In today’s Finshots, we unpack the feud between YouTuber Mohak Mangal and ANI Media and take a closer look at copyright infringement in the business of content.

But before we begin, if you’re someone who loves to keep tabs on what’s happening in the world of business and finance, then hit subscribe if you haven’t already. If you’re already a subscriber or you’re reading this on the app, you can just go ahead and read the story.

The Story

You’ve probably already come across Mohak Mangal’s viral video by now. The one where he claims that ANI (Asian News International), one of India’s leading news agencies, is basically extorting YouTubers like him, demanding lakhs of rupees to remove copyright strikes on their videos.

But in case you haven’t seen it, here’s a quick recap. A few days ago, Mangal dropped a video explaining how his YouTube channel got slapped with a copyright strike on 20th May. Now if you’re unfamiliar with how YouTube works, a copyright strike is what happens when someone claims you’ve used their content — video, audio or otherwise, without permission. If you rack up three of these within 90 days, YouTube can delete your entire channel. Poof! Gone.

And that’s the situation Mangal found himself in. He already had two strikes. One more, and his channel could be history. So naturally, his team reached out to ANI to understand what was going on. ANI allegedly responded by asking them to cough up ₹48 lakhs if they wanted the strikes removed. Why? Because he’d used a few seconds of ANI’s video footage in his content.

Mangal calls this ‘extortion’. He says that even the ICC (International Cricket Council), another big copyright holder, hasn’t gone that far. Sure, they’ve issued strikes in the past too. But usually, the video gets taken down or demonetised. That’s it. No massive demands for payment. But here, ANI’s asking creators to shell out anywhere between ₹18 lakhs to ₹50 lakhs.

And it’s not just Mangal. Several other creators have shared similar experiences, calling this a money-making scheme disguised as copyright enforcement.

So what’s really going on here?

To figure out whether there’s any substance to these claims, let’s try something different this time. Instead of diving straight into the usual mechanics, we’ll walk through a bunch of questions that have taken over the conversation lately and try to answer them as best as we can.

Can ANI really do this?

Well, the short answer is yes. But to understand why, you need to look at two things. First, how ANI’s business model works and second, what India’s copyright laws actually say.

Let’s start with ANI. It’s not just a news outlet. It’s a news wire service. Think of it like Reuters (which owns a minority stake in ANI) or PTI. ANI gathers news — both articles and video footage, and sells it to other media houses. You’ve probably seen the same ANI-sourced news published across multiple sites, word for word, just with a different headline. But this content doesn’t come cheap. A 2018 article by The Ken suggested that ANI’s monthly subscription could go up to ₹6 lakhs, with an added 50% charge for digital rights.

So naturally, if someone uses ANI’s video footage without paying, ANI will consider it a serious breach of their business.

Legally speaking, they’re within their rights. Under India’s Copyright Act, ANI, as the copyright holder, gets to decide how its content is used and monetised. And there’s no rule that says they have to be “reasonable” about how much they charge. If they think their content is worth ₹48 lakhs, that’s their call.

Okay, but what about the ‘Fair Use’ that Mangal mentions in his video?

That’s the tricky part.

Mangal argues that he used just a few seconds of footage, as part of a larger educational and informational video. Something that should fall under fair use. And to be fair, that’s not a wild claim.

In India, this idea is called fair dealing. It allows limited use of copyrighted content without permission for specific purposes. Things like criticism, review, education, research and reporting. So if a journalist, educator or creator uses a small clip to make a larger point, it might count as fair use.

But here’s the problem. It’s a grey area. There’s no strict rulebook that defines what’s fair and what’s not. It’s often left to the courts to decide on a case by case basis. And in the absence of clear laws, things get murky.

Take the Ashdown vs. Telegraph Group case for example. The court came up with a three point test to figure out fair use:

1. Is the use in commercial competition with the original?
2. Has the original been made public?
3. How much has been copied?

Then there’s the NDTV vs. ICC case, which gave us a different test, this time for sports content. It said that the reporting must focus on the results of the event, not just commentary and that the content used must be directly related to the event.

Now apply either of these to Mangal’s case, and you see the dilemma. He’s not exactly competing with ANI, but he is monetising his videos on YouTube. And while his use of clips may serve an educational purpose, is that enough to protect him? That’s actually hard to say. And in India, without clearer laws, it really comes down to how the judge sees it.

In fact, we’ve already seen chaos from this ambiguity. Just last year, several YouTubers like Ravish Kumar and Dastak Live News were hit with copyright strikes from Ziiki Media, a music rights company, over public domain clips. The next thing we saw was that videos were pulled down, channels demonetised, and again, the debate boiled down to what counts as fair use.

Also, a great perspective in an article by Exchange4Media says, “Failing to consider fair use and using copyright coercively is an abuse of legal tools.”

So yeah, India’s copyright framework might need a serious upgrade. Especially now, when digital content is booming, and the creator economy is expected to hit ₹10 lakh crores in revenue by 2030.

Which brings us to the big question…

What happens next?

We’ll have to wait and see if Mangal’s case ends up in court. And if it does, whether the judge sides with creators or with ANI. 

Interestingly, ANI also has an ongoing legal battle with OpenAI for allegedly using its copyrighted content to train AI models without proper authorisation. While that’s a different scenario altogether, it could still pave the way for more legal interpretations around copyright in the digital age.

In the meantime, our two cents?

Both ANI and creators like Mangal need to find some middle ground until the laws catch up.

Maybe ANI could be more transparent about the fees or penalties it’s demanding. On the flip side, creators could consider sharing a portion of their revenue with copyright holders, perhaps in proportion to how much of the original footage they’ve used.

And yeah, maybe it’s also time for creators to rethink relying on repurposing copyrighted content without expecting to pay for it.

Because until the law catches up with the times, everyone’s just winging it.

Until next time...

Don’t forget to share this story on WhatsApp, LinkedIn and X.

Break the Chain!

Taking the step to buy term insurance, especially after experiencing the loss of loved ones, is a powerful decision. By securing your future, you’re not only protecting yourself, but also setting an example for your family and friends.

If you ever need guidance or support, Ditto’s IRDAI-certified advisors are here to listen and help. Click here to book a free call.