ANI is flexing its muscles and trying to intimidate YouTubers by coercing them into signing up for its unaffordable subscription. Even if it is currently legal, is it justified? What does the law of the land say? How will this impact the democratic environment of the media landscape, given ANI’s very pro-government stand? Today, it is YouTubers who are speaking truth to power, while the mainstream media has completely lost its moral compass, acting almost as the government’s spokesperson. There has to be a solution to this problem. If ANI is allowed to get away with this, it will lead to serious problems for India’s already declining press freedom. And what about YouTube’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy? Does that serve the cause of free speech, or does it enable silencing independent voices?
David vs. Goliath Battle: ANI’s Copyright Crusade
Asian News International (ANI) is the largest news organisation in India. Its flagship service is providing live coverage of events, including exclusive video bites of leaders and notable individuals for anything that is newsworthy. ANI has recently launched copyright strikes against an increasing number of Indian YouTubers in recent months, particularly those who criticise the government. When these strikes cross a certain threshold, the creators’ channel is deleted by YouTube ending their livelihood and stifling their voice.
YouTuber Mohak Mangal, who is well-known for his educational videos on socio-political topics, released a viral video called “Dear ANI” which sparked the controversy. Therein, Mangal alleged that ANI had demanded ₹40-50 lakh from him for using brief clips in his videos sometimes lasting only a few seconds.
Members of the creative community including Dhruv Rathee, Kunal Kamra and Thugesh rallied behind Mangal after his revelations. Mangal claimed that many other YouTubers had similar experiences of being coerced into paying high fees in order to keep their channels from being brought down through complaints by ANI.
For its part, ANI contends that it is only upholding its legal rights as the owner of the copyright to the footage it produces. Copyright enforcement, according to ANI, is the legitimate defence of intellectual property and not extortion. Equating its business model with sports broadcasters who tenaciously defend their rights and do not allow their coverage to be shared by anybody, ANI has also positioned itself as a victim of piracy. But is this story really about copyright protection or is there something more sinister at play here?
Chilling Effect on Independent Media
It’s no secret that ANI is seen as a mouthpiece for the current government. Its cosy relationship with the ruling establishment, getting preferential access to press briefings, exclusive footage of government events, and a near-monopoly on official sound bites has made it a powerful player in India’s media landscape. As mainstream TV news channels have descended into blatant government cheerleading, independent YouTubers have become the last refuge for dissenting voices and critical journalism.
YouTubers like Ravish Kumar, Akash Banerji, Prasun Bajpai and Ajit Anjum rely on using snippets of news footage to provide context and critique. When ANI issues copyright strikes, it doesn’t just protect its business interests, it effectively silences critical voices, punishing those who dare to question the government. The creators aren’t airing hours of uncut ANI footage; they’re using seconds-long clips for analysis, commentary, or satire, activities that should fall under fair use or fair dealing exceptions under Indian copyright law.
The stakes are high. YouTube’s infamous “three strikes and you’re out” policy creates an existential threat for creators. Once a strike is issued, creators face a difficult choice: either pay ANI’s exorbitant subscription fees (₹15-50 lakh per year), or risk losing their entire platform. For independent creators operating on shoestring budgets, this is not a choice at all – it’s coercion.
The Problem with Law and the System
The 1957 Copyright Act serves as the foundation for Indian copyright law, which is out of date and unprepared for the demands of the digital era. It contains fair dealing clauses that permit the use of news clips for reporting critique and review but it is unclear how these clauses relate to short video clips, particularly when considering digital platforms such as YouTube.
Legal professionals have pointed out that contemporary issues like online piracy, artificial intelligence-generated content and cooperative digital projects are not adequately addressed by the current law. The ambiguity allows powerful entities like ANI to exploit the system: issuing strikes, demanding exorbitant fees, and intimidating creators into submission. The onus is placed on the creators to prove their right to fair use in court – an option few independent creators can afford.
An Algorithmic Threat to Free Speech
YouTube’s own copyright enforcement system exacerbates the problem. The platform allows copyright holders to issue strikes with minimal oversight, often taking content down automatically. While there is a dispute process, the burden falls on creators to challenge the strike – a process that is opaque, slow, and stacked against small creators. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking: three strikes within 90 days, and your channel is gone.
This policy creates immense pressure on creators to settle rather than fight, even when they are legally in the right. It empowers powerful media players to engage in what many have described as legalised extortion. The result? A chilling effect on free speech and a narrowing of the public discourse.
Is This About Copyright or Control?
Let’s not pretend this is purely a legal issue. If copyright enforcement were truly about protecting the value of content, we would see similar zeal from ANI in other contexts. But consider this: major sports broadcasters like JioCinema guard IPL footage with an iron fist, and yet there’s no uproar from creators demanding free access under “fair use.” The difference? IPL is entertainment. ANI’s footage is about public interest, democracy, and accountability.
Furthermore, ANI is not a neutral, private player like a sports broadcaster. Its preferential access to government events, its role in shaping political narratives, and its near-monopoly over government news feeds make it more akin to a state-sponsored entity.
ANI charging lakhs for access to press conferences, parliamentary proceedings, or government announcements does not make a sustainable model for a healthy media ecosystem. “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors,” said Hugo Black. It is time we all make this our axiom when it comes to designing our media ecosystem.