By Shilpi Saurav Sharan and Nitika Sinha
In today’s fast-paced digital landscape, where content is constantly shared, reused, and remixed, a recent legal dispute between Asian News International (ANI) and YouTuber Mohak Mangal has brought renewed focus to how Indian copyright law applies online. At the core is a simple but significant question: can short clips from news broadcasts be used in commentary videos on platforms like YouTube without the content owner’s permission?
The case goes beyond a disagreement between a media house and a creator. It highlights the loosely defined fair-dealing exception and the de minimis doctrine in the spotlight. At stake is the balance between protecting creative rights and allowing commentary, critique, and current affairs reporting in the digital age.
Allegations
ANI’s Use of YouTube’s Copyright Tools
ANI, as the owner of the content in question, initiated takedowns through YouTube’s automated copyright enforcement system. While the tool exists to safeguard intellectual property, it has also sparked debate over its vulnerability to overreach and misuse.
Mohak Mangal was issued two copyright strikes—one related to a video covering the Kolkata rape case and another concerning Operation Sindoor—both involving brief clips sourced from ANI’s footage. He is not alone; other content creators have reported similar takedowns, often accompanied by steep licensing fee demands, reportedly ranging from ₹15 lakh to ₹48 lakh, with the threat of channel deletion if they did not comply.
The Pressure of YouTube’s Three-Strike Rule
YouTube’s content policy enforces a strict three-strike rule: if a channel receives three copyright strikes within a 90-day window, it faces permanent removal. This framework places immense pressure on digital creators, whose livelihoods and audiences can vanish overnight. For individuals and media businesses alike, it underscores the importance of navigating content usage carefully and being fully aware of the platform’s copyright enforcement processes.
ANI initiated two legal cases: one in a Delhi trial court (copyright and trademark infringement) and another at the Delhi High Court (defamation, trademark disparagement). [1]
Mohak’s Defence: Fair Dealing and De Minimis
Mangal contends that his use falls squarely within the fair-dealing exception under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, applicable for criticism, review, or reporting current affairs.
Additionally, he invokes the *de minimis* principle—suggesting that such brief, non-commercial clips should not warrant legal scrutiny. [2]
Courts in India apply fair dealing on a factual basis, considering:
- Purpose and nature of use (e.g. reporting current events)
- Amount and substantiality of the material used
- Economic impact on the original content producer
In TV Today Network v. News Laundry,[3] the Delhi High Court permitted limited excerpts for critique, noting no malice, brief use, and public interest value.
De Minimis: Small but Powerful
Although not statutorily codified in the Copyright Act, de minimis (“law does not care for trifles”) is often invoked when the usage is so minor that it won’t impact the original work.
In Mangal’s case, he used mere seconds of content within longer critical videos, bolstering his argument that it pales in comparison to the whole. Indian courts typically assess de minimis by evaluating harm, adjudication costs, intent, and third-party effects
Court Developments to Date
- Defamation: The Delhi High Court ordered Mangal to remove allegedly disparaging remarks from his “Dear ANI” video, directing him to adjust it within 24 hours during the defamation case.
- Copyright/Trademark: ANI’s infringement case in Delhi trial court is ongoing, with courts now examining whether Mangal’s use was infringing or justified under fair dealing and de minimis.
- Platform Take-downs: Mangal contested YouTube’s DMCA-based removal, arguing that it bypasses Indian exceptions and was unjust/fraudulent.
Interim Orders, Lasting Questions
The Delhi High Court’s interim order—directing Mohak Mangal to remove allegedly defamatory portions of his video—tilts in ANI’s favor for now. However, the larger questions around copyright, fair dealing, and the de minimis principle remain unresolved. Crucially, the court’s stance signals a growing judicial willingness to weigh reputational harm and trademark concerns alongside copyright claims in the digital space.
Rather than settling the core issues, this development intensifies the tension between creative expression and intellectual property enforcement. The case exposes the urgent need for clearer legal standards on fair dealing in India—especially as short clips increasingly form the backbone of public commentary, critique, and reporting.
It also spotlights how global takedown mechanisms, like YouTube’s DMCA-based system, may sidestep domestic legal protections, placing disproportionate power in the hands of rights holders and platforms.
As the case unfolds, it could set a pivotal precedent for India’s digital media ecosystem—determining not just the boundaries of lawful reuse, but the very future of critical, independent commentary in a platform-dominated world.
Feba Sara Vinu, Former Junior Associate at S.S.Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[2]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-dispute-turns-copyright-litigation-iiwoc/
[3] [CS(COMM) 551/2021]