In May 2025, YouTuber Mohak Mangal opened a can of worms when he put out a video claiming to be ‘extorted’ by news agency Asian 카지노 사이트 International (ANI). In the 11-minute video, Mangal spoke about being held at a metaphorical gun-point by the news agency, who had applied two strikes against the YouTuber. After a third strike, YouTube would take down Mangal’s channel. When a representative of Mangal’s team reached out to ANI to clarify this, they allegedly demanded Rs 50 lakhs from them to cancel the strikes. In the phone recordings put forth in Mangal’s video, ANI’s representative claims that the money is towards a subscription and penalties that YouTubers (like Mangal) need to pay for using unauthorised content in their for-profit concerns.
After Mangal’s video came forward and spread like wildfire, shared by the likes of Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair (the video has almost 6 million views on YouTube alone)---many more creators came forward with their accounts of being arm-twisted by the news agency for sums between Rs 15-25 lakhs. Some of these creators had only used stills from ANI videos, as found by the Reporters’ Collective, and had to cough up Rs 18 lakhs for “infringement”.
Given the 55-year-old agency’s near-monopolistic access to politicians and the government, many people sided with the YouTube creators calling this a case of bullying---especially because of how the conversation begins, with the looming threat of a channel being deleted, and money being demanded against it. If ANI was concerned about the unlawful exploitation of their Intellectual Property (IP), why didn’t they first reach out to creators to simply remove their IP or the video altogether? Why was monetising the YouTuber’s transgression prioritised?
After Mangal’s video was widely shared, ANI filed a suit for defamation and disparagement against him and some people who shared his video (like Kamra and Zubair) at the Delhi High Court. As a result, the court directed Mangal to remove certain references to ANI, which the defendant has since complied with. Meanwhile, ANI has also filed a second suit against Mangal, alleging illegal and unauthorised reproduction of 10 videos on his channel. It also alleges the unauthorised use of ANI’s logo on the YouTube channel.
According to Mumbai-based advocate Hiren Kamod, the concept of ‘fair use—often cited by YouTubers to reproduce IP in their work—is not something we find in Indian statutes. It’s a concept found in the US copyright laws. In fact, the Copyright law, 1957 (the main statute to decide most IP-related cases in India) includes a concept called fair dealing. The difference is crucial and fundamental, as Kamod explains it.
The US laws list the following four parameters for what qualifies as ‘fair use’: what is the purpose or character? What is the nature of the work? What is the amount of copyright work used? And, what effect does it have on the potential market? On the other hand, fair dealing is listed under section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, where it identifies three specific instances which can be deemed exceptions to copyright infringement: Private or personal use, criticism or review—whether of that work, or something related—and for reporting current affairs and events.
“What becomes crucial is the context in which the ANI clips were used in a YouTuber’s video,” notes Kamod. “If I’m making a video which is not to report on current affairs, but for educational purposes, then it won’t remain an exception u/s 52(1)(iii).” He adds that it doesn’t matter if the video is monetised or not—if the instance of a video is not covered among the exceptions under the Copyright Act, it amounts to infringement.
Anumita Verma, who specialises in IPR and practises in Delhi HC, explains the de minimis principle, where if the IP component amounts to a fraction of the total video—like maybe seven seconds of a clip in a 30-minute video—then the courts might not take cognisance of it at all. In Mangal’s case, the ANI clips he mentions using are seven seconds and eleven seconds, in videos with durations of 18 minutes and 38 minutes respectively. "Generally when de minimis is applied by the Hon’ble courts in specific cases then a possibility of not entertaining at all comes in the picture. In the instant case , there are other reliefs sought like trademark disparagement and infringement, which give it’s different connotation."
However, Kamod notes that there are exceptions to the de minimis principle--where courts don’t simply look at the amount of work, but also its qualitative attribute. “For example, Sweet Child O’ Mine (by Guns ‘N Roses) is a nine-minute song, but that guitar intro is so distinct that if I play the first 10 seconds, it will qualify as infringement,” he says. “It’s not a quantity thing anymore, because you’re taking the hook of the composition.” He also reminds us of the Ram Sampath vs Rakesh Roshan case around Krazzy 4 (2008), where a song in the film was plagiarised from Sampath’s jingle for Sony Ericsson. It was a seven-second hook, for which Sampath was awarded Rs 2 crore in the ruling.
It’s a subjective thing, says Kamod—the dispute between ANI and the YouTubers will depend on how one interprets the individual facts of the case. For example, can YouTubers—who curate and collate information from existing news sources to make explainers on current topics—be deemed as ‘reporting’ on an issue? “It would require the court to take a liberal stance, – where they’re willing to expand the meaning of reporting beyond the traditional sense, also including curating a well-rounded news package from across multiple sources,” Kamod states.
Verma opines that YouTubers can’t be bracketed as those ‘reporting’ on a matter and therefore can’t be included in the exceptional instances under section 52(1)(iii). “A simple collation is not your work—if it’s assimilating the works of others, then it might be crucial to note the usage. If it’s like 10-11 seconds in a 20-minute video, then the courts might deem it de minimis. But if it creates a huge prejudice towards my trademark, then I might take steps,” says Verma.
What do lawyers think of the lump sum amounts being demanded by ANI from YouTubers? Doesn’t it sound slightly murky, if nothing else? “The copyright laws allow the IP owner to claim revenues and/or damages. It’s a remedy given in the Act,” notes Verma. “One can either seek a share of the revenue or claim damages. You either buy the said license or pay the damages.”
Verma highlights that an aggrieved IP owner can demand anything as damages—it doesn’t have to be ‘reasonable’. “One can ask under a wide variety of things: mental agony, sullied reputation, legal fees etc,” confirms Verma, “But the court looks into profits, how much revenue one has made from said work, and accordingly they will calculate the actual damage. There’s a formula.”
Kamod admits there being a power differential between an agency of ANI’s stature and individual YouTubers. Therefore, the financial demands raise a moral judgement. “ANI knows they’re able to demand whatever they want—what might cost Rs 10. they’re demanding Rs 100 for it,” says Kamod. “They shouldn’t be doing it. But under the law, if the creators aren’t excluded under Section 52, then ANI has the right to do business the way it sees fit. If a creator uses their licensed work, then they’re within their rights to demand Rs five lakhs, Rs 50 lakhs or Rs five crore.”
A lot depends on how the courts rule ANI’s second suit against Mohak Mangal on copyright infringement. “According to me, only one YouTuber, who is sure that their content falls under section 52(1)(iii) —if they go to the court, and take on ANI, then they could set a precedent,” says Kamod. “It’s ethically wrong of course, but is it unlawful? I don’t think so. It’s a free market—Aamir Khan’s latest film’s satellite rights have sold for Rs 200 crore. Tomorrow TV channels will claim extortion. Where does it end?”
