Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Delhi High Court addressed a significant case involving news agency ANI and famous YouTuber concerning copyright infringement, trademark disparagement, and defamation. This case provides the evolving legal landscape surrounding fair use of copyrighted content by digital content creators. The court's decision has implications for content creators' rights to use news agency material for commentary and criticism. The case underscores the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and preserving freedom of expression in digital media. 

What was the Background of ANI v. Mohak Mangal & Ors. Case? 

• ANI filed copyright removal requests with YouTube against Mohak Mangal's videos, claiming unauthorized use of their copyrighted content. 
• The news agency submitted multiple takedown notices under YouTube's copyright infringement mechanism, resulting in copyright strikes against Mangal's channel. 
• Mangal responded with counter notifications, arguing his use constituted fair dealing under Indian copyright law for criticism, review, and reporting current events. 
• ANI filed separate cases in trial court for copyright infringement and in Delhi High Court for trademark infringement, disparagement, and defamation. 
• The suit targeted Mangal's YouTube video titled "Dear ANI" which garnered 5.5 million views and named comedian Kunal Kamra and AltNews co-founder as defendants. 
• ANI alleged that Mangal's video contained disparaging remarks calling the agency "gunda" and "kidnapper" while misrepresenting communications through artificial intelligence tools. 
• The case arose from ANI's claim that Mangal was diverting traffic from their news channel, adversely impacting their revenue. 

What were the Court Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court directed Mangal to remove specific disparaging portions from his video while allowing the remaining content to stay. 
• The court noted that there was no immediate threat to Mangal's YouTube channel since he had filed counter notifications, making his video response premature. 
• Justice Amit Bansal observed that the onus was on ANI to approach the court after counter notifications were filed, not on the content creator. 
• The court distinguished between legitimate criticism and disparaging content, allowing opinions while removing defamatory language. 
• The court emphasized that asking viewers to unsubscribe from ANI was acceptable as it represented the creator's opinion and removing it would impede free speech. 
• The court refused to order complete takedown of the video, instead requiring surgical removal of objectionable portions while preserving the creator's views and video statistics. 
• The court indicated that content evident from telephone recordings would be permissible, focusing on factual accuracy versus inflammatory language. 

What is the Doctrine of Fair Dealing Under Section 52 of Copyright Act ? 

• Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides that fair dealing with any work (except computer programmes) for private or personal use including research shall not constitute copyright infringement. 
  • Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or any other work, is explicitly protected under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 
  • The reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public, falls under fair dealing exceptions as per Section 52(1)(a)(iii). 
• The Act allows storing of any work in electronic medium for fair dealing purposes, including incidental storage of computer programmes that are not infringing copies. 
• Fair dealing provisions under Section 52 require acknowledgment identifying the work by title and author, unless the work is anonymous, or author has agreed to no acknowledgment. 
• The reproduction of any work for judicial proceedings or reports of judicial proceedings is protected under Section 52(1)(d) without requiring fair dealing analysis. 
• Educational uses, including reproduction by teachers or pupils during instruction and performance of works by educational institutions for limited audiences, are covered under Section 52(1)(i) and (j). 
• Section 52(1)(m) permits reproduction of articles on current economic, political, social or religious topics in periodicals unless the author has expressly reserved reproduction rights. 
• The fair dealing defense under Section 52 extends to translations and adaptations of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works as per sub-section (2). 
• Courts interpret fair dealing exceptions on a case-by-case basis considering factors like purpose, nature of use, amount used, and effect on copyright owner's market. 

What are the Foundational Cases on Fair Dealing Definition? 

• Hubbard & Another v. Vosper & Another (1972): 
  • Lord Denning established the foundational test for fair dealing, stating: "It is impossible to define what 'fair dealing is." It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts... Then you must consider the use made of them... Next, you must consider the proportions. 
• Kartar Singh Giani v. Ladha Singh: 
  • The High Court clarified that unfairness in fair dealing requires either: (1) intention to compete and derive profit from competition, or (2) improper motive of the infringer. 

Educational Use and Course Materials 

• The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors. (DU Photocopying Case, 2016): 
  • Landmark judgment establishing that preparation of 'course packs' (compilation of photocopies from prescribed books) by educational institutions does not constitute copyright infringement under Section 52(1)(i), as long as the photocopied materials are justified for educational instruction purposes. 

Commercial vs. Private Use Distinction 

• Blackwood v. Parasuraman (1959): 
  • Court rejected fair dealing defense for commercial publication of student guides, holding that "private study" covers only personal copying by students, not circulation of copies among other students. 
• Syndicate of Press University of Cambridge v. Kasturi Lal & Sons (2006): 
  • Established that verbatim copying of complete exercises and answer keys cannot be termed as review, criticism, or guide.  
  • The court emphasized that "research and scholarship are easily distinguishable from imitation and plagiarism." 

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court's ruling represents a balanced approach to digital content creation rights versus intellectual property protection. The court's decision to allow surgical editing rather than complete takedown preserves both the creator's expression and the copyright holder's legitimate interests. This case sets important precedent for future disputes between traditional media organizations and digital content creators. The judgment reinforces that fair criticism and commentary remain protected under Indian law while establishing boundaries for defamatory content in the digital age.