A high-profile copyright dispute between YouTuber Mohak Mangal and news agency Asian News International (ANI) saw interim arrangements recorded before the Delhi High Court last week.
ANI had approached the High Court claiming that a video published on Mangal's YouTube channel amounted to defamation. In the video published on May 25, Mangal accused ANI of extortion and blackmail after it initiated copyright strikes on YouTube against him for using short clips in his videos.
While the Court acknowledged takedown and modification undertakings from several defendants - including Mangal, comedian Kunal Kamra and journalist Mohammed Zubair - the proceedings remain pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 21.
The case has triggered renewed scrutiny of India’s fair use law and copyright enforcement practices in digital spaces.
Fair use under Indian law
India’s fair use or “fair dealing” exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows limited use of copyrighted content for reporting current events, criticism and review. But there is no fixed threshold for how much content may be used - no “safe harbour” for duration or volume.
Courts instead apply a qualitative four-factor test: purpose, nature of the work, amount copied, and its impact on the original work's market. This flexible framework permits nuanced analysis, but offers little predictability to digital content creators facing automated takedowns or copyright claims.
Pravin Anand, Managing Partner at Anand & Anand, explained that the fair dealing clause must be read alongside this analytical test.
“The Copyright Act, 1957 under Section 52(1)(a) has categories that allow exemptions under fair dealing...It is important to note here that this section covers ‘any work’ thereby covering all kinds of copyrighted works,” he said.
He added that the assessment must include both quantity and context.
“From an educational perspective of fair use, use of 10% or less of an original work will be considered fair use...However, even if a small portion of a song is used, if that portion comprises the heart of the song, it will amount to infringement.”
However, Anand stated,
"Therefore, as it stands today, yes, there is a vacuum. It would help if the same is standardised, providing objective criteria to determine fair use. However, presently there is a lot of flexibility and Judges often use their discretion to determine fair use based on facts of each case."
Aditya Gupta, Partner at Ira Law, emphasised that simply using short clips is not enough. Even a 9-second or 11-second excerpt can qualify as infringement if it does not meet the standard of fairness.
“Use of news clips for reporting of current events or current affairs clearly satisfies the purpose limitation. However, whether or not such use would satisfy the fairness limitation will be a question of degree,” he said.
Gupta also pointed to the de minimis doctrine, which protects uses that are trivial in both purpose and impact.
“Given the length of the clip at issue here, the de minimis doctrine will also be at play. Under this judicially developed doctrine, use of a very small portion of a copyrighted work may not be considered to be copyright infringement.”
Swati Sharma, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, said that the absence of clear quantitative standards in Indian copyright law is deliberate.
“The absence of a statutory 'safe harbour' for clip length...is not a vacuum but a deliberate feature reflecting the contextual nature of the inquiry,” she said.
Sharma explained that courts apply the substantiality test along with the de minimis rule.
“Courts interpret the quantum of use not by a stopwatch, but by its functional and economic impact...A 2–11 second clip may be deemed fair if it is minimally necessary for a genuinely transformative commentary...However, even a very short clip can constitute infringement if it captures the qualitative 'heart of the work.'”
The case so far
The suit arose after Mohak Mangal published a viral video titled “Dear ANI”, alleging ANI used YouTube copyright strikes to demand ₹45–50 lakh for video footage. He claimed ANI threatened channel deletion and offered a “two-year subscription” to avoid penalties. The video transcript, part of the Court's May 29 order, details alleged communications with ANI staff.
ANI responded with a civil suit, seeking damages for defamation and trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court directed the removal of posts from X (formerly Twitter), including those by Kamra and Zubair, who was later removed from the proceedings entirely.
Justice Amit Bansal recorded undertakings by Mangal’s counsel stating that the original video would be made private, and that objectionable portions would be removed. The Court also directed Mangal to place on record the full audio recording of the phone call referenced in the video.
The suit remains live, and no final determination has been made on either copyright infringement or defamation.
The case illustrates a structural mismatch between automated takedown systems and Indian law. YouTube’s Content ID tool cannot assess transformative use or legal exceptions under Section 52 of the Copyright Act. This creates significant friction when creators invoke fair dealing defences.
Sharma emphasised the need for procedural safeguards, saying,
“Platforms face a fundamental challenge...automated systems...are inherently incapable of performing the nuanced, qualitative legal analysis required for fair dealing.”
She urged full implementation of Rule 75 of the Copyright Rules, which requires reinstating disputed content within 21 days if the claimant does not obtain a court order.
“Platforms should also enhance their dispute resolution mechanisms... and implement stronger penalties for rights holders who repeatedly abuse the takedown system,” she said.
Anand noted that YouTube’s dispute tools offer some recourse.
“YouTube’s content ID system is automated...[but] also gives users the right to dispute such claims...Hence, there is balance that YouTube has tried to create.”
Gupta concluded with practical advice for content creators:
“Fair dealing is not merely a quantitative analysis but also a qualitative one... When content creators do use other’s works without authorisation, they should make sure that their use falls within one of the exempted purposes under Section 52 and they should take no more than necessary to achieve that purpose.”
How have Indian courts dealt with fair use?
Indian courts have developed a nuanced approach to "fair dealing" (fair use) under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma (1996), the Kerala High Court established a three-factor test examining the quantum and value of matter taken in relation to comments or criticism, the purpose for which it is taken and the likelihood of competition between the two works. It upheld the use of a play in a critical counter-drama as fair dealing in the public interest.
The Delhi High Court has ruled repeatedly on media use of copyrighted content with mixed outcomes. In India TV v. Yashraj Films (2012-2013), the Court initially held that news shows using film songs were not protected by fair dealing, though this decision was later modified on appeal, reflecting the courts' evolving approach to technological changes. Similarly, Super Cassettes v. Hamar TV (2010) rejected repeated use of music clips ranging from 10-40 seconds as not constituting fair dealing.
A significant development in academic use was Oxford University Press v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2012-2017), where the single judge initially ruled that course packs reproduced from textbooks constituted educational fair use, though the case ultimately concluded with the publishers' withdrawal rather than a definitive appellate ruling. Earlier precedents like Blackwood v. Parasuraman (1959) established foundational principles that fair dealing requires no intention to compete with the copyright holder and that the motive must not be improper.
How do US, UK and EU deal with fair use?
In the United States, fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act allows unlicensed use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, commentary, education, news reporting and research. Courts apply a four-factor test evaluating the purpose and character of the use (especially whether it is transformative), the nature of the work, the amount used, and the effect on the market. In Authors Guild v. Google Inc (2015), the Second Circuit upheld Google's digitization of books for search functionality as fair use, highlighting its transformative purpose and minimal market harm.
The United Kingdom follows a more limited doctrine called fair dealing, permitted only for specific purposes such as private study, criticism or review, reporting current events, parody and quotation, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. The use must be necessary, fair and usually requires attribution. UK law does not recognise transformative use as a standalone defence. In Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd (2001), the UK Court of Appeal rejected the newspaper's use of confidential political memos as fair dealing for reporting current events, holding that the amount used and the intent to scoop the author’s memoirs were unfair and unjustified.
The European Union does not recognize fair use. Instead, the EU Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) provides a closed list of exceptions subject to a “three-step test.” In Pelham GmbH v. Hütter (2019), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that sampling music without permission infringes copyright unless the sample is unrecognisable or falls under a valid exception. Deckmyn v. Vandersteen (2014) confirmed that parody is a valid exception if it mocks the original and respects authors' rights.
Experts agree that the law’s current flexibility offers both protection and ambiguity. Without clear statutory thresholds or judicial guidelines on permissible clip length and transformative use, content creators remain vulnerable to aggressive enforcement and platform overreach.
As India’s digital economy matures, reform may lie not only in courts but also in better platform regulation, clear procedural safeguards, and a more robust jurisprudence on digital fair use.