Multiple YouTube personalities have reported receiving copyright strikes for using brief news clips, instigated by Asian News International (ANI), one of India’s largest news agencies.

YouTubers in the South Asian country are alleging that ANI is exploiting YouTube’s copyright policy, demanding licensing fees ranging from ₹10-50 lakh ($12k-60k) to withdraw the strikes.

Content creator Mohak Mangal brought the issue to widespread attention, claiming ANI demanded ₹48 lakh plus GST (~$68,200) after issuing strikes against his channel for using clips lasting 9-11 seconds in videos analyzing news events. According to Mangal, ANI threatened channel termination if payment wasn’t made.

“This is their business model. Give a strike, get the channel deleted and use extortionary tactics to sell annual subscription plans,” Mangal states in a video that has garnered over 4.8 million views.

YouTube’s Inconsistent Enforcement

An investigation by The Collective contradicts YouTube’s claim that it doesn’t adjudicate copyright disputes. The evidence they presented in their article shows YouTube actively reviews some claims and challenges ANI’s takedown notices in specific cases.

In one documented instance involving creator Ramit Verma, YouTube wrote to ANI: “We are concerned that your copyright notification may not be valid… in many countries, it is legal to use copyrighted works in specific ways without the owner’s authorization, particularly for transformative purposes.”

YouTube subsequently informed Verma: “We believe your content is protected by fair use, fair dealing, or a similar exception to copyright protection.”

However, The Collective’s reporting indicates YouTube applies this scrutiny inconsistently, leaving many creators vulnerable to ANI’s demands. When questioned about its standards for determining fair use, YouTube did not respond.

Legal Context and Fair Dealing

The News Minute notes in a report that Section 52 of India’s Copyright Act establishes “fair dealing” provisions that permit the limited use of copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism, commentary, news reporting, and education. Unlike U.S. law, which uses a four-factor test, India’s fair-dealing provisions are less defined.

Legal expert Nikhil Narendran describes ANI’s approach as that of a “copyright troll,” stating: “To say that using a few seconds of video is a copyright violation is extreme. This is how copyright trolls make money.”

According to Prashanth Reddy T, co-author of “Create, Copy, Disrupt: India’s Intellectual Property Dilemmas,” YouTube could avoid this situation by following Indian law. Section 52(1)(c) of India’s Copyright Act requires platforms to take down infringing content for only 21 days, during which time the copyright owner must secure a court order establishing infringement.

Platform Policies at Issue

The News Mint also notes that YouTube’s policy states that if a channel receives three copyright strikes within a 90-day period, it will face termination and all videos will be deleted. Creators argue that this system gives excessive leverage to copyright holders, such as ANI.

Several prominent creators, including Dhruv Rathee, Kunal Kamra, and Thugesh, have joined the criticism. Kamra writes: “YouTube India must be held accountable & should ban ANI from its platform on grounds of blackmailing creators.”

ANI defends its actions, stating: “Enforcing these rights through mechanisms like YouTube’s copyright policy or legal action is not extortion. It is the lawful protection of property, as guaranteed by copyright law.”

The controversy has drawn political attention, with Member of Parliament Saket Gokhale questioning YouTube’s copyright strike policy and expressing concern about threats to independent journalism. Gokhale characterizes ANI’s actions as “a form of quasi privately-imposed censorship.”

YouTube maintains it provides “copyright holders tools to make copyright claims and uploaders tools to dispute claims that are made incorrectly,” but has not addressed the specific allegations against ANI.