Copyrighted into Silence: The ANI vs. Mohak Case and the Fair Use Debate

INTRODUCTION

On 25th May 2025, a controversy erupted between YouTuber Mr. Mohak Mangal and Asian News International (ANI), after Mr. Mohak alleged that ANI is misusing YouTube copyright strikes to target independent creators and subsequently demand hefty sums for withdrawal of that strikes. He claimed that ANI defamed and then demanded an exorbitant licensing fee of ₹45–50 lakhs after striking his video for using brief news clips of 9–11 seconds related to the RG Kar rape case and Operation Sindoor.

According to Mangal, these clips qualified as fair dealing under Indian copyright law as they were utilized for comments and analysis. The issue has prompted renewed examination of India’s fair use legislation and copyright enforcement practices in digital domains. The matter has since moved from public controversy into formal litigation: ANI filed a civil suit against Mangal in the Delhi High Court, characterizing his allegations as defamatory, and the Court, at an early hearing, reportedly directed him to remove portions of his video that cast ANI's conduct in a negative light. The dispute is therefore no longer confined to YouTube's enforcement mechanism alone

What is Fair use in Indian Legislation?

In India, the “Fair use” or “Fair dealing” are exceptions or defenses to the copyright infringement under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 which allows the limited use of copyrighted work without the permission of copyright holder and such use cannot be amount to copyright infringement. However, the law does not prescribe any fixed threshold or specific duration of content that may be used, leaving the determination to be assessed on a case-to-case basis. The test for copyright infringement should be Qualitative and not Quantitative as what matters the most is copied part is an essential or substantial part or not irrespective of its quantity Even a minimal replication can amount to infringement if it represents the core or central substance of the work. For example, copying a small extract of a book may still amount to an infringement if that extract contains substantial part of the work. Thus, the intent of the user, the purpose for which the work is used, amount and the impact it causes to the original copyright holder is to be seen which is a flexible framework but does not offer predictability for automated strikes or takedowns faced by the digital content creators.

The general public is often under misconception that using just a few seconds of a video amounts it to protection under fair use. For instance, the theme clip of 20th Century Fox Studios is only about 15–16 seconds long so even the use of 5–6 seconds would amount to copying the theme in its entirety if that segment represents the essence or the “heart” of the work and constitute copyright infringement.

CONTENT ID SYSTEM

To fully grasp what happened in Mr. Mohak Mangal case, it is necessary to examine  both the legal framework of copyright law and the functioning of  YouTube’s Content ID system.

The issue lies in the manner the  Content ID functions on YouTube. It is an algorithmic mechanism that compares uploaded content against copyrighted material and offers rights holders the option to block, monetize, or track them. Meant to benefit creators, it has a propensity to identify even short, legitimate uses, so one must first understand how it works. Content ID System is an automated digital fingerprint system which checks every uploaded video from the database of the copyrighted works submitted by the copyright holders. Content owners like ANI can automatically use this method to block, track and remove the content which exploit the contents of the copyrighted works without any human intervention. However, this system comes with its own set of issues. The system does not recognize the “Fair dealing” principle, which refers to the permitted use of the copyrighted material without authorization for purposes such as criticism, review, or research, which is globally recognized exception in Copyright. Content ID system has its limits as it was designed to address the difficulties in enforcement of copyright in their site.

CASE LAWS ON FAIR DEALING

Indian courts have been pragmatic in their treatment of fair dealing. For instance, they have declared in its favor, while in others, they are against it. This indicates that the judiciary does not adopt a uniform approach but rather applies their judgment in each case depending on its specific context and facts.

Justice Rajgopala Ayyangar in M/s. Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v A. N. Parasuraman, a case concerning unauthorized reproduction of academic material has talked about 2 points when interpreting “fair” in “fair dealing”:

1.     That to constitute an unfair use, there must be an intention to compete and commercially benefit from so doing; and

2.     That where the user's motive is not unethical or fraudulent, the use could still be fair.

In India TV v. Yashraj Films, which involved the use of copyrighted film songs in news broadcasts, the Delhi Court initially decided that the use of film songs on news programs wasn’t fair dealing. This was, however, reversed on appeal by applying the legal doctrine of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles

Delhi High Court in the case of Super Cassettes v. Hamar TV, a dispute relating to the broadcast of short clips of copyrighted songs, held that even 10–40-second clips are an infringement if they have managed to capture the essence of the work because an attempt at fair dealing is being made both in quantity and qualitative value. In protecting the owners of copyrights, in practice it has meant enforcement being more stringent on platforms like YouTube, where videos are typically taken down for short uses without taking into account fair dealing purposes such as criticism or reporting the news. This approach was intended to balance the rights of the copyright holders. On one hand it strengthened the protection of the works while on other hand its strict applicant can go against use for fair purposes and independent content creators as well. Thus, legally it is a way forward but practically it is a step backwards.

In Wiley Eastern Ltd. v. IIM, a case concerning the preparation and distribution of course material by an educational institution through reproduction of copyrighted works, in order to protect the freedom of expression protected by Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution, the court determined that Section 52 should be used for research, private study, criticism or review, or reporting of current events.

Reproducing of a ‘substantial part’ of a work for copyright without authorization is infringement. Although the Copyright Act, 1957 does not define the term ‘substantial’ itself, the judicial precedents clarify how to assess whether a part is substantial or not. This can be seen in the case Orient Longman Limited v. Inderjeet Anand.

In the case of ESPN Star Sports v Global Broadcast New Ltd. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat held:

“As observed in Vosper, whenever a court has to see whether a particular conduct is fair dealing or not, the context, the length of the original work borrowed, and the purpose, can never be ignored. No universal rule or standard exists; cases have to be decided on the peculiar facts. What may be unfair in one context may be perfectly fair in another and vice versa. There is a certain amount of elusiveness in evolving a thumb rule”.

In Civic Chandran v Ammini Amma Kerela High Court observed that

Fair use is not defined in the Copyright Act, but it is normally restricted to quotations or extracts and not to substantial or major reproduction of a work. The quantum allowed depends on the facts of each case and there is no rule of thumb to apply. The courts consider the amount taken and its relative significance in the context of purpose, i.e., review or criticism. Such wide discretion has the effect of loading the dice for copyright owners against genuine fair use.

Indian courts have adopted a contextual and liberal approach to fair dealing, considering each case on its specific facts and not in terms of a rigid standard. Through a series of path-breaking judgments, the courts have demanded that factors such as purpose, intent, the amount of content copied, and the broader constitutional goal of protecting freedom of expression, must be balanced carefully. This evolving and fact-sensitive interpretation allows for a harmonious protection of the rights of copyright holders and the public interest.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Indian courts may also adopt interpretative guidance  for clearer framework from various jurisdictions like USA to reduce uncertainty for creators and users. For instance four factor test of USA’s Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 1976 interpretation can be incorporated in Indian courts as well i.e. (i) the purpose and the character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (ii) the nature of the copyrighted work; (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (iv) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Although these tests are recognized and used, Indian courts need to consistently adopt these in their copyright fair use decisions.

Ground realities

India’s current regime of fair dealing in Section 52 is goal-oriented but lacks specific guidelines on limits of usage, especially in digital world. This loophole has real-world consequences like Indian YouTubers who create parodies or commentary get their strikes even when no copyrighted material was involved. One such creator, who parodied the PewDiePie vs. T-Series struggle, got flagged despite not involving T-Series musical content. Likewise, Comedian Mr. Kunal Kamra was given a strike on a 45-minute political parody, prompting him to caution that this is a blow to freedom of creative expression.

ASSESSING COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

The Mohak Mangal, ANI controversy indicates a critical gap between the practice of copyright enforcement reality and protection of law in fair dealing under Indian law. While the YouTube Content ID system is a satisfactory technology-driven solution for large copyright holders to track unauthorized use, it is used disproportionately against smaller creators who may be using such material lawfully for comment, analysis, or news reporting. Courts emphasized that intent, purpose, and qualitative value of the part taken should be considered, but algorithms enforce copyright one-size-fits-all, striking even short, legitimate uses. This has enabled large institutions to exploit copyright strikes, not to protect creativity, but to silence smaller creators and collect massive settlements. ANI’s actions are a part of a broader trend already apparent in India, where firms like T-Series have consistently made aggressive strikes against parody and commentary channels, routinely silencing content that should be protected. These incidents illustrate how copyright enforcement, far from balancing right and expression, is increasingly used to silence independent voices in digital space.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE

In today’s digital world a more balanced and transparent measures are needed in order to address the issue in question. For instance, more precise statutory criteria may be incorporated under Section 52 of the Act through targeted amendments, specifically addressing works that are widely disseminated and accessed in digital formats like short clips, social media context, You Tube shorts etc. Such amendments should highlight how much of the use for any permissible purposes shall fall under fair use criteria thereby making it easier for creators and users to determine what qualifies as fair use.

The Mohak Mangal–ANI case is one instance of the necessity for India to modernize its copyright law to align with digital realities. Section 52 must be amended such that it provides greater clarity regarding the use of brief extracts and social media posts, so that comment, criticism, and reporting are effectively addressed. Likewise, policy like human review of Content ID automated strikes and abuse fines must be implemented such that large players cannot use copyright law to suppress independent creators.

CONCLUSION

The Mohak Mangal-ANI case is merely a symptom of growing tension between technologically enforced copyright protection systems like YouTube’s Content ID feature and Indian copyright law’s context-dependent, adaptive fair dealing regime. Indian law permits exceptions to commentary, criticism, and public interest, but rigid enforcement of digital enforcement systems disregards such safeguards. Indian courts have been dynamic and adaptive fair dealing interpreters, emphasizing purpose, intent, and amount of use in the case in front of them. As digital content production continues to expand, the balance of intellectual property rights protection and the constitutional value of free expression becomes even more important.

Author: Arya Bhatt, is a fifth year student at Dharmashastra National Law University ( DNLU), Jabalpur, MP.