The Delhi High Court restrained foreign journalists and entities from issuing “groundless” copyright threats against TV9 Network over its YouTube news videos. The Court held that the use of short video clips in news reporting qualifies as fair use under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Delhi High Court recently passed an important order protecting Indian media organisation TV9 Network from what it described as “groundless” copyright infringement threats issued by certain foreign entities, including a Turkey-based media organisation. The case was heard in the Court, which examined copyright strikes issued against TV9’s YouTube content.
The matter came before Justice Tejas Karia after TV9 Network approached the Court challenging copyright strikes issued against its videos on YouTube. The strikes had been issued by foreign journalists and organizations who alleged that TV9 had used their video footage without permission.
ALSO READ: TV Today vs US Company in Delhi HC | Copyright Strikes Against Instagram Page
These videos reportedly covered international incidents such as Hurricane Laura in the United States, the Israel–Hamas war, and flooding in New York, with the footage sourced from real-time online material.
TV9 argued before the Court that the videos were used only as short clips within longer news programmes and were not used as standalone broadcasts or for independent commercial use. The Court examined the videos and agreed with the argument made by TV9. It observed that the clips were used only briefly and were part of larger commentary and news analysis.
“The portions of the subject works [videos] are of limited and segmented duration, forming part of a larger narrative and commentary contained in the Subject Videos. The use of subject works [videos] is embedded within the overall programme content and is not shown to be a standalone broadcast or independent commercial exploitation of the subject works,”
the Court noted.
The Court also considered TV9’s claim that large parts of the footage had been sourced through the portal of Associated Press Television News Limited under the APTL License. This strengthened the broadcaster’s claim that it had legitimate access to the material used in its reporting.
Importantly, the defendants in the case did not appear before the Court despite being notified. As a result, the Court proceeded ex parte and delivered a prima facie ruling in favour of TV9 Network. After reviewing the material on record, the Court concluded that the use of these clips did not amount to copyright infringement.
“In view of the limited duration of the Subject Works used in the Subject Videos, the context of news reporting, and no demonstrated harm to the right of the alleged copyright owner namely Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Subject Videos would fall within the doctrine of fair use and de minimis non curat lex and that the use of the Subject Works by the Plaintiff in the Subject Videos does not constitute infringement.”
The Court further passed an order restraining the foreign entities from issuing further baseless copyright threats against TV9. The judge specifically directed that the defendants must stop sending such notices in relation to the videos in question.
“Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 [foreign journalists] are restrained from issuing any groundless threats to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement in respect of the Subject Videos,”
the Court stated.
TV9 Network had approached the Court after receiving what it described as threatening legal communication from a US-based law firm acting on behalf of foreign journalists. According to TV9, the notice warned that “the matter will go very poorly” for the network if the alleged copyright violations continued.
Google LLC, which operates YouTube where the videos were uploaded, informed the Court that it was only an intermediary platform. Google stated that it would not contest the dispute between TV9 and the foreign claimants.
During the proceedings, the Court also examined the legal provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court pointed out that Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Act clearly states that fair dealing with a copyrighted work for reporting current events does not amount to copyright infringement.
The judge explained that courts often consider the length and extent of extracts used from a copyrighted work when determining whether the use qualifies as fair dealing. In some cases, using large portions of copyrighted material with minimal commentary may be considered unfair, while using small clips with significant commentary may fall under fair use.
“However, the Courts have also observed that it is impossible to define what is ‘fair dealing’ and that it is a question of fact and degree of impression,”
the Bench further said.
After reviewing the disputed videos, the Court concluded that the clips used by TV9 were brief and integrated into broader news coverage and discussion. Therefore, the usage was protected under the doctrine of fair use.
The Court also addressed the issue of legal threats made by the defendants. It noted that although the foreign entities had issued copyright strike notices against TV9, they had not actually filed any copyright infringement lawsuit before a competent court.
Because of this, their threats could be challenged under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, which allows a party to approach the court if it faces unjustified or groundless legal threats.
“Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, who evidently have not instituted any action affording resolution of the disputes between the Parties on the aspect of the infringement of the copyright in the Subject Works before a competent court despite the Plaintiff having submitted counter-notifications, the issuance of Strike Notices to the Plaintiff, coupled with the absence of ‘any action’ as envisaged under Section 60 of the Act, renders the threats actionable within the meaning of Section 60 of the Act,”
the Court said.
Based on these observations, the Court disposed of the case while granting protection to TV9 Network from further unjustified copyright claims in relation to the disputed videos.
Advocates Harsh Kaushik, Shwetank Tripathi, Deepank Singhal, Devangini and Harsh Prakash appeared for TV9 Network in the matter. Advocate Aishwarya Kane represented Google before the Court.
Case Title:
Associated Broadcasting Company Limited Vs Google LLC & Ors
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Copyright Strikes
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
