ANI-Mohak Mangal row reignites fair use debate in India’s creator economy

In India, as in many other parts of the world, copyright law grants news agencies full ownership of the content they produce — including video clips, footage, and graphics. When that content is reused, even in snippets, without a valid licence, rights holders are well within their legal scope to file takedowns or pursue compensation. 

Mohak Mangal, an educator and digital influencer with over 4.1 lakh subscribers on YouTube, has found himself in the crosshairs of legacy media over a video he made in support of the Indian Armed Forces. He uploaded a 33-minute video on YouTube, voicing support for the military operation Operation Sindoor. 

The video quickly gained traction, racking up over 2 million views — a testament to its powerful impact. But just as swiftly, it was taken down due to a copyright strike from news agency ANI over an eleven-second clip. In accordance with YouTube’s policy, the video was promptly removed.

While at first it might have seemed like a simple copyright issue, what followed raised deeper concerns. In a follow-up video, Mangal suggested there was more at play — alleging that the copyright strike was followed by a hefty compensation claim.

This sparked an outpouring of support from the creator community. Influential voices like Kunal Kamra, Dhruv Rathee, Nithesh Rajput, and Thugesh rallied behind Mangal, spotlighting not just his case but a wider trend that’s affecting digital storytellers.

In the comments, numerous smaller creators echoed similar experiences — where brief use of legacy news footage led to disproportionately harsh copyright actions. What began as a personal setback is now catalyzing a broader conversation about fair use, digital rights, and the need for balanced enforcement in the evolving media landscape.

The incident has raised questions about the overreach of copyright enforcement and its use as a tool of intimidation against independent voices.

Under YouTube’s current policy, creators are notified by email when they receive a strike. The notice includes what content was removed, which policy it violated — such as harassment, violence, or copyright — how the strike affects the channel, and what steps can be taken next.

According to YouTube policy, one strike limits a creator's ability to upload or go live, schedule content, create Premieres, post custom thumbnails, or manage playlists for a full week. Any scheduled videos are set to private and must be rescheduled after the penalty period. If a second strike is issued within a 90-day window, the creator loses posting privileges for two weeks. A third strike in the same period could lead to permanent channel removal.

The stakes are high, especially as the Indian government continues to pitch its ambitions of becoming a global content powerhouse. Speaking at the recent Waves Summit, Prime Minister Modi reiterated this vision: “We want to make India the biggest exporter of content.” The government has even earmarked ₹1 billion to support this initiative.

Legal Perspective

According to Anushkaa Arora, Founder, ABA Law Office, there is a growing and concerning pattern of legacy media weaponizing copyright law—not to protect genuine intellectual property, but to stifle digital independence and silence critical voices. 

Arora pointed to Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. case in the U.S., where courts ruled that copyright holders must evaluate fair use before issuing takedowns. “Failing to consider fair use and using copyright coercively is an abuse of legal tools,” she said. “This isn’t about protecting content. It’s about controlling it.”

She called for reforms to penalise bad-faith copyright claims and strengthen the legal standing of fair use in India.

Industry Reactions

Gaurav Dagaonkar, CEO and Co-Founder of Hoopr, a licensing platform, said, “The lack of clarity around fair use has led to misuse of takedowns, especially against creators making educational or commentary content. In 2023 alone, YouTube processed over 1.5 million takedown requests—many automated, many challenged.”

He added that while rights holders do need to protect their assets, the enforcement process should not be adversarial. “Content houses are exploring new revenue streams, but many choose to monetise through legal claims rather than collaboration,” he said.

According to Dagaonkar, fewer than 0.5% of YouTube’s Content ID claims were disputed in early 2023, with the rest going unchallenged. He advocated for human moderation, transparent resolution tools, and better education around licensing.

“Platforms and rights owners need to build systems that allow lawful use without fear. 

Pre-approved music, fair licensing models, and educational tools are the way forward,” he said. “Influencers today drive modern narratives. But when copyright is used to limit them, we undercut the very goals we claim to support.”

Finding a Middle Ground

India’s digital economy, estimated to touch ₹35,000 crore by 2025, thrives on remixing and reinterpretation. But for this growth to be sustainable, the legal and operational frameworks must evolve.

Creators, especially in commercial content, will need to take greater responsibility for licensing. But enforcement also must shift from takedown-first to education-first. A collaborative approach—using soft notices, interventions, and accessible licensing—can reduce legal friction.

Dagaonkar suggested that content owners explore models like open licensing, derivative use permissions, or co-created formats. “In a market with over 1 million branded content pieces being generated every month, platforms must strike a balance—protecting rights while enabling expression,” he said.

The ongoing conflict between legacy news agencies and digital creators is not just about copyright. It’s a test of how India chooses to shape its digital storytelling future—through control or collaboration.