ANI vs YouTubers: Why YouTube must step in to protect its creator ecosystem

New Delhi: The storm over Asian News International’s (ANI) copyright strikes on YouTubers may have a far-reaching impact on the future of content creation, creator protection, and platform accountability.

What began as an outcry over censorship has now evolved into a pointed demand: YouTube must step up and broker formal agreements with news agencies to protect its creator ecosystem.

Also read: Piracy is not free speech: Why YouTubers must pay for ANI’s content

The controversy, sparked after ANI issued multiple takedown notices and copyright strikes on independent YouTube channels for unauthorised use of its content, has already disrupted the informal, cut-copy-paste economy that many creators had built their business models on.

The facts are no longer contested. Even critics concede that ANI is well within its legal rights to enforce copyright.

The backlash now rests squarely on the pricing mechanism and what creators call the “extortionate” cost of lifting strikes. Demands reportedly range from ₹15 lakh to ₹40 lakh per creator, depending on the scale of content usage.

“Let’s be clear, no one is saying ANI shouldn’t charge,” said one legal and social activist. “But the issue is ANI enforcing penalties without publicly disclosing usage norms or licensing frameworks tailored for creators. Holding someone to ransom suddenly with the threat of permanent deletion is nothing short of daylight extortion.”

The initial uproar framed ANI’s actions as an attack on press freedom. But legal experts now point out that the core issue is commercial, not constitutional.

“If creators feel ANI’s pricing or process is unfair, the right course is to challenge it in court,” said a Delhi-based media lawyer. “YouTube’s takedown system is structured to protect copyright holders. Whether a 9-second clip deserves a ₹15 lakh fine is not a decision for social media. That’s a courtroom debate.”

The penalty calculus, according to industry insiders, is far from simplistic. Usage duration, frequency, monetisation value, subscriber base, and type of content all factor into ANI’s quote. In legal proceedings, ANI would be compelled to disclose this framework in detail.

For now, creators are left confused and increasingly cautious.

With ANI offering structured packages for publishers, many have suggested it’s time to create a separate pricing slab or affordable bundle for YouTubers.

“Why not publish a YouTuber-friendly rate card?” asked one political commentator. “Creators are willing to pay. But we need transparency and predictability. Not a copyright ambush.”

But the bigger worry isn’t ANI. It’s what comes next.

“If ANI’s model succeeds, and there’s no reason why it won’t, you can expect PTI, IANS, and every major content producer to follow,” said a content strategist at a digital media firm. “Then you’ll have news channels enforcing rights. Remember how several networks sent copyright notices to Newslaundry? The dominoes are already lined up.”

For creators, the fear is existential. How many news subscriptions can one afford just to stay online? One copyright strike is manageable. Three means deletion. The cost of compliance could wipe out smaller creators entirely.

That’s why some voices are now turning their attention to YouTube.

“The onus doesn’t lie with ANI or any other original video creator. They’re doing what any rights-holding business would do,” said Rama Paul, a former broadcast executive and co-founder of Nine Red, an integrated marketing solutions company. “YouTube, on the other hand, profits off creators and offers little in the way of systemic protection. If anyone should do a master agreement with ANI, it’s YouTube.”

@mohakmangal

I believe equal pressure should be placed on YouTube as well. Why can’t they protect content creators by negotiating an umbrella deal with ANI? It seems logical, especially considering their entire revenue model relies on creator-generated content.

— Rama Paul (@ramapaul2017) May 26, 2025

Such a deal, experts suggest, would mirror existing arrangements YouTube has with music labels and film studios, allowing monetised use of licensed content under revenue-sharing terms or usage thresholds.

“YouTube already has Content ID systems in place,” Paul noted. “They could easily scale that to offer blanket rights coverage through bulk deals with agencies. It would ensure ANI gets paid, creators don’t get ambushed, and the platform remains viable for political commentary and journalism.”

YouTube maintains that it balances rights-holder claims with creators’ rights to dispute strikes, but leaves resolution largely to private negotiation. That vacuum of policy is exactly what content creators now want addressed.