New Delhi: In an era where the lines between journalism, commentary, and monetisation are rapidly dissolving, India’s digital content landscape is undergoing a stress test.
At the centre of this reckoning is a controversy that has sparked outrage among YouTubers, political activists, and free speech campaigners: Asian News International (ANI) issuing copyright strikes against YouTube creators for unauthorised use of its video content.
The criticism, amplified by a letter from Member of Parliament Saket Gokhale to YouTube India, accuses ANI of "extortion" and suppressing dissent through copyright enforcement. But a closer look at the facts reveals a much less sensational reality.
What is being painted as an attack on free speech is, in fact, a textbook case of content piracy.
This is not about silencing creators or censoring political opinions. This is about enforcing copyright law and protecting intellectual property in an industry where content, not opinion, is the core commodity.
ANI is a business that happens to do news
Let’s begin with the basics. ANI is a private news agency. Its products are content, news videos, bytes, and live coverage, which it sells to paying customers.
These customers include some of India’s biggest television broadcasters and digital media platforms. Like any other content producer, ANI invests heavily in capturing newsworthy footage, maintaining camera teams, editorial staff, technology infrastructure, and licensing systems.
ANI does not run on public money. It is not Doordarshan. And it is not obligated to make its content freely available to anyone who wants to reuse it for commercial gain.
The creators now crying foul are largely individuals or small companies who built substantial followings on YouTube using news videos as a core component of their content.
Many of them have monetised their channels, earned advertising revenue, and created politically influential brands. But instead of sourcing their own content, they have routinely pulled clips from ANI’s coverage and embedded them in their commentary or news explainer videos.
When ANI began enforcing copyright strikes under YouTube's takedown mechanism, many of these creators, used to freely recycling content, were jolted. They called it an attack on democracy. But it is, more accurately, the arrival of business discipline in a previously unregulated part of the content economy.
Copyright laws and YouTube's strike mechanism
YouTube has a clear policy: three copyright strikes, and your channel can be deleted. These strikes are not arbitrary. They are initiated by copyright holders, and creators are given an opportunity to dispute or resolve them.
In the case of ANI, creators were contacted and offered a way out: pay for a commercial licence to use the content, and the strikes would be lifted. The fees quoted ranged from Rs 15 lakh to Rs 40 lakh, depending on the usage and scale of the channel.
In one case, reported by The Reporters’ Collective, a creator named "Sumit" was told to pay between Rs 15–18 lakh. He eventually paid the full amount to keep his channel alive. In return, ANI granted him a year-long licence to use its text and video content.
This was a commercial transaction. It may have been expensive, but it was legal. And ANI, in its response to the allegations, made its position clear:
“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.”
What is striking here is not ANI’s conduct, but the entitlement among certain creators who believe that freedom of expression gives them the right to use someone else’s content without compensation.
Fair dealing is not a loophole
In India, Section 52 of the Copyright Act defines what constitutes "fair dealing." It includes use of copyrighted material for private study, research, criticism, review, and reporting of current events.
But fair dealing is not the same as blanket permission. Using copyrighted footage in a monetised YouTube video, with voiceovers, commentary, and ads, is not automatically protected. Courts look at factors like purpose, amount used, transformative nature, and market impact.
YouTube creators embedding entire segments of ANI’s footage into monetised videos are not making fair use. They are creating derivative commercial products. And copyright law is not unclear on this point.
JioStar and the IPL
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 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. But this does not apply to IPL, which is a private, domestic tournament.
Yet, you don't see YouTubers demanding access to IPL footage under the banner of "fair use" or public interest. Why? Because the industry has accepted that content has value, and that using someone else's footage comes with a price.
If this is accepted for sports, why not for news?
A sustainable business model
ANI’s traditional subscriber base, TV channels and digital media are relatively stable or declining. But growth is now coming from digital creators, a booming segment that consumes and republishes news footage at scale.
To tap into this new market, ANI is offering commercial licences. According to sources, it already has subscription models starting at Rs 1 lakh per month. It can introduce creator-specific tiers, based on number of subscribers, views, or ad revenue.
Creators themselves know the cost of production. They invest in lighting, microphones, editing software, thumbnails, SEO tools, and paid advertising. Why should video footage be the only free input in a monetised supply chain?
Monopoly?
One of the most frequently levelled charges against ANI is that of monopoly. This claim doesn’t hold water. India has at least three major news agencies – ANI, PTI (Press Trust of India), and IANS (Indo-Asian News Service) – all supplying news text and video content to media houses and platforms.
Moreover, many events are live-streamed by political parties or streamed directly by the event organisers. Footage from government announcements, press conferences, and political rallies is often made available on official social media accounts. There is no dearth of access. The problem isn’t monopoly—it’s that some creators want free video content to build their brands without investing in sourcing or licensing it.
What if PTI had done this?
The backlash against ANI has another dimension, and that is politics. ANI is perceived to be closer to the current government, and many of the creators facing copyright action are vocal critics of the ruling party.
This political contrast has fed the narrative that ANI’s copyright enforcement is ideologically motivated. But that argument falls apart under basic scrutiny. Had PTI (Press Trust of India), seen as more centrist or Left-leaning, enforced similar strikes, it is unlikely we’d see the same uproar.
The real problem isn't ANI's legal strategy. It's that a habit of content recycling is being challenged, and some creators are unwilling to adapt.
Calling piracy free speech is dangerous
Now, look at the narrative being peddled: copyright enforcement is a threat to democracy. That idea is not just wrong; it’s harmful.
Every creator has the right to critique the government, expose wrongdoing, and share opinions. But, those rights do not include the right to steal content.
If you use ANI’s footage, pay for it. If you can’t, make your own.
Free speech is not being muzzled here. A business model based on piracy is being challenged. And the loudest voices of protest are not activists. They are entrepreneurs upset that their zero-cost supply chain has been interrupted.
This isn’t censorship. It’s commerce.
And it’s time India’s digital creators started respecting that.
/bmi/media/agency_attachments/KAKPsR4kHI0ik7widvjr.png)
/bmi/media/media_files/2025/05/09/zQkAa9yJJa8Wxohv8s69.jpg)
/bmi/media/member_avatars/niraj-sharma-bmi.jpeg )
Follow Us/bmi/media/media_files/2025/05/26/wfYG7v7BAuBagAfm0fNk.jpeg)