Realigning Intermediary obligations and Licensing clarity in the wake of ANI’s Takedown Campaign

August 26, 2025
admin
Licensing

What happens when copyright enforcement becomes a weapon, not a safeguard? In the digital world where content is created, consumed, and critiqued within seconds, the recent copyright strikes by Asian News International (‘ANI’) along with the consequent deletion of several YouTube channels, expose two grey areas in India’s digital media regulation.

While fair-dealing, de minimis use, and free expression have been widely discussed, this article focuses on two underexplored concerns.[1] First, the mismatch between the statutory intermediary liability safeguards and the automated enforcement models employed by YouTube and second, the ambiguities surrounding the fair dealing exception which leave creators vulnerable despite legal protections.

Intermediary Safeguards in India and Platform enforcement mismatch

The term “Intermediary” denotes an entity which facilitates the transmission of content between the originator (creator) and the recipient (end user) over digital networks.[2] Intermediaries like YouTube are granted protection from liability for user-generated content under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’).[3]

This statutory shield is however conditional. Intermediaries must follow due process and only act upon official legal orders by courts. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[4] which clarified that intermediaries may remove content only after receiving an order from court or government, thereby safeguarding online expression.[5]

Further clarity was introduced with the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act of 1957 (the “Act”). A “safe harbour” clause was inserted under Section 52(1)(c) of the Act.[6] It permits intermediaries like YouTube to temporarily remove infringing content for 21 days, during which the onus is on the copyright holder to get an order from the court proving infringement. Failing this, intermediary is legally permitted to reinstate the content.[7]

Despite these safeguards, YouTube continue to enforce copyright claims via automated takedown systems like Content ID [8] and adheres to a three-strike policy as per the requirements of U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’). These private claim-driven mechanisms operate without judicial oversight effectively overlook the statutory protections under Indian law. It undermines legislative intent and fosters an environment where express takedown of content, is the new normal.

Unequal Impact on Creators and Grey areas in Fair Dealing

When YouTube puts the rights of copyright holders above creators, content is taken down automatically whereas appeals by creators are human-driven and time taking. The three-strike rule allows channels to be deleted if three claims are made in a row.

Only seven days are left with the creators to challenge the decision, which is often insufficient and puts the channel at immediate risk. This disproportionate system empowers copyright holders with significant leverage, leaving creators exposed to the irreversible consequences.[9]

Indian law, under section 52 of the Copyright Act, provides a statutory defence known as “Fair dealing.” It excludes from infringement works used for purposes such as private purposes, critique, research or reporting of recent happenings.[10] However, the provision lacks specific thresholds such as permissible duration of clips or quantitative use limits, leading to subjective interpretation.

Several YouTubers reported received copyright strikes for clips lasting less than 10 seconds.[11] In the absence of clarity, such decisions are left to the courts often resulting in inconsistent outcomes. In comparable foreign jurisprudence, courts have required copyright holders to establish demonstrable economic harm to succeed in takedown actions.[12] Requirement for such evidence could be a valuable consideration for Indian courts evaluating future disputes of this nature.

Adding to the concern are ANI’s reported practices of demanded lump-sum amounts ranging from 15,00,000-50,00,000/- from creators.[13] Discrepancies in the pricing between creators and absence of standard licensing norms indicating lack of objectivity can raise concerns under competition law, under the doctrine of abuse of dominant position.[14]

Ultimately, the removal of content that would likely fall under fair dealing restricts the right to freedom of speech and expression. ANI’s ability to extract money by leveraging legal ambiguities reflects a systemic imbalance in the copyright regime.

Proposals for Legal Reform

To realign intermediary conduct with Indian law, platforms should be mandated to act only upon the orders of government or courts, as envisioned under section 52(1)(c) of the Act. Had YouTube followed this structure, the “three-strike” policy would not exist and the right holders like ANI would have been compelled to seek judicial remedies. Given the high cost of litigation, ANI would have been restrained in its demands leading to reasonable negotiations instead of unilateral and coercive ones.[15]

Additionally, there is a compelling need for the government to publish clear fair dealing guidelines. These may include quantitative indicators such as clip length, percentage of use and transformative use to guide creators, copyright holders and courts.

Finally, standardised licensing norms ensuring fairness and non-discrimination must be implemented. Regulatory oversight of licensing practices by dominant players, can ensure content’s access to independent creators and journalists.

The ANI-Mohak Mangal dispute is not merely private dispute; it is a symptom of broader regulatory shortfalls. Statutory safeguards are circumvented by automated enforcement policies. At the same time, exceptions like fair use, though well intentioned, lack the clarity required to ensure predictable outcomes.

To restore balance between copyrights and freedom of expression, government must reaffirm its legislative commitments by ensuring that intermediaries do not override the law. Equally, the licensing norms should also be democratized. Only then, it is possible for the digital news ecosystem to serve public interest rather than private purposes.

Author: Samskruthi Yadav Kurra, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD.

[1]“Tanishka Goswami, Copyright Strikes? ANI-time! Disappearing Free Speech in the Copyright and Broadcasting World (May.30, 2025) https://spicyip.com/2025/05/copyright-strikes-ani-time-disappearing-free-speech-in-the-copyright-and-broadcasting-world.html (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[2] Tariq Khan, Safe Harbours: A Mirage of Intermediary Protection (Oct.21, 2020) https://www.rsrr.in/post/safe-harbours-a-mirage-of-intermediary protection#:~:text=The%20safe%20harbour%20exempts%20intermediaries,a%20reasonable%20span%20of%20time (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[3] The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 § 79.

[4] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2105 SC 5213.

[5] Bhumika Sharma & Smita Pandey, From Safe Harbor to Watchdog: Section 79 of the IT Act & Controversy over fact check units (Sept.25, 2024) https://www.mondaq.com/india/it-and-internet/1521872/from-safe-harbor-to-watchdog-section-79-of-the-it-act-controversy-over-fact-check-units (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[7] “Prashant Reddy T, ANI vs Creators: Why is YouTube ignoring ‘safe harbour’ provisions in Indian law? (May.26, 2025)https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/05/26/ani-vs-creators-why-is-youtube-ignoring-safe-harbour-provisions-in-indian-law (last visited June 22^nd, 2025); Rupali Samuel, Shreya Singal v. Union of India: Part II-Copyright Infringement and Intermediary Liability (April.2, 2015) https://spicyip.com/2015/04/shreya-singal-v-union-of-india-part-ii-copyright-infringement-and-intermediary-liability.html (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[8] Arushi Bhagotra & Ananth Krishna S, Copyright Strikes and Fair Use: What Mohak Mangal v. ANI Reveals(May.27, 2025) https://swarajyamag.com/legal/copyright-strikes-and-fair-use-what-mohak-mangal-v-ani-reveals (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[9] Gajanan Rajput, YouTubers vs ANI: The Escalating Battle over copyright strikes and Alleged extortion tactics (May.26, 2025) https://medium.com/@rajputgajanan50/9a914c53b4df (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[10] The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, No.27 of 2012, § 52; Sohini Ghosh, ANI vs YouTube content creator case: How Delhi High Court may draw a line on ‘fair dealing’ in India (June.13, 2025) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/ani-youtube-copyright-10061049/ (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).”

[11]“Ayushi Kar, ANI Finds Business Niche in Copyright Claims Against YouTubers (May.19, 2025) https://www.reporters-collective.in/trc/ani-finds-business-niche-in-copyright-claims-against-youtubers(last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[12] Aklovya Panwar, Generative AI and Copyright Issues Globally: ANI Media v Open AI (Jan.8, 2025) https://www.techpolicy.press/generative-ai-and-copyright-issues-globally-ani-media-v-openai/ (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[13] Minakshi Bindhani, What Indian Copyright Law Says: Mohak Manal Accuses ANI of Extortion over YouTube Strikes, Urges Government Action (May.26, 2025) https://lawchakra.in/legal-updates/copyright-law-mohak-mangal-accuses-ani/#:~:text=ANI’s%20Argument%3A,across%20multiple%20videos%20without%20permission (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[14] Dhananjay Bhattacharya, Copyright vs. Competition: When News Strikes become a strike against Fair Play (May.28,2025)https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/copyright-vs-competition-when-news-strikes-become-bhattacharya-kvffc/ (last visited June 22^nd, 2025).

[15] Prashant Reddy T supra note 7.”