In a recent legal development that has drawn attention in media and legal circles, Asian News International (ANI), one of India's leading news agencies has initiated a defamation lawsuit against independent YouTuber Mohak Mangal. The case has been filed before the Delhi High Court.
The Trigger Point & a Controversial YouTube Video
The dispute arises from a video uploaded by Mangal on May 25, in which he levelled serious allegations against ANI. In his video, Mangal accused the news agency of engaging in extortion and blackmail. These claims were made in the context of copyright infringement strikes initiated by ANI on YouTube. Mangal had used short clips from ANI’s original content in some of his own videos, which allegedly led to the strikes.
According to Mangal, after these copyright actions were taken, a representative claiming to be from ANI contacted him directly. He alleges that this individual demanded a payment of over ₹40 lakh in order to resolve the copyright issue and lift the strikes. Mangal's video suggested that the situation amounted to an abuse of copyright enforcement mechanisms for monetary gain.
ANI’s Response: Allegations of Malicious Intent
ANI has firmly rejected the claims made by Mangal. The news agency stated that Mangal had publicly acknowledged using ANI’s copyrighted video content as part of his own work on YouTube, and that he monetized this content for his financial benefit.
Despite being aware of the legal implications, ANI claims Mangal went ahead and published a video that was not only defamatory but also deliberately misleading. According to ANI, the video was intended to tarnish the reputation of the news agency and question its credibility. The agency views this move as a calculated attempt to damage its public image by portraying it as unethical and exploitative.
Other Defendants Named in the Lawsuit
Interestingly, the lawsuit goes beyond Mohak Mangal alone. ANI has also named stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair as co-defendants. The reason cited for their inclusion is their decision to share Mangal’s video on their respective X (formerly Twitter) accounts. ANI appears to believe that their actions helped amplify the spread of the allegedly defamatory content and contributed to the harm caused to its reputation.
The Broader Implications
This case raises several critical issues, including the boundaries of fair use in digital journalism, the responsibilities of content creators and the increasingly complex dynamics between traditional news agencies and independent online media personalities. As the matter proceeds through the legal system, it will likely lead to having more wider discussions about media ethics, copyright law, and freedom of expression in the digital age.
The digital landscape in India is thriving, with a growing creator economy projected to reach a staggering ₹10 lakh crores in revenue by 2030. Yet, beneath this layer of rapid growth lies a persistent and often confusing challenge the ambiguity surrounding 'Fair Use' in copyright law. As creators like Mangal steers the complicated world of online content, the lack of clear legal guidelines creates a problem of potential disputes, often leaving the fate of their work to judicial interpretation.
The 'Fair Use' Defense: A Seemingly Reasonable Claim
Mangal's quandary, as highlighted in his video; brings to the forefront a common defense employed by many creators: the concept of 'Fair Use.' He contends that his use of a mere few seconds of copyrighted footage, embedded within a larger educational and informational video should be protected under this principle. On the surface, this argument holds merit. The very essence of 'Fair Use,' or 'Fair Dealing' as it's known in India is to permit limited use of copyrighted material without explicit permission for specific and socially beneficial purposes. These typically include criticism, review, education, research, and news reporting. Therefore, if a journalist, an educator, or a digital creator judiciously employs a small segment of content to substantiate a broader point, it should theoretically fall within the ambit of fair use.
However, the reality in India is far more nuanced. The core problem lies in the absence of a rigidly defined rulebook that clearly defines what constitutes 'fair' use and what does not. Unlike jurisdictions with more prescriptive guidelines, Indian copyright law often delegates the responsibility of defining 'fair use' to the courts, necessitating a case-by-case adjudication. This inherent lack of clarity results in uncertainty and fosters an environment where legal interpretations can vary significantly by making it a truly 'grey area' for creators.
Judicial Precedents: Guiding Lights in the Fog, But Not a Clear Path
To solve this ambiguity, courts have, over time, established certain tests and principles through landmark judgments.
The Ashdown vs. Telegraph Group Test: One such precedent, arising from the Ashdown vs. Telegraph Group case, introduced a three-pronged test to assess fair use:
- Commercial Competition: Does the use of the copyrighted material compete commercially with the original work?
- Public Availability: Has the original work already been made public?
- Quantum of Copying: How much of the original content has been copied?
The NDTV vs. ICC Test (Sports Content Specific): Another significant ruling emerged from the NDTV vs. ICC case, specifically for sports content. This judgment stipulated that reporting must primarily focus on the results of the event, rather than just the commentary and that any content used must be directly related to the event itself.
When these tests are applied to Mangal's situation, the inherent dilemma becomes apparent. While his educational videos might not directly compete with the original content producer (ANI, in this case), he is undeniably monetizing his videos on platforms like YouTube. Furthermore, while his use of clips serves an educational purpose, but the critical question that remains to be answered: Is this singular purpose sufficient to invoke fair use protection? The answer, unfortunately, remains vague and ultimately relies more on the subjective interpretation of a judge in an Indian courtroom, given the prevailing lack of stringent legal frameworks.
Content Creator Faces Court Over Alleged Defamation
In a significant legal development, content creator and YouTuber Mohak Mangal appeared before the Delhi High Court and he agreed to remove certain segments from one of his videos that had been deemed defamatory and damaging by news agency ANI.
According to ANI, the statements made by the YouTuber were not only false but also harmful to its reputation. Asserting that their copyrights were violated, ANI took issue with the usage of its news feed and logo in Mangal’s content which was then monetized on YouTube.
Mangal Defends His Use as 'De Minimis'
Represented by senior advocate Chander Lall, Mangal contested ANI’s defamation claim and copyright concerns. Mr. Lall argued that the usage in question fell under the legal principle of de minimis — a doctrine which allows very minor or trivial uses of copyrighted material without requiring permission or a license. He contended that ANI's claim lacked merit under this principle, and criticized the agency for allegedly demanding an exorbitant sum of ₹40 lakh as licensing fees. “They have no right to license, and they are extorting ₹40 lakh from me,” Lall asserted before the court, indicating that the pressure being exerted by ANI warranted a legal response and public attention.
Court Questions Mangal’s Conduct
In an oral observation, Justice Bansal questioned the legitimacy of Mangal’s position, remarking: “You want to use videos without taking a licence. You use, why would you come out with these kinds of statements?” The judge’s comments reflected doubts over Mangal’s justification for making such public claims while allegedly using copyrighted content without prior authorization.
Compromise and Next Steps
Senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing on behalf of ANI, emphasized that Mangal had not only used ANI’s video content but also prominently displayed the agency’s logo. Mr. Sibal stressed that such usage constituted a breach of copyright, especially given that the videos were monetized on social media platforms like YouTube.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, Mangal’s legal team had presented a revised version of the contested video that was referred to as a “red line” transcript which omitted the portions that ANI had objected to. Upon review, Justice Bansal recorded Lall’s submission by noting that Mangal would switch the disputed video to private mode, thereby making it inaccessible to the public for the time being. Once the necessary edits have been completed to remove all contested content, the modified video may be republished for public viewing.
This case underscores the growing tension between independent digital content creators and traditional media organizations. It raises important questions about the fair use of copyrighted material, the limits of creative freedom and the responsibilities that come with public commentary. As digital media continues to evolve, the outcome of such cases may help define the outlines of copyright and defamation law in the age of YouTube and social media.
. . .
References: