“Let’s kidnap someone. Make them a hostage and then seek ransom,” is how YouTube content creator Mohak Mangal described the ‘business model’ of news agency Asian News International (ANI) in his recent video. Several creators have flagged the same concerns about ANI threatening to shut down their channel if they don’t subscribe to it.
Mohak explained the alleged tactics employed by ANI – a powerful news agency that critics accuse of aligning with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – which involves forcing content creators into subscribing to its services by exploiting YouTube’s copyright policy.
ANI has been accused of “extortion” by YouTube content creators, accusing the news agency of unfairly using the copyright act and bullying them into subscribing to its services for a hefty fee running into lakhs of rupees.
The campaign has prompted Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale to seek an explanation from Google, which owns YouTube, regarding their copyright strike policy. Gokhale also expressed concern over the threat to independent journalism that is anti-establishment.
According to an article published by The Reporters’ Collective, ANI leverages YouTube’s three copyright strike policy, which leads to permanent deletion of any YouTube channel.
YouTube’s policy says that if a user gets three copyright strikes in 90 days, their account, along with any associated channels, will be terminated. Copyright holders can file claims against channels that use their material, and once a channel receives three copyright strikes in 90 days, it is permanently banned, and the user cannot create new channels.
Content creators allege that ANI is not interested in seeking compensation or revenue for use of its content by any channel – a common practice; instead, ANI threatens them into buying their subscription for a heavy fee, ranging around Rs 40 - Rs 50 lakh including GST.
In his video, Mohak said that he received a copyright strike for his video on the Kolkata rape case that was published on May 20. He argued that he used a mere 11-second clip from ANI’s footage, which comes under “fair use,” according to him.
Following Mohak’s video, several content creators joined in expressing their concerns against ANI’s ‘business model.’ Under Mohak’s video, popular creators like Dhruv Rathee, comedian Kunal Kamra, and others disapproved of ANI’s actions and called it daylight robbery.
“YouTube India must be held accountable & should ban ANI from its platform on grounds of blackmailing creators. Creators make the platform not thieves like ANI,” Kamra wrote.
Terming it an “extortion racket”, Dhruv Rathee said, “It seems like ANI is running an extortion racket. All creators need to unite against this.”
Rathee urged YouTube to give creators a chance to delete the copyrighted clip from their video if it is less than 10 seconds before issuing the copyright strike.
Content creator Rajat Pawar, who has 3.46 million subscribers, also released a video on May 25 confessing that though his content is supposed to be funny, he has been depressed ever since he received two copyright strikes from ANI.
Rajat said that ANI only gave him the option to either pay a penalty or take their discounted annual subscription of Rs 18 lakh. According to an ANI employee who was featured in the video, they charge Rs 4-5 lakh per month towards subscription whereas the penalty would be Rs 5 lakh per copyright claim.
He said that ANI was not willing to take the revenue generated from the video which had their original content nor was it willing to budge despite offering to trim the video or even delete it totally. But they were solely interested in terminating his channel in case he did not subscribe to them.
“Isn’t this vasooli (extortion)? Like how goondas come to threaten and seize your money.” They are threatening me into either giving them my hard-earned money or denying me any future employment, Pawar lamented.
He claimed that he received a copyright strike for a video that did not belong to ANI but their mic logo was featured in it. Rajat fears imminent termination of his channel as ANI has revealed that they are in the process of sending him more copyright strikes.
Mohak has written to the PMO and the Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw seeking reforms in the copyright law and ending the malpractice.
In his letter to the PMO, Mohak wrote, “...I made a video in support of our military operation. It received 2 million views. However, the video received a copyright strike. The news agency ANI placed a copyright strike for using 9 seconds of its footage in a 33-minute video. The video was immediately deleted.”
“This is not the worst part. The worst part is that they are using it as a threat to extort money from me. They have asked for 48L+GST to restore my channel,” Mohak said, attaching relevant emails and call records of his conversations with ANI.
Expressing his agony, he sought reforms in the copyright law. “The government should know what is happening around. I have informed the concerned Ministers [about the extortion]. Now it is up to them. I do not know what decision they will take. Maybe they will favour ANI but at least it will be out in the public. That this extortion is completely okay,” he said in his video.
Independent journalists who have shifted to YouTube to pursue journalism express concerns over YouTube’s policy. Several have received copyright strikes from ANI over usage of clips. Many said that some of the clips they used were put out by different ministries, but later ANI claimed it as their own.
“What’s really scary about someone’s channel shutting down after 3 copyright strikes is that you can’t open another channel on YouTube. You are banned from YouTube for life. Imagine… using three 7 to 10 seconds clips, getting copyright strikes and then your channel is shut down for Good. All your effort is gone down the drain. Your 3000 plus videos vanish due to 3 copyright strikes for merely 27 seconds of copyright violation. This is unfair,” wrote journalist Abhisar Sharma, tagging YouTube.
Veteran journalist Ravish Kumar, who quit NDTV and is continuing his work on YouTube, said that the Union government should clarify its stance on fair use. “The difference between fair use and copyright should be clear and the strike system should be done away with so that another niche is not created,” he wrote.
He expressed worry that an attempt is being made to end the independent journalism flourishing through YouTube in the name of “business ethics.”
“I think even YouTube must have found the word ‘business niche’ with great difficulty. YouTube calling it a ‘niche’ itself indicates that they have also understood what is happening in exchange for strike. Different rates from different channels and plus GST! Gabbar Singh Tax here too! This is not ‘niche’ but blackmailing,” Ravish said.
Another independent journalist Tamal Saha pointed out that ANI claims rights even over news feeds coming from the PMO or the state public broadcaster Doordarshan (DD). Citing the example of PM Narendra Modi launching the loco manufacturing unit in Dahod, Saha pointed out that ANI shared a video of the event with its logo, claiming ownership. The video was however taken from PM’s YouTube channel.
Sharing news of the event on X, ANI wrote: “Gujarat: Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurates Locomotive Manufacturing plant of the Indian Railways in Dahod. This plant will produce electric locomotives of 9000 HP for domestic purposes and for export. The locomotives will help in increasing the freight to loading capacity of Indian Railways.” However, the source of the video was attributed to “DD and ANI.”
Saha wrote: “This is a government event attended by #PMModi, the feed is shared on PM’s YouTube channel. How can ANI claim to own it or share ownership with a Public broadcaster like DD? So tomorrow someone would use the clean feed from PM Modi’s YouTube channel and ANI would still send a copyright claim and ask for money?”
Seeking clarification, he said if indeed ANI jointly owns the footage along with DD “then the question is did the central government give a private agency exclusive rights… For free or against money?”
ANI in its response to The Reporters’ Collective termed those who ‘steal’ their content ‘pirates.’
It said: “In any society governed by the rule of law provides for punishment for theft. ANI invests heavily in original news gathering, with bureaus across India and abroad and significant resources deployed in real-time content production.”
It justified its actions and said that its business model does not constitute “extortion” as alleged by creators. “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. Anyone disputing our rights is free to seek legal recourse.”
Further, Smita Prakash, ANI’s Editor, shared an article on X titled ‘Piracy is not free speech: Why YouTubers must pay for ANI’s content.’ The article rationalised ANI’s actions and attempted to salvage its reputation by pointing out the existing copyright laws.
While YouTube supports the principle of fair use – where content may be reused for purposes like commentary, criticism, news reporting, and education – it also clarifies that fair use is not guaranteed by simply using short clips. YouTube states: “Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use... but if what’s borrowed is considered the ‘heart’ of the work, even a small sampling may weigh against fair use.”
However, YouTube does not specify what is the time duration that is considered fair use.
“There is no clear definition of how much time from the source material can be used as per Indian copyright laws. It is very difficult to define it as it is a subjective determination,” pointed out Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the Trilegal law firm.
However, he described ANI’s strong-arm tactics as that of a “copyright troll.”
While India’s Copyright Act, 1957 considers certain acts not to be infringement of copyright under ‘fair dealing’, for the purposes of — (i) private or personal use, including research; (ii) criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work; (iii) the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public. However, the Act does not specify how many seconds of a video constitutes fair use.
“ANI thinks that you cannot use footage even for a couple of seconds. That is an incorrect and aggressive reading of the law. To say that using a few seconds of video is a copyright violation is extreme. This is how copyright trolls make money.”
The problem exists, according to Nikhil, due to weak Indian laws that do not adequately protect the internet intermediaries or freedom of speech. YouTube is considered an intermediary in India, meaning it has specific obligations and responsibilities under the Information Technology Act and related rules.
“The intermediary law in India should give more protection to the intermediaries. Private rights such as copyrights are given undue protection under law as against freedom of speech and right to access information.. The law should give more comfort to intermediaries so that they only need to take down content upon receiving a court order when it comes to matters of copyright infringement,” Nikhil said.
Responding to the controversy, a YouTube spokesperson in a statement told The Reporters’ Collective that it is not up to YouTube to decide who “owns the rights” to content. “...which is why we give copyright holders tools to make copyright claims and uploaders tools to dispute claims that are made incorrectly.”
It explained: YouTube receives many copyright takedown notifications; some of the allegedly infringing videos may fall into copyright exceptions such as fair use. In some cases, we ask rightsholders to provide us with an adequate explanation as to why a video doesn’t qualify for a copyright exception. If none is provided, we may keep the video live.
Seeking a reply to the allegations against ANI and YouTube, MP Saket Gokhale said that ANI was committing extortion. “This is a form of extortion, especially considering that some news agencies enjoy an unofficial monopoly when it comes to reporting matters related to the Govt of India,” he wrote.
Saket Gokhale, pointing out the alleged close affinity between ANI and the BJP, questioned how journalism could survive when the news agency has exclusive access to the government.
“In brazen disregard of the freedom of press, the Modi Govt favours a particular news agency where “exclusive” access is given for news bytes and coverage of public events. This is extremely concerning and has serious repercussions on freedom of speech of independent YouTube content creators,” he said.
He further said that exploiting the copyright strikes in order to extract high payments from independent creators “even in cases of fair use or “fair dealing” (as it is called in India) of news agency content is a form of “quasi privately-imposed censorship” aided by a government which favours one news agency over another.”
According to Prashanth Reddy T, co-author of Create, Copy, Disrupt: India’s Intellectual Property Dilemmas, this situation would not have arisen had YouTube followed the Indian law.
YouTube’s three-strike copyright policy was developed to comply with the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), he pointed out in his article ‘ANI vs creators: Why is YouTube ignoring ‘safe harbour’ provisions in Indian law?’
India traditionally provided a very restrictive “safe harbour” protection via Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2001. “This changed in 2012, when the Copyright Act was amended to create a very specific ‘safe harbour’” clause for copyright infringement in the form of Section 52(1)(c). As per this provision, YouTube is required to take down infringing content for only 21 days within which time the copyright owner is required to secure a court order establishing copyright infringement. If an order from the court is not secured within this timeframe, YouTube may restore access to the content,” he wrote.
This clause was designed to shift the burden of legal assessment and cost to copyright owners and courts, sparing platforms from making legal determinations. But YouTube continues to apply its American policy in India, effectively ignoring Indian law.
If YouTube followed Indian law, it would not be legally required to enforce a “three-strike” deletion policy. This would reduce the legal leverage of copyright holders like ANI and potentially push them toward more reasonable settlements, Reddy argued.