Indian YouTubers are calling out news agency Asian News International (ANI) for allegedly using YouTube’s copyright strike mechanism not just as a legal safeguard—but as a tool for coercive settlements. The controversy has sparked debate over fair use protections, platform ethics, and the limits of media control in the digital age.
⚠️ The Trigger: Two Strikes, ₹45 Lakh Demand
Public policy educator and YouTuber Mohak Mangal revealed that ANI issued him two copyright strikes for using brief clips—just 11 and 9 seconds long—in two of his informational videos.
According to Mangal, ANI demanded ₹45 lakh plus GST to withdraw those strikes. When he offered alternatives—such as removing the clips or entering a revenue-sharing agreement—ANI declined, insisting on a lump-sum settlement paired with a two-year subscription to their footage.
In a startling phone call, the ANI representative reportedly remarked:
“Oh, only two strikes? We’ve done eight before… others will follow soon.”
For Mangal and others, this felt like a veiled threat—suggesting a pattern of intimidation rather than lawful enforcement.
⚖️ Understanding Fair Use in India
India’s copyright law includes a provision known as fair dealing, equivalent to the global concept of fair use. This allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as:
- Commentary and criticism
- News reporting
- Research and education
Many creators argue that their usage—often under 15 seconds and within a larger analytical or news-oriented context—falls well within these legal protections. Yet the threat of three strikes leading to permanent channel deletion leaves them with little choice but to comply or settle.
📢 Creators Backlash Grows
YouTubers Dhruv Rathee, Nitish Rajput, and others have publicly supported Mangal, describing similar encounters. Reports suggest that demands ranging from ₹15 lakh to ₹50 lakh have been made to other creators as well.
An investigation by The Reporters’ Collective indicates that this may not be an isolated case. Some mid-sized creators have admitted to paying under pressure—raising alarms that copyright law is being used as a financial weapon rather than a protective measure.
💡 Not Just Legal—But Ethical?
While ANI asserts its legal right to protect its content, critics argue that the spirit of copyright law is being distorted. The refusal to consider alternatives, the scale of monetary demands, and the suggestion of further strikes point toward a practice that may be legally sound but ethically fraught.
As more voices rise and the debate grows louder, one question looms large:
In protecting ownership, have we begun to price out integrity?
For more stories on digital rights, free speech, and media law, stay tuned to Wise Khabar.
Leave a Reply