When a Rs 6 crore DD public broadcast became influencer content

When YouTuber Mohak Mangal was questioned earlier this year for using a brief ANI news clip, the signal from India’s copyright enforcement framework was clear: even a few seconds of unauthorised use of broadcast material could attract penalties. ANI sought compensation of Rs 2.10 crore, reinforcing the view that copyright compliance remains essential, even in the creator economy.

Against this backdrop, subsequent developments involving Prasar Bharati invite closer examination.

According to media reports, in March 2024, Doordarshan aired India in Motion, a taxpayer-funded documentary series highlighting government infrastructure initiatives, anchored by travel influencer Kamiya Jani. Within hours of its telecast on DD National, the same episodes appeared on private digital platforms, most notably on Curly Tales’ YouTube channel, which has approximately 4.64 million subscribers. Unlike the Mohak Mangal case, this involved more than brief clips or excerpts. Entire episodes commissioned and funded by the public broadcaster were made available on a private, monetisable platform as part of a paid promotion.

Read On: Delhi HC orders YouTuber Mohak Mangal to take down defamatory content against ANI

The contrast is notable. While an individual creator faced penalties for using a few seconds of content, an influencer-led network republished extended portions of publicly funded programming. Although this prompted internal objections, there was no immediate enforcement action.

Prasar Bharati’s commissioning and copyright guidelines outline clear procedures. Content commissioned by the public broadcaster vests copyright with Prasar Bharati, unless a prior written licensing arrangement is approved. Producers are not permitted to sub-assign work to third parties without explicit consent, and any third-party digital distribution requires formal clearance, documentation, and clear attribution of rights. According to internal records cited in media reports, these steps were not completed before India in Motion appeared online.

The structure of the project adds another layer of complexity. According to Newslaundry, the Rs 6.09 crore work order was awarded to Softline Studio Services Limited following a formal selection process.

Read On: 'India’s influencer marketing industry crosses ₹10,000-crore mark'

However, the execution involved entities associated with Fork Media Group, the company behind Curly Tales and Mashable India, led by Sammar Verma (Kamiya Jani’s spouse). Fork Media’s platforms subsequently distributed the content, which has been noted as highlighting the intersection of public service broadcasting and private influencer-led distribution.

This illustrates how influencer-led government content can raise regulatory questions. Public broadcasters are increasingly collaborating with digital-first personalities to stay culturally relevant and engage younger audiences. Influencers, in turn, operate within ecosystems focused on reach, brand value, and platform ownership. When the same individual serves as both the presenter of a government-funded program and a participant in its subsequent digital distribution, the line between collaboration and potential conflicts of interest can become less clear.

The Curly Tales case highlights the challenges that existing broadcast and copyright frameworks face in adapting to influencer-driven media. Unlike traditional producers, influencer-led media houses often function not only as content creators but also as distribution platforms with commercial interests. Without clear contracts and careful oversight, there is a risk that publicly funded content could support private audience growth.

Read On: Influencer Earnings Gap: Why top creators earn big while others chase brand deals

Of particular note is the timing of how the matter was addressed. The agreements, indemnity bonds, and completion certificates governing India in Motion were signed months after the content had already aired and circulated online. Instead of immediate enforcement, the episode concluded with a settlement, which has prompted further questions and discussion.

In an environment where individual creators may face penalties for minor infractions, the Curly Tales–Doordarshan episode raises a broader question: are influencer networks subject to different standards when public institutions are involved?