Explained: Why ANI’s copyright strikes on YouTubers are legally sound

New Delhi: In a time when journalism, commentary, and content monetisation are merging like never before, India’s digital content ecosystem is facing a moment of reckoning.

At the centre of the storm is a growing controversy involving Asian News International (ANI), which has issued copyright strikes against several YouTube creators for unauthorised use of its video content. The move has triggered outrage from some creators, political activists, and free speech advocates, with Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale even writing to YouTube India, accusing ANI of “extortion” and of attempting to suppress dissent.

However, a closer examination suggests this may not be a case of silencing free speech, but rather, of enforcing long-standing copyright law.

A news business, not a public broadcaster

Unlike public broadcasters like Doordarshan, ANI operates as a private, subscription-driven agency. It produces and licenses news footage, from political events to breaking news, to major broadcasters and media houses. This content is its primary product, and it is not obligated to offer it for free to digital creators seeking to monetise their platforms.

The creators raising objections are largely independent YouTubers who have built substantial followings and revenue models by using clips from ANI’s footage, often embedding them into commentary or explainer-style videos.

Copyright strikes and commercial licensing

Under YouTube’s policy, receiving three copyright strikes can lead to the termination of a channel. These strikes are initiated by copyright holders, and creators can respond, challenge, or resolve them.

In ANI’s case, the agency contacted creators and offered a path forward: pay for a commercial licence, and the strike would be lifted.

According to The Reporters’ Collective, a creator named Sumit was asked to pay between Rs 15–18 lakh. He eventually paid the full amount in exchange for a one-year licence to use ANI’s text and video content.

This was not an act of censorship but a commercial transaction, according to ANI, “As the exclusive copyright holder of its content, ANI has the sole legal right to communicate its work to the public or license its use. Enforcing these rights… is not extortion. It is the lawful protection of property, as guaranteed by copyright law.”

Fair dealing is not a loophole

While Section 52 of India’s Copyright Act allows for “fair dealing” in certain contexts, such as private research, criticism, or reporting of current events, this does not grant creators carte blanche to use copyrighted material in monetised videos.

Courts typically assess whether the material has been used for a transformative purpose, how much of it has been used, and whether it impacts the market value of the original work.

Using entire segments of ANI’s footage in monetised content is not considered fair use — it constitutes a derivative work that generates commercial returns.

The IPL analogy

To understand how copyright works in practice, one only needs to look at India’s largest broadcaster, JioStar, owned by Reliance. The broadcast rights for the IPL are tightly protected. Not a single frame of IPL content can be used by third parties without authorisation.

There is one exception: under the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, certain international sports events must be shared with the public broadcaster Doordarshan. However, this provision does not apply to the IPL, which remains a private, domestic tournament.

Yet, no YouTuber demands access to IPL footage under the banner of “fair use” or public interest—because the industry recognises that content holds value and that using someone else's footage requires payment.

The same principle that applies to sports should logically extend to news as well.

Building a sustainable model

Traditional broadcast clients of ANI may be plateauing, but the booming creator economy presents new revenue opportunities. According to reports, ANI has already started offering licensing packages, including subscription models that begin at Rs 1 lakh per month.

A tiered approach based on views or followers could emerge, providing creators a legitimate route to access and use professional news content.

Not a monopoly

Critics often describe ANI as monopolistic. However, India has multiple news agencies — including PTI and IANS, which also license footage and text. Furthermore, political events are frequently live-streamed on official YouTube or social media accounts, providing open access to source material.

The issue is not access, but rather the preference of some creators to repurpose professional footage without incurring costs.

Politics and perception

Some of the backlash may stem from the perception that ANI is aligned with the ruling party, while many affected YouTubers are vocal government critics. But the legal framework is agnostic to political leanings.

If the PTI, seen as more centrist, had taken similar action, it’s unlikely the protest would be as fierce.

Piracy vs free speech

The debate has now taken on ideological overtones. Creators are framing the copyright strikes as an assault on democracy and free expression. But equating copyright enforcement with censorship is both misleading and dangerous.

Creators are free to voice dissent, critique policy, and express their views. What they are not entitled to do is profit off someone else’s content without permission.

“If you use ANI’s footage, pay for it. If you can’t, make your own.”

This is not about stifling speech. It’s about recognising that digital content, like any product, has value, and respecting that value is foundational to a sustainable content economy.