New Delhi – 2025
A new wave of discomfort is sweeping through India’s digital creator space as leading YouTubers recount troubling experiences with copyright enforcement. At the centre is a complex debate: are copyright laws being applied to preserve ownership—or to pressure creators into submission?
🎥 The Experience That Sparked a Debate
Policy-focused YouTuber Mohak Mangal, known for his analytical and educational videos, recently shared that his channel received two copyright strikes from Asian News International (ANI) for using short snippets of ANI footage—each less than 15 seconds in length.
Soon after the strikes, ANI allegedly proposed a financial settlement of ₹45 lakh plus GST in exchange for withdrawal. According to Mangal, while the legal basis of the claim wasn’t contested, the approach taken raised eyebrows.
In the course of communication, the representative from ANI reportedly said:
“I don’t usually talk this much to others or give this much time. I’m offering you this deal because I like your content.”
To some, this may sound like a gesture of goodwill. But for others, particularly within the creator community, such selective negotiation language feels eerily strategic—as if goodwill is being used to sweeten a deal that creators are cornered into accepting.
📚 Fair Dealing vs. Fear of Deletion
Under Indian law, the “fair dealing” provision (Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act) allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without permission when used for purposes like:
- Commentary or criticism
- Reporting of current events
- Educational and research content
The creator community argues that these uses often apply to the type of content being targeted—policy explainers, fact-based videos, and news commentary. Yet platform enforcement mechanisms (like YouTube’s three-strike termination rule) often leave little space for legal nuance, making creators vulnerable to takedowns without judicial review.
🔍 A Pattern or a Policy?
What adds to the discomfort is that similar claims are now being echoed by other creators, including Dhruv Ratheeand Nitish Rajput, suggesting this is not an isolated event.
Reports indicate that demands ranging from ₹15 to ₹50 lakh have been made to various creators, with some confirming that they felt forced to pay to protect their channels. There is no suggestion of illegality, but the scale and language of negotiations raise pressing ethical questions.
🧭 The Question India Needs to Ask
Protecting original journalism and content is vital. But in a democratic and digitally participative era, should enforcement come with negotiation tactics that mimic the fear of loss more than the pursuit of justice?
The legal framework may be clear. But the moral framing remains grey.
InTimes India remains committed to examining these gray areas—where law, influence, and digital freedom intersect.
