Connect with us
In focus Magazine March 2025 advertise

Business

ANI’s Controversial Copyright Strikes Against Digital Creators Threatens Free Speech

Published

on

ANI’s Controversial Copyright Strikes Against Digital Creators Threatens Free Speech

In recent weeks, a storm has erupted in India’s digital creator community, placing the country’s largest news agency, Asian News International (ANI), at the heart of a deepening controversy. YouTuber Mohak Mangal, known for his incisive political commentary, has accused ANI of “extortion” after it allegedly demanded Rs 48 lakh plus GST to withdraw a copyright strike against his channel. The strike was issued for a mere nine seconds of ANI footage used in a 33-minute video supporting the Indian Army’s Operation Sindoor, which had amassed over two million views before being removed by YouTube.

Allegations of Extortion and Suppression of Speech

Mangal, in a letter addressed to Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, raised serious concerns about how copyright tools are being misused to silence digital voices. He argued that ANI’s actions go beyond a personal grievance, calling it a threat to creative freedom and India’s burgeoning digital creator economy. The YouTuber also referenced Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 meeting with Indian creators, where he described them as “digital ambassadors” of India. Mangal says that movement is now under threat.

Supporting Mangal’s claims, several other YouTubers have come forward with similar experiences of ANI’s practices. One political commentator, who asked to remain anonymous, revealed that he had to pay up to Rs 18 lakh to ANI to have his copyright strikes revoked. Others cited demands ranging from Rs 15 lakh to over Rs 40 lakh. These creators say they were left with no alternative, given YouTube’s strict three-strike policy which can lead to permanent channel deletion. In most cases, creators were offered only a seven-day window to respond, creating intense pressure to comply with ANI’s financial demands.

YouTube’s Role and the Question of Fair Use

At the center of the controversy lies YouTube’s copyright enforcement system. While YouTube claims to balance the rights of copyright holders with those of creators, the reality appears skewed in favor of corporate entities like ANI. Critics argue that the platform often takes content down before properly evaluating whether it falls under fair use. According to India’s Copyright Act of 1957, fair dealing provisions allow the use of copyrighted material for commentary, reporting, and criticism. Yet, vague laws and YouTube’s reluctance to challenge aggressive claimants like ANI leave creators vulnerable.

When contacted, YouTube reiterated that copyright disputes are not adjudicated by the platform but by courts. However, YouTube does make an initial judgment by removing content and placing the burden of proof on the creator. Meanwhile, ANI defended its actions, stating that enforcing copyright is a legal right and not extortion. The agency said it invests heavily in content production and has every right to license or protect its material. Yet ANI did not deny the specific allegations regarding monetary demands or answer detailed queries about negotiations with creators.

A New Business Model or a Threat to Free Expression?

The situation suggests that ANI may be leveraging YouTube’s enforcement mechanisms as a new source of revenue. For content creators—many of whom are critics of the BJP—this means their livelihoods are at stake. Several have had to choose between paying exorbitant sums or losing their platforms entirely. This has led to broader questions about the power imbalance between legacy media and individual creators in India.

Experts argue that the only way to resolve such disputes fairly is through legal adjudication. But for most creators, this path is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. With ANI’s history of legal aggression—including lawsuits against OpenAI and Wikipedia—many believe YouTube is more inclined to comply with takedown requests than challenge them.

This controversy is more than a copyright dispute. It is a test case for the future of India’s digital media landscape. Whether resolved by policy changes, legal reforms, or creator-led movements, the outcome will shape how content is created, shared, and protected in India for years to come.