Fair use. De-minimis. Transformative work. copyright Licensing. Digital complexities
In today’s content-driven world, the line between inspiration and infringement is blurrier than ever. So, how much of someone else’s work can you actually use? Use a few seconds of a news clip, a film excerpt, or a viral audio and suddenly, you’re facing takedowns and legal action.
The reality is, there is no magic number to how much you can use. Whether your use crosses the threshold, depends entirely on the context and is almost always judged on a case-by-case basis.
Introduction
In today’s digital-first world, copyright disputes are no longer rare incidents. They are becoming an everyday concern for content creators. Social media platforms, particularly YouTube, empowers independent creators to produce and share content widely, but they also enforce strict takedown mechanisms that are often automated and unforgiving. As creators borrow snippets from existing work, be it a few seconds of a song, a news clip, or film footage they frequently encounter copyright strikes or legal notices.
This is largely because most of these platforms follow U.S. copyright norms, especially the Digital Millennium copyright Act (*DMCA*), which governs takedown procedures globally, regardless of where the creator is based. In contrast, Indian law, governed by the copyright Act, 1957, offers its own set of principles, including the concepts of “fair dealing” and “*de minimis*” use. A recent example that highlights this complexity is the case of ANI vs. Mohak Mangal.
Why should creators care?
A video can vanish overnight due to a takedown, or an entire channel can be at risk if multiple strikes occur. Additionally, large media companies and music labels etc increasingly police the re-use of their material on platforms like YouTube This article aims to simplify these issues and explore the exact legal questions raised in the ANI vs. Mangal dispute. It will examine how Indian courts have interpreted fair dealing, and how exceptions like criticism, review, or reporting may offer protection. While copyright law must evolve alongside the digital ecosystem, some legal patterns and precedents are beginning to emerge. Although there are no absolute answers particularly around how much use is “too much.” This article attempts to draw insights from Indian case law and platform policy to help creators and rights holders better understand their boundaries, responsibilities and possible remedies.
A brief overview of the The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal Case:
The controversy arose when Mohak Mangal, a popular YouTuber known for producing explanatory content on current affairs, included two short clips from ANI’s news footages in one of his videos. These clips each lasting around 9-11 seconds were used as a part of his commentary on a legal issue. ANI then issued copyright strikes on YouTube, alleging that Mangal had used its proprietary footage without authorization.
Under YouTube’s copyright policy, a single strike results in the removal of the video in question, while three strikes within a 90-day window can lead to the permanent suspension of a creator’s channel. The incident reignited public debate over “fair use,” “fair dealing” and the limits of content re-use on digital platforms.
The dispute presents two opposing yet legally significant viewpoints.
Supporters of Mangal argue that the use was limited, non-exploitative and possibly protected under legal doctrines like fair dealing or *de minimis*, which exclude trivial use from infringement claims. They contend that the clips were embedded in transformative commentary that added original value.
On the other hand, ANI maintains that the footage used was proprietary and utilized without permission. As a professional news agency, ANI invests heavily in gathering original content deploying trained personnel, expensive equipment and editorial oversight. From their standpoint, allowing unlicensed reuse, even in part, undermines both their commercial interests and creative control. Also, that Mohak Mangal himself makes money from these videos he creates which shows commercial gain.
From a legal lens, the case reflects a deeper, mutual concern: whether incorporating short segments of protected content into new, monetized work with creative input crosses the line into infringement. It also raises a hypothetical reverse situation: if anyone else used clips from Mangal’s own videos under similar reasoning, would he not object?
At the core lies a fundamental principle of copyright law: originality does not exempt one from seeking permission if the reused portion is legally considered “substantial.” However, determining what qualifies as substantial quantitatively or qualitatively remains highly subjective and context dependent. This grey area is where copyright law becomes complex, requiring nuanced interpretation, factual comparisons and careful documentation of evidence/supporting documents.
Understanding copyright law and its Exceptions in India:
Indian copyright law is governed by the copyright Act, 1957 (the “Act”), which grants exclusive rights to authors and copyright holders over their original literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, cinematographic and sound recording works. Section 51 of the Act outlines the conditions under which copyright is considered to be infringed. It states that unauthorized use of a protected work constitutes infringement when such use occurs in violation of the rights conferred by the Act, or when it conflicts with a lawful license.
While the Act does not use the term “substantial part,” Indian courts have consistently evaluated infringement by asking whether the portion used regardless of its length captures the essence of the original work. This is a qualitative rather than a quantitative test.
In India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (50) PTC 373 (Del), the Delhi High Court analyzed brief excerpts of songs used in a television interview. The Court acknowledged the importance of evaluating the purpose of use, the extent of copying, the user’s intent, and the potential for market harm. It stressed that trivial or incidental uses like humming or quoting a few seconds of a song should not be treated as actionable infringement, especially where there is no bad faith or commercial injury.
Similarly, in Saregama India Ltd. v. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 14908, the Calcutta High Court ruled that the use of a 7-second clip from an old song did not infringe copyright. The Court found that the segment lacked sufficient originality and did not cause any commercial harm, applying the *de minimis* principle, which holds that the law does not concern itself with trifles.
These cases highlight a crucial nuance: short duration alone does not guarantee safety. If a small portion represents the “heart” or most impactful part of the work such as a film’s punchline or a key visual moment it may still be infringing. Courts weigh not just how much was taken, but what was taken and how significantly it contributes to the new work.
In short, while Indian copyright law does not provide a fixed metric, judicial interpretation has created a “substantiality” threshold grounded in the significance and context of the use. A 10-second clip may be irrelevant in a feature-length film, but extremely significant in a short-form news report. This makes risk assessment highly fact dependent.
Exceptions to Infringement: The Fair Dealing Doctrine
The copyright Act, 1957 provides specific exceptions to infringement under Section 52, including the doctrine of fair dealing. These exceptions are purpose-based and relatively narrow in comparison to the broader fair use doctrine under U.S. law.
Under Section 52(1)(a) and (b), use of a copyrighted work is not considered infringement if it qualifies as fair dealing for the following purposes:
- Criticism or review, of that work or any other work;
- Reporting current events, including commentary or discussion that incorporates excerpts.
While the Act does not define “fair,” Indian courts have developed guiding principles. The focus is on whether the use is proportional, transformative and serves a legitimate public purpose, such as education, journalism, or critique not merely to entertain or profit.
A leading case in this regard is Newslaundry Media Pvt. Ltd. v. TV Today Network Ltd. (2021), where the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction against videos that critiqued Aaj Tak’s broadcasts using short clips. The Court recognized that such use though unauthorized raised valid questions of free speech and fair dealing, which needed to be adjudicated at trial rather than censored at the interim stage.
In today’s creator economy, these exceptions have taken on new relevance. Independent commentators, educators and YouTubers may fall within the fair dealing defense when their work involves criticism, explanation, or reporting on current affairs. For instance, in the ANI vs. Mohak Mangal case, the use of 9–11 second clips could potentially be covered under Section 52(1)(b) if they were embedded within transformative, journalistic content.
However, as courts have repeatedly emphasized, context is everything. If the excerpt includes the core editorial content or is used in a way that substitutes for the original, the use may still amount to infringement even if it was brief or non-commercial.
This brings us back to the central challenge in copyright enforcement: the thin line between *de minimis* use and substantial copying. For a 2-hour film, an 11-second clip may seem negligible. But in a 30-second viral video or a condensed news piece, the same 11 seconds could form the critical core of the original content making it far from trivial.
YouTube POLICIES and the *DMCA*
YouTube operates as a private platform not a court and does not decide whether content qualifies as fair use or fair dealing. Instead, it follows U.S. copyright law, particularly the Digital Millennium copyright Act (*DMCA*), which sets the standard for handling copyright claims globally.
Under the *DMCA*’s “notice-and-takedown” regime, platforms like YouTube are protected from liability if they act swiftly on receiving valid copyright complaints. If a rights holder such as ANI files a takedown notice, YouTube will remove the video and issue a copyright strike, even if the creator may have a fair dealing defense under Indian law.
Creators can respond by filing a counter-notice, stating that their use is lawful. Once filed, the complainant must initiate legal proceedings (usually in U.S. federal court) within 10 business days to keep the video offline. If they don’t, YouTube restores the content.
In addition to manual takedowns, YouTube uses Content ID, an automated system that scans uploads for copyrighted material. Rights holders can choose to block, mute, or monetize matched content.
What About Indian Court Orders?
Although YouTube is governed by U.S. law, it must comply with Indian court orders within the country. Courts in India can direct YouTube or local ISPs to take down or geo-block content that violates Indian laws whether for copyright, defamation, or other legal issues.
Conclusion:
The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal case draws attention to the growing tension between copyright protection and creative expression in the digital age. The real challenge lies in the grey zones where commentary, mashups and criticism blur the lines between infringement and transformation. Questions of scale, purpose and proportionality remain central but unresolved and always judged on a case-by-case basis.
As creators continue to rely on existing media to inform, educate and entertain, copyright disputes are becoming a near-constant reality. While India's current legal framework provides limited fair dealing exceptions, evolving jurisprudence and perhaps future legislative reform may bring greater clarity, especially as digital content becomes increasingly nuanced and global in reach.
Until then, creators must strike a careful balance: use only what is necessary, document intent, understand platform rules and be prepared to justify their use if challenged. At the same time, rights holders are entitled to protect their investments, particularly where content is misused or commercially exploited without permission.
In sum, copyright law must strike a delicate balance between protecting original works and enabling transformative expression. The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal case exemplifies the ongoing struggle to define this boundary in the digital era. As Indian jurisprudence evolves, creators and rights holders alike must remain informed, cautious, and proactive in asserting their respective rights. or restrict reporting but to create a space where original content is respected, and derivative creativity is permitted within fair and lawful bounds. With informed creators, responsible platforms and balanced enforcement, it is possible to protect both innovation and ownership without turning copyright into a tool for suppression.
Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Authors:
- Mohit Porwal, Associate Partner
- Krupa Vyas, Associate