According to YouTube’s policy, three copyright strikes can result in the permanent deletion of a channel.
New Delhi – Popular YouTuber and policy educator Mohak Mangal has accused Asian News International (ANI), one of India’s leading news agencies, of threatening YouTube creators by misusing copyright laws.
ALSO READ: Wikipedia Withdraws Delhi HC Appeal Against ANI Following SC Verdict
In a video titled “Dear ANI”, Mangal shared how ANI gave multiple copyright strikes on his videos and later allegedly demanded Rs.45-50 lakh to remove those strikes and prevent his channel from being deleted.
Mangal explained that the issue started when ANI struck a video he had made about the Kolkata rape case. The strike was issued for using just 11 seconds of ANI footage in a video that was 16 minutes long.
A second strike soon followed on another video titled “Operation Sindoor”, where he had used 9 seconds of footage showing Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in a 38-minute video.
He warned that according to YouTube’s policy, three copyright strikes can result in the permanent deletion of a channel.
After receiving the strikes, Mangal’s team contacted ANI to understand how the problem could be fixed. In his video, Mangal shared recorded calls and emails in which ANI employees allegedly asked for Rs.45 lakh plus GST to remove the strikes and give a two-year license to use ANI’s footage.
ALSO READ: Case Analysis: Asian News International (ANI) vs Wikimedia
When they asked how the amount was calculated, the ANI representative reportedly said the penalty was Rs.5 lakh per copyright strike, totalling Rs. 40 lakh for eight videos, and also mentioned an optional subscription cost.
“If you want it for a year, pay 30 lakhs. If you want it for 2 years, pay 40 lakhs,” the ANI official allegedly said.
The ANI representative also reportedly added:
“We are a different mode, we don’t claim revenue. We put the strike.”
He further told Mangal’s team:
“I like Mohak’s channel, that’s why I’m talking to you,” and offered the payment as a goodwill deal.
Calling ANI’s actions a form of blackmail, Mangal strongly said:
“This is not a copyright claim, this is a hostage negotiation,” and added, ANI thought I would beg. I won’t bow down.”
He claimed that other creators have also been targeted in a similar way and asked to pay between Rs.15 to Rs.22 lakh, with one creator allegedly paying Rs.50 lakh for a one-year license.
Mangal explained that his use of short news clips was for educational and commentary purposes, which should be protected under “fair use”. Fair use allows small parts of copyrighted material to be used without permission when it’s for things like news reporting, education, or criticism.
He has now taken the issue to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). In an email sent to Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw and I&B Secretary Sanjay Jaju, Mangal wrote:
“They are using it as a threat to extort money from me. They have asked for Rs. 48L+GST to restore my channel.”
He also warned that such tactics could destroy India’s growing digital creator community. Quoting Prime Minister Modi from a 2024 creator summit, Mangal said:
“Indian creators are ‘digital ambassadors of India representing it on the global stage.’ This movement will not grow if creators are threatened and extorted for money.”
Mangal asked fellow creators to speak up:
“Please document your experiences and report them. Share this video. If you have been threatened in a similar way, contact the Ministry and submit your evidence.”
Many well-known YouTubers came forward to support Mangal.
Dhruv Rathee commented on the video:
“Full support to you, it seems like ANI is running an extortion racket. All creators need to unite against this.”
Mahesh Keshwala (also known as Thugesh) revealed:
“Thanks for making this video! Even i got a strike and got asked for 15 lakhs in the name of subscription! FOR USING A 2 SECOND CLIP!”
Fact-checker and journalist Mohammed Zubair also supported the cause on X (formerly Twitter). He posted:
“Here’s how South Asia’s Leading Multimedia News Agency and Pro-BJP Propaganda Agency @ANI is squeezing several Youtubers for money while YouTube holds a sword on their content. @YouTubeIndia’s copyright policy hands @ANI disproportionate power, enabling them to strong-arm creators into licensing deals ranging from Rs.15-40 lakh… Several Youtubers have reached out to me with similar complaints.”
Zubair also tagged YouTube CEO Neal Mohan and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, demanding stronger action and better protection for content creators.
At the time of writing, ANI has not released any public statement addressing the serious allegations made by Mohak Mangal.
What IP Laws Say – Explained Under Copyright Law
Section 13 Copyright Act, 1957
Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say,
- Original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works
- Cinematograph films
- Sound recordings
In this case, ANI’s news video clips are classified as “cinematograph films”, and they enjoy copyright protection.
Section 14 Copyright Act, 1957
For cinematograph films like ANI’s video footage, copyright gives the exclusive right to:
- Make copies of the video
- Sell or rent those copies
- Show or share the video publicly
So, ANI has legal rights over its video content and can restrict its unauthorised use—unless certain exceptions apply.
Section 51 Copyright Act, 1957: When Copyright Is Infringed
According to the law, copyright is violated when:
- A person does anything that only the copyright owner is allowed to do
- A person helps others use copyrighted content illegally
- A person sells or distributes illegal copies for profit
However, if the use of the content is allowed under Section 52 (Fair Use or Fair Dealing), it is not considered infringement.
Section 52: What Is Allowed Without Permission (Fair Dealing Clause)
This section is the most relevant for Mohak Mangal’s legal defence.
Under Section 52(1)(a), a person can use copyrighted material without permission if it is:
- For private or personal use, research, or study
- For criticism or review, with proper acknowledgment (Section 52(1)(a)(ii))
- For reporting current events, again with credit (Section 52(1)(a)(iii))
Also under Section 52(1)(b):
- You can use small portions from a cinematograph film for criticism or review, as long as proper acknowledgment is given
This is exactly what Mohak Mangal claims:
His videos used only 2–11 seconds of ANI clips for the purposes of:
- Education
- Policy analysis
- Public commentary
He did not reupload ANI’s footage, did not claim it as his own, and gave due credit. Hence, his use could fall under:
- Section 52(1)(a)(ii) – for review and criticism
- Section 52(1)(a)(iii) – for news commentary
- Section 52(1)(b) – short video excerpts with acknowledgment
This means his use may not qualify as copyright infringement under Indian law.
Section 63: Punishment for Copyright Violation
If someone willfully breaks copyright laws, they can be:
- Jailed for 6 months to 3 years
- Fined Rs.50,000 to ₹2 lakh
But this punishment is only for actual infringement—not if the content falls under fair use (Section 52).
Mohak Mangal’s Argument
- Used very short ANI clips (2–11 seconds) only in educational and analytical videos
- The content was for public interest, policy discussion, and did not claim ownership
- Gave proper acknowledgment and did not monetise the ANI footage
Hence, legally protected under:
- Section 52(1)(a)(ii) – for criticism/review
- Section 52(1)(a)(iii) – for reporting current events
- Section 52(1)(b) – for short clips from films with credit
ANI’s Argument:
- ANI owns all rights to its video content as per Section 13 and 14
- Even short clips are protected by copyright law
- Any use without a license may be treated as infringement unless the creator proves fair dealing
- ANI may argue that Mohak used their content across multiple videos without permission
Therefore, ANI has the legal right to issue copyright strikes on YouTube as per their ownership rights.
While copyright law allows a strike for infringement, the manner in which ANI allegedly enforced it has raised ethical and legal concerns.
- Mohak Mangal claims ANI demanded ₹45–50 lakh to remove strikes and avoid YouTube channel deletion
- This was described as a “subscription offer”, not a legal settlement
- ANI allegedly quoted different prices to different creators, ranging from ₹15–50 lakh
This behaviour may fall outside copyright law and possibly enter criminal territory, specifically:
IPC Section 383 – Extortion
“Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to induce them to deliver any property or money is said to commit extortion.”
If copyright is used not to protect IP but to demand money through fear of channel deletion, this could qualify as extortion under Indian Penal Code.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
