Introduction
India’s fair dealing provisions under the Copyright Act are designed to balance the need to protect
the rights of original creators and provide public access to creative content. But does this actually
happen in reality? Recently, the South Asian news agency ANI (Asian News International), which
offers short multimedia news clips to various media houses, has begun issuing copyright strikes
against Indian YouTube creators. “These strikes target creators who use ANI’s previously
published clips often just a few seconds long without permission. ANI has allegedly demanded
subscription fees of up to ₹48 lakhs plus GST as an annually subscription for the removal of such
copyright claims”1
. ANI has also registered a case before the Delhi High Court against several
creators on charges of trademark violations and copyright infringement, A number of Youtubers
have criticized ANI publicly for forcing them into paying large excessive sums of money to remove
copyright strikes. The main issue lies if ANI charging for future use of content can be reasonable
as a part of their subscription model, the concern comes when creators are retrospectively charged
without any notice. ANI in its response says they are exercising their legal right and transforming
their content to a subscription business model for future usage.
Creators argue that if this type of copyright enforcement is not changed, it could extend to meme
artists culture and individuals who are using clips to comment or joke on the internet as well. The
whole controversy focuses attention on the extent of “fair use” in India and whether existing
copyright legislation are fit to the requirements of content owners as well as digital creators.
What is Fair use?
Section 14 of copyright act,1957 defines copyright as an exclusive right to copyright owner and
allows to grant license, reproduce of their material but Fair use act as an exception and a legal right
to maintain a balance between Creators right and its public access. Fair dealing and fair use of
copyright content is defined under Section 52 of the Indian copyright act,1957
It states –
“Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright and comes under fair dealing of the
work for specific purposes which includes: Personal or private use for research, criticism or
review, reporting and educational activities”2
. The fair use and dealing are applicable only for
public interest and for specific purposes.
1 “A copyright standoff threatening India creator economy” by Indrani Bose, published on 28 may.2025, retrieved
from Storyboard18.
2 Section 52 of Copyright act,1957Limitation with India fair use of copyright content
Section 52 does mention of fair dealing but it is vague and have a restrictive approach, in contrast
with other nations such as United states, where section 107 of the U.S. copyright act, sets a
adaptable “Fair use” doctrine and also European Union copyright laws consider Transformative
use of the original content, India’s copyright system remains unclear and outdated.
like U.S. copyright law expressly mention a Four factor test to ascertain a fair use
These Include: –
“Purpose and character of the use
”
“Nature of the copyrighted work”
“Amount and substantiality used”
“Effect on the market value of the original”
These four factors test expressly mention the Transformative use of the copyright content which
also include satire and parody.3
Transformative use: “Adaption of original work with new creative modification or use for different
purpose and nature, to adding something new to the existing work, rather of merely copying of the
content” It includes – Remixing, adding parody of a content.
India fair dealing is too strict and it does not ensure reform fair dealing shields to just owners but
also commentators and watchdogs, copyright enforcement can increasingly turn into a system of
private censorship and only use for specific purpose it does not have a flexible approach and these
elements are not mention under statue. So, ANI have an exclusive legal right but due to strict fair
dealing provision creators often lack a strong defense on their part.
Duration under Fair use
Although section 52 permits fair dealing, but there are globally no guidelines set for duration and
length of using a copyright material content specially for video and audio generated material but
other countries often seek most flexible approach (seeing the nature and effect of that copyrighted
material) for balancing creators’ rights and public access but India copyright laws are outdated it
only listed specific purpose no clarity on parody and meme culture.
Outdated copyright laws
With the Rapid growth of OTT platforms, digital journalism and UGC (user generated content),
3 17 U.S. Code section 107 limitations on exclusive rights on Fair use.the gap between media, digital platforms and enforcement of copyright law increasing. Modern
content is not addressed in the existing law, Although the 2012 amendment act changed and
expanded fair dealing but it does not include transformative use, no clarity in defining musical
work, use of shorter clips and digital commentaries. The current existing laws become outdated in
this digital world era. For instance, for how many seconds of a video clip can there be a claim of
fair dealing? Can comment channels make use of fair use when critiquing or reviewing news
content? Our copyright act does not give clear cut answers Due to unclear ambiguity of fair use
leaves these creators legally vulnerable. The existing laws also make difficult in protecting creators
right in music, film industry. Independent artists often struggle to protect their original content
from the big giant labels due to outdated existing laws.
Conclusion
The ANI recent controversy put a number of questions and raises a concern among India’s
independent journalism and online commentary communities. Creators who engage in public
interest journalism, political satire, or fact-based analysis regularly use short video in criticism and
context. But in the absence of an explicit fair use standard especially one that includes
“transformative or critical use” these creators are vulnerable to attain their legal right. As a result,
copyright will only become a tool not only protecting ownership but suppressing critical voices.
Many media agencies will attain same approach like ANI and will use a benefit of YouTube 3
copyright strikes policy and will charge heavy charges in name of subscription for previously used
clips for hardly few seconds. The creator due to outdated fair dealing copyright laws will have no
choice to attain their right.
