A copyright notice by news agency Asian News International (ANI) to YouTuber Mohak Mangal has snowballed into a wider debate on India’s digital content right, what qualifies as fair use and copyright laws.
At the heart of the controversy is a common practice - use of short clips published by news agencies in videos made by digital creators. A practice being increasingly challenged by rights holders, in this case the news agency ANI.
What Triggered The Fight?
In late May 2025, Mangal uploaded a video, Dear ANI, amassing 5.8 million views. In the video, Mangal alleged ANI that issued multiple copyright strikes on his channel against short (9–11 second) snippets of news footage in his videos where he analyses and comment on current topics.
Mangal said his videos on the RG Kar rape case and on Operation Sindoor received strikes, with ANI demanding a payment of ₹48 lakh to license the channel’s footage — or risk termination of his YouTube channel.
Mangal in his video, used strong language against ANI, accusing them of “hafta vasooli” (extortion) and practicising “gunda raj” (mob rule). In response, ANI filed a defamation suit against Mangal, where the Delhi High Court ordered the digital creator to edit his video to remove certain remarks. Mangal has since made the video private, stating that a revised version will soon be uploaded to his channel
While the two indulge in a legal back and forth, the issue has caused ripples in the creator ecosystem on what constitutes “fair use” under Indian copyright laws.
The Grey Zone - Fair Use Of Digital Content
The ANI vs Mohak Mangal highlights the outdated nature of the Copyright Act of 1957 and its struggles to gain a foothold with digital content.
Section 52 of the Copyright Act talks about “fair dealing”, allowing use of copyrighted content for specific purposes including criticism, reporting, research and education, importantly without prior permission.
But it has a catch – the law does not specify how much content can be used and whether any conditions apply to it. In addition, India’s fair dealing clause is limited in nature compared to the “fair use” doctrine followed by the US, a difference witnessed in how platforms like YouTube automatically act on copyright strikes, oftentimes sans review of the context.
This is disadvantageous to digital content creators, especially if the purpose of their video may qualify under fair usage.
Since Mangal’s video, many other creators have claimed that ANI pressured them into paying hefty licensing fees, or risk takedowns.
Are Monetised Videos Fair Use?
The ANI vs Mohal Mangal case has put under spotlight an important question of whether earning money from a video containing snippets from published news videos is disqualification against fair use.
Advocate Aditya Gupta, Partner at Ira Law, argues that monetisation does not automatically make it unfair usage.
“The whole point of fair dealing is that some uses—especially critical or educational—can’t be tightly controlled by copyright holders,” Gupta says. He adds that while each case needs to withstand court scrutiny, small clips, such as 2 to 11 seconds, used within news commentary, are likely to be protected.
Gaining scrutiny in this debate is YouTube’s own policy governing videos published on the platform, which dictates that upon a valid copyright removal request, they must take down the video.
Three strikes against one channel, leads to permanent deletion from YouTube.
Navya Mall, a doctoral researcher at Delhi University focusing on AI and copyright, opines that Indian laws are disconnected and platforms ignore nuances. Using a 2012 Delhi High Court ruling that recognised short, transformative uses as fair dealing to highlight her point, Mall says there is an urgent need to redefine fair dealing in India’s copyright law, including explicit benchmarks such as a 15-second cap for non-commercial critique and a mandatory review of context before issuing strikes. This she says will guarantee better safeguards for digital creators, while not ignoring the rights holders; aligning with the evolving creative economy.
Blurring Lines: YouTubers The New Journalists?
The mushrooming of digital creators covering news, politics and current social issues is challenging the traditional definition of content in India. ANI vs Mohak Mangal makes clear the blurred lines between journalism, commentary and general content creation. Advocate Mall cites videos made by Dhruv Rathee or Film Companion which uses existing videos snippets under the guise of critique or public interest to highlight the same.
“While this resembles traditional journalism or editorial commentary, it is often monetised and algorithm-driven, raising complex copyright questions,” says Mall, adding Instagram reels, X threads and any content that remixes published news, film scenes, or memes for socio-political commentary in to the same grey bucket of part journalism, part entertainment.
“Such hybrid content does not fit neatly into existing legal categories, which is why our fair dealing framework under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 needs to evolve to address this convergence,” Mall says proposing reforms such as:
- A 15-second cap for non-commercial critique
- Mandatory context review before issuing copyright strikes
Has This Happened Before?
Yes, in 2021, India Today sued Newslaundry over copyright infringement and defamation. On the issue, the Delhi High Court ruled that commentary on how news is reported could qualify as fair use— still continuing to stress that each case must be evaluated on intent and context.
In the U.S., the Google Books case saw courts eventually rule that scanning books and showing snippets from the same was fair use due to its transformative nature, even though copyright holders initially won the case.
The Bigger Picture
The ANI vs Mohak Mangal case has opened a pertinent chapter in India's evolving content economy with both creators and rights holders expressing valid concerns. Experts remain of the opinion that the current legal tools need a refresher and reframing of vague rules, incapable of dealing with digital-age conflicts.
As the courts hear ANI and Mangal and deliberate, the case is likely to be a benchmark for future copyright battles—not just between media houses and YouTubers, but also challenging use and generation of content by AI platforms, streaming services, and traditional publishers.
The lack of nuance in automated systems, combined with unclear Indian law, has left creators battling an environment where the lack of due process is punishment.
