Context:

A recent legal dispute between the news agency ANI and YouTuber Mohak Mangal has raised important questions about how copyright laws work in India, especially in the age of social media and digital content. The case highlights the grey area between copyright protection and fair use (or fair dealing), particularly for content creators who use news clips for public commentary, education, or criticism.

What is the Case About?

• ANI, a leading news agency, filed a copyright and trademark infringement case against YouTube content creator Mohak Mangal. They accused him of using their copyrighted video clips without permission in at least 10 of his YouTube videos. ANI argued that this unauthorised use was harming their revenue by diverting traffic from their news platforms.
• In addition to the trial court case, ANI also filed a separate case in the Delhi High Court. This case dealt with issues of trademark infringement, defamation, and disparaging remarks made by Mangal about ANI.
• Mangal responded by saying his use of ANI’s content was allowed under the fair dealing exception of Indian copyright law. He said he used short clips to explain news events, offer criticism, and present his opinions—all of which are protected activities under Indian law.

What is Copyright and Fair Dealing?

Copyright gives the creator of a work—such as a news video, article, or photo—the exclusive right to use, distribute, or reproduce that work. However, the Copyright Act, 1957 in India also provides exceptions under a legal concept called fair dealing.

According to Section 52 of the Copyright Act, certain uses of copyrighted work are not considered infringement. These include:

• Personal or private use, including research
• Use for criticism or review
• Use while reporting current events or current affairs
• Use in educational settings (e.g., by teachers or students)
• Use in legal or judicial proceedings

So, if someone uses a copyrighted work to review it, criticise it, or report on it—without copying it entirely and with proper context—it may be protected under fair dealing.

What Did the Court Say So Far?

In the Delhi High Court hearing, ANI asked for the removal of videos that used its content. But the court stayed away from ruling on copyright infringement or trademark issues immediately. Instead, it focused only on trademark disparagement and asked Mangal to remove disparaging remarks against ANI.

Mangal also used the “de minimis” principle in his defence. This principle means that if the use of copyrighted content is very minor or trivial, it may not require legal scrutiny. Indian courts use five main factors to decide if something qualifies as de minimis:

1.       Size and type of harm caused

2.      Cost and time of court proceedings

3.      Purpose of the legal rule that was violated

4.     Impact on the rights of third parties (like viewers)

5.     Intent of the person accused

This principle can be useful when the content used is very small and not harmful.

The role of YouTube

ANI filed a takedown request through YouTube’s copyright strike system, which operates under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). YouTube removed the videos, even though the dispute is based in India.

Mangal then submitted counter-notices to YouTube, claiming that his videos were protected under fair dealing. He asked for his videos to be restored.

Past Cases and Court Judgements:

There are several important Indian cases that have helped shape how courts interpret fair dealing:

1. TV Today Network vs. NewsLaundry (2022): NewsLaundry, a media watchdog, used clips from TV Today’s news broadcasts for criticism. TV Today claimed copyright and defamation. The Delhi High Court refused to block NewsLaundry’s videos, saying the content had been online for years and TV Today wouldn’t suffer irreparable harm. The court also said the trial court would decide whether the content qualified as fair dealing.

2. DU Photocopying Case (2016): The Delhi University photocopy shop was sued for making course packs using textbook chapters. The court ruled in favour of the shop, saying educational use of copyrighted material was fair dealing under the law.

3. Blackwood v. Parasuraman (1959): Here, the court ruled that student guides that were sold commercially using copied content did not fall under fair dealing, because they were made for profit.

These cases show that courts in India evaluate purpose, amount of material used, and intent behind the use to decide whether fair dealing applies.

Fair Dealing vs. Fair Use

It’s important to understand that India’s copyright law is different from the U.S. model:

• India: Follows a strict list of exceptions under fair dealing.
• United States: Uses a broad and flexible fair use test, which considers four factors (purpose, nature, amount used, and market effect).

India’s system offers less flexibility to content creators compared to the U.S. model.

International Framework:

·        India is a part of the Berne Convention (1886), which sets international standards for copyright protection. According to the Convention, copyright exists from the moment a work is created—registration is not required.

·        The concept of copyright began with the Statute of Anne (1710) in England, which gave authors the legal right to control their works. This was followed by the Copyright Act of 1790 in the U.S.

The role of AI and Copyright:

India’s current copyright law does not cover AI-generated content. Section 2(d) defines an author as a human being. The government has clarified that there are no plans to create special intellectual property rights (IPRs) for AI content. However, a panel has been set up to study whether changes are needed in light of AI-related challenges.

Conclusion:

The ANI vs. Mangal case shows the tension between freedom of expression and copyright protection in the digital age. It also shows how content creators need to be careful when using news clips or other copyrighted material.

Content creators must ensure:

• The material is used with proper context and commentary
• Only small portions are used
• The use is for public interest, not just entertainment or profit
• Proper credit is given, where possible

The outcome of the case will likely set an important example for how courts handle copyright and fair dealing in the digital space. As more creators, educators, and journalists turn to online platforms, clear legal standards and awareness of rights and limits are becoming more important.

Understanding fair dealing, respecting copyright, and using content responsibly are essential for anyone working with digital media in India today.