exposes Indian copyright law’s inadequacies: vague exceptions, no fast-track remedies for creators, and few to no real avenues for redress when these creators become collateral damage struck between more powerful, well-heeled rights-holders.

If India wants to foster digital creators and protect the free expressions of the 21st century, it must reimagine its copyright framework not merely to balance rights but to defend the right to speak, critique, and create.