Digital dispute turns into Copyright Litigation in ANI vs. Mohak Mangal Controversy

The recent legal and public relations dispute between Asian News International (ANI) and YouTuber Mohak Mangal has spotlighted critical issues at the intersection of copyright enforcement, digital content compliance, and business risk management. For senior management teams overseeing compliance, this controversy offers valuable insights into the evolving regulatory landscape and the importance of robust compliance strategies in the digital age.

Overview of the Controversy

Asian News International (ANI) is one of India’s largest news agencies, producing and syndicating news content to media outlets worldwide. Mohak Mangal is a prominent digital creator and educator with a substantial YouTube following. The dispute arose when Mangal used brief clips from ANI’s news feed in his videos, triggering a series of copyright strikes from ANI.

ANI issued copyright strikes against Mangal’s videos for using its footage without permission—specifically, for clips as short as 9–11 seconds. Following the strikes, ANI reportedly approached Mangal with a licensing offer, initially demanding Rs 40 lakh annually, later negotiating the same amount for a two-year period. Mangal and other creators accused ANI of using copyright enforcement as a tool for coercion, alleging that the agency was leveraging YouTube’s strike system to force expensive licensing agreements.

ANI’s Copyright Claims and YouTube’s Mechanism

ANI, as the copyright holder, utilized YouTube’s automated copyright strike mechanism to flag and remove videos containing its content. This process is designed to protect intellectual property but has been criticized for its potential misuse.

Mangal received two copyright strikes for using ANI footage in his videos, one for a clip on the Kolkata rape case and another on Operation Sindoor. Other creators reported similar experiences, with some receiving demands for annual licensing fees ranging from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 48 lakh, under threat of channel termination.

YouTube’s Three-Strike Policy and Its Impact

Under YouTube’s policy, three copyright strikes within 90 days result in permanent channel deletion. This rule has significant consequences for content creators, who risk losing their channels and audience if they do not comply with copyright holders’ demands. For businesses, this highlights the importance of understanding platform compliance mechanisms and the risks associated with third-party content usage.

India’s Fair Dealing vs. U.S.’s Fair Use Approaches

Unlike the broader “fair use” doctrine in the United States, Indian law adopts a more restrictive “fair dealing” approach. Fair dealing is narrowly defined and allows only specific uses, such as private study, research, criticism, or reporting of current events. Courts interpret fair dealing on a case-by-case basis, assessing the purpose, amount, and effect of the use on the original work’s market.

The U.S. fair use doctrine is more flexible, allowing courts to consider factors such as the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the use. Indian law, by contrast, is more prescriptive, which can lead to stricter enforcement and less room for interpretation.

While not explicitly codified, Indian courts sometimes consider the “de minimis” principle—meaning minimal or trivial use may not amount to infringement. However, this is not a statutory defense, and outcomes depend on judicial discretion.

Mohak Mangal’s Response and Allegations

Mangal and his legal team accused ANI of extortion, arguing that the agency was using copyright strikes to coerce creators into signing costly licensing agreements. Mangal’s counsel contended that ANI did not follow due legal process and instead resorted to threats and coercion.

Mangal launched a public campaign, including a video titled “Dear ANI,” which accused the agency of unfair practices. The campaign gained traction on social media, with other influencers like Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair amplifying the message. Mangal’s legal team also argued that the use of ANI’s footage was “de minimis” (too minor to constitute infringement), a principle recognized in copyright law.

Court Proceedings and Defamation Suit

ANI filed a defamation suit against Mangal and other defendants for making allegedly disparaging and defamatory statements in the “Dear ANI” video. The court directed Mangal to remove the objectionable portions of the video and put it in private mode until revisions were made.

The Delhi High Court ordered the removal of specific content within 24 hours. Influencers Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, who shared the video, also complied with the court’s order. The case highlighted the legal risks associated with public campaigns and the importance of compliance with court directives.

Broader Impact on Indian Content Creators

The controversy has sparked outrage among Indian content creators, many of whom have reported similar experiences with ANI. The incident has reignited debates about fair use, copyright overreach, and the need for regulatory intervention.

In response to the controversy, government agencies such as Doordarshan, All India Radio (AIR), and the Press Information Bureau (PIB) have made their content available for free or low-cost use by creators. This move aims to support independent creators and reduce reliance on private news agencies for archival footage.

ANI-Mangal dispute underscores several key considerations:

• Copyright Compliance: Organizations must ensure that all third-party content used in marketing, training, or communications is properly licensed. Failure to do so can result in legal action, reputational damage, and financial penalties.
• Platform Policies: Understanding the compliance mechanisms of digital platforms (e.g., YouTube’s three-strike rule) is essential to mitigate risks associated with content sharing and removal.
• Legal and Reputational Risks: Public disputes and litigation can have significant reputational and operational consequences. Businesses should have clear policies for handling intellectual property disputes and public relations crises.
• Government and Regulatory Landscape: The government’s response to the controversy highlights the importance of staying informed about regulatory changes and leveraging available resources (e.g., public domain content) to support compliance and innovation.

Conclusion

The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal controversy serves as a critical case study for senior management teams navigating the complexities of digital content compliance. By prioritizing robust compliance strategies, understanding platform policies, and staying attuned to regulatory developments, organizations can protect their interests and foster a culture of responsible digital engagement.

Talk to Our Experts

Ready to make the shift to a streamlined compliance strategy? Talk to our experts and see how we can help your business stay ahead of the curve!

Request A Demo