Introduction
When news agency ANI (Asian News International) began issuing copyright strikes en masse against small‐ and mid-sized YouTube creators, it set off alarm bells in India’s digital content community. What started with Mohak Mangal’s refusal to pay ₹45 lakhs plus GST to revoke a strike has revealed a broader pattern—one in which ANI appears to leverage copyright law to extract hefty sums from creators. This investigation examines the known cases, unpacks the legal framework, hears from experts, and highlights the risks facing online journalists and vloggers.
1. The Players & the Pattern
1.1 ANI at a Glance
Founded: 1971
Specialty: Video news wire service, supplying footage to TV channels, websites, and social media.
Reach: Hundreds of millions of viewers; footage licensed globally.
1.2 Emerging Trend
Over the past year, multiple YouTubers have reported:
Automated copyright strikes for using short clips (often under 10 seconds) of ANI footage.
Demand letters quoting anywhere from ₹15 to ₹45 lakhs (plus GST) to withdraw those strikes.
Channel-kill threat: Nonpayment would lead to permanent channel suspension under YouTube’s three-strike policy.
2. Who’s Been Affected? Case Files
| Creator |
Copyright Strikes |
Demanded Amount (₹) |
Status |
| Mohak Mangal |
Multiple |
₹45,00,000 + GST |
Refused to Pay |
| Sumit |
Multiple |
₹15–18 Lakh |
Paid to Save Channel |
| Unnamed YouTubers |
Various |
₹15–25 Lakh (Quoted) |
Unknown |
| Industry Reports |
Various |
Up to ₹40 Lakh |
Reported by Sources |
All figures approximate; based on creator interviews and industry insiders.
3. Legal Framework in India
3.1 The Indian Copyright Act, 1957
Protected Works: ‘Cinematograph films’ (which include news footage).
Exclusive Rights: Reproduction, communication to the public, and adaptation.
3.2 Fair Dealing Exceptions
Permitted Uses: Criticism, review, reporting current events, education.
Loophole: Unlike the U.S. “fair use” doctrine, India’s “fair dealing” is narrowly defined (e.g., for criticism or review), with no clear quantitative guidelines on permissible clip length.
3.3 YouTube’s Strike System
Three Strikes: Third valid strike → channel termination.
Automated Enforcement: Content ID and manual takedowns both trigger strikes.
4. Ethical & Regulatory Questions
1. Is ANI Abusing Its Market Power?
By demanding sums far beyond typical licensing fees for short clips.
2. Are YouTubers’ Rights Being Trampled?
Many creators argue their use qualifies as “reporting current events.”
3. Government Influence?
Unverified claims suggest ANI may be pressured to suppress critical voices under the current administration.
5. Industry Expert Perspectives
Dr. Asha Menon, Media Law Scholar:
“Indian law needs urgent clarification on fair dealing. Without quantifiable limits, large rights-holders can easily intimidate smaller creators.”
Rajiv Kapoor, YouTube Adviser:
“Platforms must offer an independent review process beyond Content ID. Otherwise, moneyed agencies can weaponize strikes.”
6. Broader Context: ANI vs. OpenAI
ANI’s high-stakes lawsuit against OpenAI for using its footage to train AI models underscores a global fight over digital rights. OpenAI contends its training falls within fair use; ANI insists on licensing fees. The outcome may set precedents for both AI and social-media copyright disputes.
7. Implications for Creators & News Outlets
Risk of Chilling Effect: Fear of strikes may deter analysts and citizen journalists from using even tiny news snippets.
Call for Reform: A clear “safe harbor” for genuine news commentary and educational use, with statutory limits on clip length.
Platform Solutions: YouTube (and rivals) should implement a fast-track arbitration panel for disputed strikes.
8. Recommendations
1. Legal Clarification: Parliament should amend the Copyright Act to define “fair dealing” more precisely for news content.
2. Transparent Pricing: News agencies could publish standard rates for clip use under 10 seconds.
3. Independent Appeals: YouTube must bolster its dispute resolution to protect small creators.
4. Collective Action: Creators should form alliances (e.g., a “Creators’ Guild”) to push for fair policy.
Conclusion
The ANI strike saga is more than a few YouTubers’ headaches—it signals a collision between legacy media’s content rights and the digital public’s right to critique, educate, and discuss. As India’s online voices grow, policymakers, platforms, and rights-holders must ensure copyright protection does not become a tool for censorship. The News Drill will continue to monitor and report on these developments—because in the digital age, the struggle over who owns the narrative is the fight for our collective future.
