Of late, private news agency Asian News International (“ANI”) has established its presence in the realm of copyright litigation through its involvement in the OpenAI case (discussed here). The instant case, however, throws open the Pandora’s box, and takes the discussion beyond proprietary rights to Constitutional freedoms. Earlier highlighted by the Reporters’ Collective, and now by a viral video uploaded by YouTuber Mohak Mangal (with more than 6 million views as of 30 May 2025), an aggressive ANI business strategy that has been targeted towards several creators is in the news.
Leveraging YouTube’s copyright policies, the news agency has not only been sending copyright strikes to creators for their use of clips originally published/uploaded by ANI, but has also been notoriously demanding exorbitant sums (as high as Rs. 50 lakhs) to withdraw them. These copyright policies are not without problems. As highlighted by Prashant Reddy here, YouTube’s “three-strike policy” for copyright infringement disregards the “safe harbor” provision under the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 52(1)(c)). By placing itself in the shoes of an adjudicator, and deleting entire channels of content creators, YouTube has been completely abdicating its obligation to take down the infringing content for merely twenty-one days, within which time, the copyright-owner has to secure an order establishing infringement. In the instant case, Mangal has also revealed how ANI pressurised him and other creators to purchase the agency’s annual subscription as part of the “deal” to avoid the deletion of their channels by YouTube. Quite funnily, after a defamation case was filed by ANI against Mangal, the Delhi HC has directed him to remove the words “hafta vasooli” to describe this “business” strategy!
The ethics of this fiasco aside, there are some spicy copyright questions that we need to address here: one, are Mangal and other creators protected by the de minimis defence in their use? Two, are the news bytes in question “works”, or otherwise even protected under the Copyright Act, 1957? Three, how does the fair dealing exception, in the context of broadcasting rights and copyright, come into play? Lastly, what are the implications of these developments on citizens’ right to disseminate and access information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? Who gets to report news, and why is this relevant for copyright and free speech?
These questions may be probed extensively on their own merits; I limit myself to presenting a bird’s eye view here.
Talking Facts: How does De Minimis Help Creators?
Every Second Matters in a Copyright Claim?
The copyright strikes sent by ANI have targeted creators’ usages of their news clips stretching only a few seconds (9-11 seconds in Mangal’s case, 4 seconds in Mahesh Keshwala‘s case) even if such use was in long-form videos. In India TV Independent News Service v Yashraj Films (2012), the Division Bench of the Delhi HC laid down a five-factor test for determining the application of the de minimis defence in case of derivative works (protection of derivative works discussed in DB Modak). While recognizing how copyright law “invites the maximum trivial violations”, the Court noted the following factors in applying the de minimis defence: (i) size and type of harm; (ii) cost of adjudication; (iii) purpose of violated legal obligation; (iv) effect on the legal rights of third parties; and (v) intent of the wrongdoer.
Mangal’s use of the ANI news clips of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s speech in the backdrop of Operation Sindoor (9 seconds), and of women protesting in the streets of Kolkata after the horrific rape case in the city (11 seconds), as part of informational longform videos on these national issues might be protected by the de minimis defence. Firstly, apart from the short durations of these clips, the intent with which they were inserted was clearly not to infringe. The intent is rather to comment on these national developments, highlight citizen concerns, and suggest solutions.
Secondly, we may draw a parallel with the India TV judgment – here, the use of the words “mera chain wain sab ujda” (five words out of five stanzas) from the popular song Kajra Re (Bunty aur Babli) in a consumer awareness advertisement was found to be de minimis since “an ordinary viewer would remember the advertisement for its socially educative trust and not the song used.” Similarly, both of Mangal’s videos would stick with the audience for their multi-faceted analyses of the underlying issues, and not the ANI clips. Thirdly, in contrast to how the defendants in IndiaTV creatively employed the opening line of Kajra Re to develop their advertisement, Mangal and other creators did not base their videos on the ANI clips – they were used as mere representations of facts. Hence, if meaningful engagement with the lyrics can be found to be de minimis based on the trivial size of the harm, would non-creative use of a few seconds of news bytes not be protected similarly?
Wait a Minute: Are News Bytes Copyrightable at all?
It cannot be dismissed that the alleged violation, i.e., infringement of copyright held by ANI in its news clips, brought about financial gain to Mangal. However, it is even more pertinent to ask – what is the subject-matter of copyright here? As a private news agency, ANI provides “loosely edited news feeds”, “radio bytes”, and “streamed multimedia” among other products to newspapers, websites, magazines, and radio stations. Since a “work” under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957 includes literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works; cinematograph films, and sound recordings, ANI’s “news bytes” or collected “news footage” are arguably excluded from this ambit.
In Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v Star India (2013), the Delhi High Court emphasized that creation of exclusive/quasi-property rights in information would stand to tamper with the balance created by the Copyright statute. Hence, the Court found no proprietary rights of the plaintiff over the facts and information in question (events of a cricket match). In a similar vein, ANI cannot be said to hold a proprietary interest over the facts and information comprised in the contested news clips.
In The Press Trust of India Ltd. v Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) (2012), the PTI had argued that its reporters “contribute their skill, labor and intellectual capital to create and send the news items” for publication. Following this, the Delhi HC recognized the PTI’s copyright in news articles authored by its employees, and issued a permanent injunction restraining copying of the same. However, in the instant case, the material in question includes “news bytes” that comprise facts and information devoid of any modicum of creativity or artistic value. These bytes are not literary works involving skill or judgment of authors. Hence, I argue that there exists no copyright in the news clips in contention.
Of what rights then, can ANI allege violation under the Act? Section 37 of the Act provides broadcast reproduction rights to “every broadcasting organization” in respect of its broadcasts for twenty-five years. The term “broadcast” is defined in Section 2(dd) to include “communication to the public” by means of wireless diffusion (in the forms of signs, sounds, or visual images). “Communication to the public”, in turn, includes making any work/performance available for being seen or heard directly, or through any means of “display or diffusion” (Section 2(ff)). Re-broadcasting, making sound/visual recordings or reproductions of such broadcasts without licence amounts to infringement of the right under Section 37. Even if we consider ANI as holding broadcast reproduction rights in respect of its news bytes, any finding of infringement is subject to Section 39 of the Act. The following segment delves deeper into this.
Fair Dealing to the Rescue
We may examine the applicability of fair dealing from two perspectives: one, from the lens of broadcasting rights; and two, from the lens of fair dealing of copyrightable works.
Non-infringing Use under Section 39
In TV Today Network Ltd. v Newslaundry Media Pvt. Ltd. (2022), the Delhi HC noted that communication of “sounds and visual images”, whether through TV channels, or through YouTube, constitutes “communication to the public”. The Court recognized how the “first broadcaster” in such cases is not only vested with the reproduction rights of such content, but also entitled to the same protection against unauthorized reproduction, as is available to literary/dramatic/musical/artistic works. Hence, such underlying content can subsequently be reproduced only by obtaining a licence.
If ANI is considered the “first broadcaster” of the news bytes, making “visual recordings” of its broadcasts (Section 37(3)(d)), or reproducing such visual recordings without licence (Section 37(3)(e)) would constitute an infringement of its broadcasting rights. “Visual recordings” in turn, include “moving images or the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated by any method.” Section 39(b) defines fair dealing in this context. This provision safeguards “the use, consistent with fair dealing” of excerpts of a broadcast, in the “reporting of current events”, or for “bona fide review, teaching or research”. To see if Mangal’s usage of the ANI clips constituted fair dealing, the test in Media Works NZ Ltd. v Sky Television Network Ltd. (2007) may be relied upon. Herein, the following conditions were stated: one, the extract used must be brief; and two, this length must be considered in the backdrop of the length of the recording in question. Relying on the same, the Delhi HC in ESPN Sports v Global Broadcast News Ltd. (2008) observed that usage of extensive or “exhaustive use” of the broadcasting footage that affects the commercial viability of the broadcaster’s original reproduction does not amount to fair use. However, not only have creators been targeted for brief usages (4-9-11 seconds) of the ANI clips here, they have not engaged exhaustively with such content so as to affect ANI’s commercial prospects. Hence, they are protected by Section 39.
Fair Dealing under Section 52
The Delhi HC acknowledged in Wiley Eastern Ltd. v. Indian Institute of Management (1995) that the fundamental object of section 52 is to safeguard the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This freedom encompasses citizens’ “right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources”. Hence, if we consider the ANI news clips as works for the sake of argument, fair dealing with them for the purpose of research, criticism, review, and the reporting of current events is protected.
In Super Casettes Industries Ltd. v Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (2010), the Delhi HC recognized the need for a liberal approach in ascertaining what constitutes reportage of current events, as well as criticism or review under Sections 52(1)(a)(ii) and 52(1)(a)(iii). Hence, the works produced by Mangal and other creators may very well find identity as reportage/criticism/reviews. Going a step further, in applying the four-factor test of determining “fair use”, we find: one, that the purpose and character of the use is informational, even though it led to commercial gains for the creators through monetization; two, the “work” in question comprises merely facts available in the public domain; three, the amount of the portion used in relation to the work as a whole is significantly small; and four, such use has little bearing upon the potential market or value of the news clips.
Who Report News: Exclusivity of Information, and Exclusivity of Speech?
Placing the infringement issue aside for a while, we must spare a thought on how ANI has unrivalled and unparalleled access to the government’s events, conferences, and activities. As noted by Newslaundry, as a private agency, ANI enjoys an “undisputed monopoly” over the “business of news”. This indicates restrictions on citizens’ access to, and use of information that should find a place in the public domain owing to its very nature. One may ask – when the dissemination of “newsworthy” information from cricket matches is found protected under Article 19(1)(a) as a part of free speech (Star India Pvt. Ltd. v Piyush Agarwal), how can “news” gathered from government ministers, covering issues of national importance and the like be made exclusive? Further, what is the process followed to restrict such access to one agency? Hence, if the copyright statute is interpreted as enabling and enforcing such monopolistic access of material that is not even copyrightable in the first place, there is a glaring assault on the fundamental right to disseminate and receive information. Further, it can lead to the creation of an unregulated “market in news”, where copyright laws are weaponized against independent creators.
I am sure the readers are noticing the bizarreness of the current situation – we are staring at the forcible grant of licenses (Section 31) at an unreasonable fee, by an agency that seeks to hold proprietary interest in news and facts that are not copyrightable at all! This, in turn, can lead to the creation of a totally unregulated market in “news” which weaponises copyright laws against independent creators, thereby depriving citizens of their access to public interest information and violating their fundamental right recognised under Article 19(1)(a). Moving ahead, there is a grave need to examine and revise the Copyright statute to address the changing dimensions between broadcasting rights and copyright on one hand, and fair dealing and free speech on the other, in the digital age.
Ambiguity, after all, is the worst enemy of free speech.
The author would like to thank Sandeep Sir, Swaraj, Praharsh, Akshat, Lokesh, Shivam, Daanish and others from the SpicyIP team, and Shikhar Aggarwal for their valuable insights and engagement on this topic.