New Delhi: When The Collective’s investigation revealed that news agency ANI was going after YouTubers with copyright strikes, YouTube maintained that it doesn’t play judge in copyright disputes and lets the content owner and copyright violators hammer out a deal. 

But we have now uncovered fresh evidence that suggests otherwise. In at least one case, YouTube stepped in to challenge ANI’s takedown notice and asked the agency to consider fair use, raising questions on how YouTube decides which disputes deserve scrutiny while leaving the rest to fight it out on their own.

Under YouTube’s rules, channels with three copyright violation claims in 90 days are terminated in seven days—forcing content creators to pay up large sums to ANI. Following The Collective’s expose, many prominent YouTubers went public, describing ANI’s business of copyright strikes as ‘extortion’ despite Indian copyright rules allowing content makers to use a tiny bit of copyrighted visual under fair-use doctrine for making something entirely new.

Mohak Mangal, one such YouTuber, claimed that ANI asked him to cough up Rs 48 lakh or face imminent shutdown of their channel. Others also went public with similar claims.

ANI had previously defended its actions. “It’s not extortion. It is lawful protection of property” the agency told The Collective during the initial investigation. (read here). YouTube, facing a rare blowback over its three-strike policy and its review mechanism in India, tried to claim it was playing an intermediary and not a judge.

Initially responding  to our investigation, it had told us, YouTube does not sit in judgment on such claims. It wrote to us, “We don't adjudicate copyright ownership disputes or make legal determinations on the merits of fair use or other exceptions. Our role is to process copyright takedown notices that comply with applicable law.” (Read it here).

We have now found that YouTube’s claim that it just processes takedown notices significantly masks its internal review mechanism.

In a copyright case, YouTube actively mulled over claims of violation after a content maker pushed back against ANI, set off a chain mail seeking more information from ANI, and finally let the YouTuber retain the disputed content online.

However, it did not disclose the basis for its decision or why it changed its decision in the next.

During our investigation, we found YouTube had dealt differently with different content producers, pulling down some creators’ videos and letting off others. What was consistent in its policy was it did not tell the creators how it decided which material fell within the fair-use provisions of Indian copyright law and which didn’t, leaving them to live with the consequences of its decisions, and on several occasions, at the mercy of ANI.

This overwhelming and discretionary power that YouTube holds over the work of millions of creators has set off a heated debate since The Collective’s recent revelations. 

Enter Ramit

Ramit Verma runs two popular satirical channels on YouTube: Official PeeingHuman and Kroordarshan. In June 2024, ANI began sending copyright violation notices to YouTube against 14 of his videos.

YouTube wrote back to ANI. “We are concerned that your copyright notification may not be valid for the video(s) listed below. Please keep in mind that in many countries, it is legal to use copyrighted works in specific ways without the owner’s authorization, particularly for transformative purposes such as news reporting, parody, commentary, or review.”

YouTube was referring to the ‘fair dealing’ provisions under the Indian copyright law. 

It demanded more information from ANI for its claims. 

Contrary to YouTube’s claim of not being an adjudicator, in this case it demanded details from ANI to find out if the videos had been made under fair dealing provisions of the law or not. 

ANI then provided a detailed response for stated questions that YouTube reviewed and declined. It wrote to ANI, “We remain concerned that your removal request isn’t valid for the video(s) listed below. As a result the content will remain live on YouTube.”

YouTube wrote to Ramit, “We believe your content is protected by fair use, fair dealing, or a similar exception to copyright protection. We are writing to let you know we do NOT plan to remove your video(s) at this time.” YouTube had put the words in bold to add emphasis. 

On the other two videos, YouTube agreed with ANI and blocked them. Ramit wrote back to YouTube that those too, were protected under the principle of fair dealing and were not in violation of copyright rules. 

YouTube asked ANI if it had taken the dispute to court. ANI did not respond and YouTube unblocked these two videos as well. 

ANI did not pursue any of its 14 notices further in court.

This case also shows that YouTube makes judgment calls on copyright disputes, and decides what is fair use of copyright material or what isn’t. When The Collective asked it to share its standards, tests and parameters for fair use on its platform, YouTube did not reply. 

YouTubers have spoken against how this grey zone in YouTube’s policy has left a sword hanging over their heads, with ANI stepping up to use the opportunity to its advantage.

One of the prominent voices among them was Mohak Mangal, one of the largest current affairs creators in India on YouTube with over 4.6 million subscribers. On May 25, Mohak posted an 11-minute video on YouTube addressing ANI and what he claimed to be their “extortionary” tactics.

“This is their business model. Give a strike, get the channel deleted and use extortionary tactics to sell annual subscription plans. This is the state of the country,” he said. 

In his video, Mohak claimed the media giant issued him two copyright strikes for using their clippings, one of which was as short as nine seconds. He furnished screenshots and emails, which he says are from ANI, stating the company initially demanded 48 lakh in penalties and licensing fees to remove the strikes. Otherwise, they threatened to issue more strikes to shut down his channel. Mohak also produced recordings of conversations that he says are negotiations between his team and an ANI official. 

“On 20th May, I received my first copyright strike for my video on the Kolkata rape case. I made this video many months ago. Who sent the copyright strike, ANI. Why? Because in my 16 minute video I had used 11 seconds of their footage,” Mohak said in his video.

While Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act establishes grounds for fair dealing, which includes criticism, comment, news, and reporting, it does not specify the exact duration of footage a YouTuber can use in their video.

Mohak said he had learned of other YouTubers facing similar challenges from The Collective’s report. 

We were unable to independently verify Mohak’s claims. He and his colleagues declined to speak to us. ANI, too, didn’t respond to our questions on his allegations or the evidence he shared. Its Editor in Chief, Smita Prakash has retweeted an article on May 26 whose headline read, “Piracy is not free speech. Why YouTubers must pay for ANI’s content.’

In less than two days, Mohak’s video clocked over 48 lakh views and stirred several creators to reveal their negotiations with the agency. 

At least six YouTube creators—@peepoye, @OnlyNews 24×7, @samir_talks, @Thugesh, @DhaakadKhabarIN, and @rajatpawarr—spoke out in Mohak's comment section, revealing that they had also received copyright strikes from ANI, in some cases along with demands for penalties exceeding Rs 18 lakh.

@rajatpawarr later uploaded a YouTube video in which he claimed that ANI issued a strike for a clip that does not necessarily belong to the company, “One of the clips maybe did not belong to the channel (ANI), only their mike was showing, but they issued a strike anyway,” he claimed. 

The Collective was unable to independently verify the creators’ claims, but sought ANI’s response in a detailed questionnaire. 

When The Collective first reported this story on May 19, we spoke to at least four creators and identified four more who had either signed or were in the process of signing expensive copyright deals with ANI, following threats to shut down their channels. At the time all the YouTubers preferred to stay off the record. 

We followed up our first set of unanswered questions with a second set to YouTube and ANI. Neither responded by the time of publication despite repeated reminders. You can read the questions at the end of the story. We will update this developing story if and when either responds to our queries. 

Popular journalist and YouTuber, Ravish Kumar, had told us, “How can three violations steal one’s means of livelihood and years of work?”

While ANI has directly and indirectly indicated before and after the revelations that it stands by its business methods, YouTube has preferred to remain quiet. So far.