ANI's Controversial Copyright Strategy: Allegations of Extortion Through YouTube's Copyright System

 

Recent investigations have revealed concerning practices by Asian News International (ANI), India's prominent news agency, regarding its enforcement of copyright claims against YouTube content creators. Multiple reports indicate that ANI has developed a systematic approach to leveraging YouTube's copyright strike mechanism to demand substantial financial settlements from content creators, particularly those engaged in political commentary. The controversy centers around allegations that ANI is demanding payments ranging from ₹15 lakh to ₹48 lakh from YouTubers to withdraw copyright strikes, effectively using the platform's "three strikes and you're out" policy as leverage in what critics describe as an extortion scheme12. This practice has raised significant questions about the intersection of copyright law, fair use provisions, and digital platform policies in India's evolving media landscape.

The Mechanics of ANI's Copyright Strategy

YouTube's Strike System as Leverage

ANI's approach exploits a fundamental vulnerability in YouTube's copyright enforcement mechanism. When a content creator receives three copyright strikes within a 90-day period, YouTube automatically deletes their channel permanently, effectively ending their digital presence and livelihood1. The agency has strategically positioned itself to take advantage of this policy by issuing multiple copyright claims simultaneously against targeted creators. In the case of "Sumit," a political commentator critical of the BJP, ANI issued more than three copyright strikes in one go, immediately taking his videos offline and threatening permanent channel deletion within seven days1.

The seven-day grace period that YouTube provides to larger creators becomes a crucial window during which ANI conducts its negotiations. This ticking clock creates what copyright lawyers describe as "disproportionate bargaining power" for ANI, as creators face the complete loss of their channels and income streams if they fail to reach an agreement within the specified timeframe1. The psychological pressure of this deadline, combined with the potential financial devastation of losing years of audience building, places creators in an extremely vulnerable negotiating position.

Financial Demands and Settlement Patterns

The financial demands made by ANI follow a consistent pattern across multiple cases. The agency initially quotes between ₹15 lakh and ₹25 lakh to affected YouTubers to revoke copyright strikes, with some cases reportedly reaching as high as ₹40 lakh1. In the highly publicized case of Mohak Mangal, ANI allegedly demanded ₹48 lakh for the removal of copyright strikes related to the use of seconds of ANI's video footage2. These substantial sums are positioned not merely as penalties but as licensing fees for prospective access to ANI's audiovisual and written news content for one year1.

The settlement structure reveals a sophisticated business model where copyright enforcement becomes a revenue generation mechanism. After payment, ANI not only lifts the copyright strikes but also grants the creator prospective access to its content library, effectively converting what begins as a punitive action into a forced subscription service1. This approach transforms copyright law from a protective mechanism into a monetization tool that extracts significant payments from content creators who may have legitimate fair use claims.

Impact on Independent Content Creators

Political Commentary Under Pressure

The targeting pattern of ANI's copyright claims reveals a troubling trend affecting independent political commentary on digital platforms. The investigation by The Reporters Collective identified that several affected YouTubers are political commentators critical of the BJP, suggesting a potential pattern in enforcement that extends beyond pure copyright protection1. This raises concerns about the use of copyright law as a tool to suppress critical voices in India's digital media landscape.

The case of "Sumit" illustrates the broader implications for independent journalism and political commentary. Having turned to YouTube after trying various other employment opportunities, Sumit had built a following as a political commentator in a growing genre that attracts former journalists, comics, and engaged citizens1. The financial burden imposed by ANI's demands effectively creates barriers to entry for independent voices who lack the resources of established media organizations to fight protracted legal battles or pay substantial licensing fees.

Economic Consequences for Digital Creators

The financial impact on affected creators extends far beyond the immediate settlement amounts. A YouTuber running a political commentary channel with several million subscribers explained that they typically earn ₹50-60 lakh annually from YouTube, with earnings reaching significantly higher levels during election periods when engagement peaks1. Against this context, ANI's demands of ₹15-48 lakh represent a substantial portion of a creator's annual income, potentially wiping out months or even years of earnings.

The forced licensing agreements that follow settlements create ongoing financial obligations that may not align with creators' actual usage needs or economic capabilities. The one-year prospective access to ANI's content library becomes a mandatory expense rather than a voluntary business decision, fundamentally altering the cost structure for independent content creation1. This model effectively privatizes what might otherwise be considered fair use of news content for commentary and criticism purposes.

Legal and Regulatory Framework Issues

Fair Use and Copyright Law Complexities

The controversy highlights significant gaps in India's application of fair use principles to digital content creation. Under Section 52 of India's Copyright Act, 1957, fair dealing permits limited use of copyrighted material for purposes including criticism, commentary, and education5. However, the practical application of these provisions in the digital context remains unclear, creating grey areas that ANI has exploited to demand substantial settlements from creators5.

The lack of clear guidelines regarding permissible usage creates uncertainty about what constitutes legitimate fair use in digital media. Questions such as whether a 10-second clip used in a 20-minute analysis qualifies for fair dealing protection remain unanswered, leaving creators vulnerable to copyright claims regardless of the transformative nature of their content5. This legal uncertainty makes it economically rational for creators to settle rather than contest claims in court, as noted in the case of "Sumit," for whom paying ₹15-18 lakh was ultimately cheaper than pursuing legal recourse5.

YouTube's Content ID System and Platform Governance

YouTube's Content ID system, while designed to protect copyright holders, has become a mechanism that can be exploited to bypass traditional legal processes. The automated digital fingerprinting technology scans uploaded videos against a database of copyrighted material, allowing rights holders like ANI to flag content and issue strikes often without human review5. This system operates largely blind to fair dealing considerations, prioritizing copyright enforcement over the nuanced analysis required for fair use determinations5.

The platform's approach to copyright disputes places the burden of proof on creators to demonstrate their right to use copyrighted material, rather than requiring copyright holders to prove infringement. YouTube's spokesperson acknowledged this limitation, stating that "It's not up to YouTube to decide who 'owns the rights' to content," which effectively delegates complex legal determinations to private negotiations between parties with vastly unequal resources and bargaining power1. This system design creates opportunities for what critics describe as abuse of the copyright system for commercial gain.

ANI's Response and Industry Implications

Corporate Defense and Legal Positioning

ANI has defended its practices through official statements that frame copyright enforcement as legitimate property protection rather than extortion. The agency argues that as the exclusive copyright holder of its content, it has "the sole legal right to communicate its work to the public or license its use"1. ANI's statement emphasizes that "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"1.

The company's defense rests on the principle that significant investments in original news gathering, including bureaus across India and abroad, justify aggressive protection of its intellectual property1. ANI maintains that anyone disputing its rights is free to seek legal recourse, effectively placing the burden on individual creators to challenge the agency's claims through formal legal channels1. However, this position overlooks the practical barriers that small creators face in pursuing expensive legal battles against well-resourced corporations.

Broader Industry Ramifications

The ANI controversy has implications that extend far beyond individual creator disputes, potentially reshaping the landscape of digital news media and content creation in India. The precedent being set through these private settlements could establish new standards for fair usage that are determined by economic power rather than legal principles or judicial interpretation1. This development threatens to create a two-tiered system where well-funded creators can afford licensing fees while independent voices are priced out of the market.

The involvement of Ishaan Prakash, son of ANI's editor-in-chief and managing director, in settlement negotiations suggests that these copyright enforcement actions are being conducted at the highest levels of the organization1. This high-level involvement indicates that the strategy is not merely opportunistic enforcement but represents a deliberate business model that treats copyright claims as revenue opportunities. The long-term implications of this approach could fundamentally alter the relationship between traditional media organizations and independent digital creators.

Conclusion

The allegations against ANI regarding its copyright enforcement practices represent a critical test case for the balance between intellectual property rights and fair use in India's digital media ecosystem. The systematic nature of the agency's approach, demanding substantial financial settlements under threat of channel deletion, raises serious questions about the potential for abuse within current copyright and platform governance frameworks. While ANI maintains that its actions constitute legitimate property protection, the pattern of targeting political commentators and the substantial financial demands suggest a strategy that extends beyond simple copyright enforcement.

The controversy highlights the urgent need for clearer fair use guidelines in India's digital context and more nuanced platform policies that can distinguish between legitimate copyright protection and potential abuse of the system. The current framework, which allows private entities to effectively determine fair use through economic pressure rather than legal adjudication, threatens to undermine the democratic potential of digital platforms for independent voices and critical commentary. As this case continues to evolve, it may ultimately reshape the standards governing the intersection of copyright law, platform policies, and press freedom in India's rapidly evolving digital landscape.

The resolution of these disputes will likely set important precedents for how copyright law is applied to user-generated content and whether fair use protections can be meaningfully preserved in an environment where platform policies and economic leverage can override traditional legal safeguards. The outcome will significantly impact the future of independent digital journalism and political commentary in India, determining whether the democratizing potential of digital platforms can coexist with robust intellectual property protection.