ANI vs Mohak Mangal: A Copyright Clash Igniting Fair Use Debate in India

In May 2025, a high-profile dispute between Indian news agency Asian News International (ANI) and YouTuber Mohak Mangal sparked a nationwide debate over copyright enforcement, fair use, and the power dynamics between legacy media and digital creators. Mangal accused ANI of exploiting YouTube’s copyright strike system to extort hefty payments, while ANI maintained its legal right to protect its intellectual property. The controversy, which gained traction after Mangal’s viral video “Dear ANI” on May 26, 2025, has raised critical questions about digital rights, creator protections, and the ethics of copyright enforcement in India. This article examines the situation, both sides’ stances, recent developments, and the broader implications for India’s creator economy.

Background of the Controversy

Mohak Mangal, a popular YouTuber with over 4.1 lakh subscribers, is known for his analytical videos on policy, current events, and socio-political issues. On May 26, 2025, he released a 13-minute video titled “Dear ANI,” accusing ANI, one of India’s largest news agencies, of misusing YouTube’s copyright strike system to demand payments ranging from ₹45-50 lakh to remove strikes on his channel. The strikes were issued for using brief clips (9-11 seconds) of ANI’s footage in two videos: one on the Kolkata rape case (11 seconds in a 16-minute video) and another on Operation Sindoor (9 seconds in a 33-minute video). Mangal’s allegations of extortion ignited a firestorm, with prominent creators like Dhruv Rathee, Kunal Kamra, and Nitish Rajput rallying in his support, amplifying the issue across social media platforms like X.

[](https://english.varthabharati.in/india/youtuber-mohak-mangal-alleges-extortion-by-news-agency-ani-over-copyright-strikes)[](https://www.news18.com/india/the-ani-vs-youtubers-dispute-copyright-claims-and-the-question-of-fair-use-ws-l-9356156.html)

The controversy has spotlighted YouTube’s Content ID system and India’s copyright laws, particularly the concept of “fair dealing” under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. It has also raised concerns about whether large media organizations are using copyright enforcement as a tool to intimidate independent creators, threatening free expression and the digital creator economy.

[](https://inshorts.com/en/news/ani-faces-heat-over-youtube-copyright-strike-allegations-1748192589031)

Mohak Mangal’s Stance

Mohak Mangal argues that ANI’s actions constitute extortion and an abuse of YouTube’s copyright strike system. His key points include:

Fair Use Claim: Mangal contends that the 9-11 second clips used in his videos qualify as “fair dealing” under Indian copyright law, which permits limited use of copyrighted material for purposes like criticism, commentary, news reporting, or education without permission. His videos, which provide in-depth analysis, fall within these categories, as the clips were used to support commentary, not to reproduce ANI’s content wholesale.
Extortion Allegations: Mangal claims ANI demanded ₹45-50 lakh plus GST to remove the strikes and grant a two-year license for their footage. He shared email and phone call records, including a conversation where an ANI representative allegedly reduced the demand to ₹40 lakh as a “goodwill gesture,” framing it as a subscription fee. Mangal described this as a “hostage and ransom” tactic, especially since three strikes could lead to his channel’s deletion under YouTube’s policy.
Wider Pattern: Mangal alleges that ANI has targeted multiple creators with similar demands, citing cases where others paid ₹15-50 lakh to resolve strikes. He argues this is a systematic pattern to pressure creators into expensive subscriptions, stifling independent voices.
Call for Reform: Mangal wrote to Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, urging government intervention to address ANI’s practices and protect creators. He also called for YouTube India to scrutinize ANI’s use of copyright tools, arguing that such actions threaten free expression and independent journalism.

Mangal’s video, which garnered 4 million views in two days, resonated with the creator community, with many labeling ANI’s actions as “daylight robbery” and an “extortion racket.” Posts on X echoed this sentiment, with creators like Kunal Kamra urging YouTube India to ban ANI for blackmailing creators.

[](https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/the-controversy-over-news-agency-anis-extortion-on-youtube-explained)

ANI’s Stance

ANI, as of May 28, 2025, has not issued a detailed public response to Mangal’s allegations, but its position can be inferred from reported communications and the broader context of copyright enforcement:

Legal Ownership: ANI asserts that it holds full copyright over its content, including video clips, footage, and graphics. Under Indian copyright law, unauthorized use of their material, even in small amounts, constitutes infringement unless it clearly falls under fair dealing. ANI’s representatives reportedly informed Mangal’s team that the strikes were issued because he used their footage without a license, regardless of clip length.
Subscription Model: ANI’s demands for ₹45-50 lakh appear to be tied to a licensing fee for using their content. The agency offers footage subscriptions to media outlets and creators, and the high cost may reflect their standard rates for commercial use. ANI likely views Mangal’s use of their clips in monetized videos as a violation requiring compensation or a formal licensing agreement.
Enforcement Rights: ANI maintains that issuing copyright strikes is within their legal rights to protect their intellectual property. YouTube’s Content ID system allows rights holders to claim content, demonetize videos, or issue strikes, and ANI’s actions align with this framework. The agency may argue that Mangal’s failure to seek permission or a license justifies the strikes.

ANI’s lack of a public statement has fueled speculation, with some X users questioning whether their actions are driven by financial motives or political affiliations. However, without an official response, ANI’s stance remains focused on enforcing their copyright, as is their legal prerogative.

The Situation: Timeline and Developments

The controversy unfolded as follows:

May 20, 2025: ANI issues a copyright strike on Mangal’s 16-minute video on the Kolkata rape case for using an 11-second clip of their footage.
May 2025: A second strike is issued for a 33-minute video on Operation Sindoor, citing a 9-second clip featuring Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. With two strikes, Mangal’s channel faces the risk of deletion upon a third strike.
May 25-26, 2025: Mangal’s team contacts ANI to resolve the issue. ANI allegedly demands ₹45-50 lakh plus GST to remove the strikes and provide a two-year subscription. A recorded conversation reveals an ANI representative lowering the demand to ₹40 lakh. Mangal releases “Dear ANI,” detailing these interactions and accusing ANI of extortion.
May 26-27, 2025: The video goes viral, garnering 4 million views. Creators like Dhruv Rathee, Kunal Kamra, Nitish Rajput, and others voice support, sparking a broader debate on fair use and copyright enforcement. X posts amplify the issue, with some calling for a boycott of ANI.
May 27, 2025: Press Trust of India (PTI), ANI’s competitor, announces “highly affordable” video access for YouTubers, capitalizing on the controversy to position itself as creator-friendly.
May 28, 2025: The debate continues, with media outlets like The Financial Express, The Hindu, and News18 covering the issue, highlighting fair use concerns and the need for legal reform. Mangal’s letter to the I&B Ministry calls for government action.

Key Issues and Fair Use Debate

The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal controversy has brought several issues to the forefront:

Fair Dealing in India: Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act allows limited use of copyrighted material for criticism, review, news reporting, or education. Mangal argues his use of brief clips for commentary qualifies, but ANI’s strikes suggest a stricter interpretation, highlighting ambiguity in applying fair dealing to digital content.
YouTube’s Content ID System: YouTube’s automated system prioritizes rights holders, often dismissing transformative use by creators. This leaves creators vulnerable to strikes, as the platform’s policies do not fully align with India’s fair dealing provisions.
Power Imbalance: Large media agencies like ANI have the resources to enforce copyright claims, while independent creators face financial and legal constraints. The high licensing fees demanded by ANI are prohibitive for most YouTubers, raising questions about equitable access to news footage.
Threat to Free Expression: Critics argue that ANI’s actions could chill independent journalism and commentary, as creators may self-censor to avoid strikes or costly settlements.

The following table summarizes the key points of contention:

Issue	Mohak Mangal’s Position	ANI’s Position
Copyright Use	9-11 second clips qualify as fair dealing for commentary and education.	Unauthorized use of any footage, regardless of length, is infringement.
Payment Demands	₹45-50 lakh demands are extortion, not legitimate licensing fees.	Demands reflect standard licensing fees for commercial use of footage.
Impact on Creators	Strikes threaten channel deletion and free expression.	Strikes are a legal tool to protect intellectual property.

Broader Implications

The controversy has sparked a broader debate about the creator economy in India:

Creator Solidarity: The outpouring of support from creators like Dhruv Rathee and Kunal Kamra highlights the need for collective action to protect digital rights.
Policy Reform: Calls for legal reform to clarify fair dealing provisions and regulate copyright enforcement on platforms like YouTube are gaining traction.
Competitor Response: PTI’s move to offer affordable video access suggests market competition could benefit creators, but it also underscores the need for standardized licensing models.
Public Sentiment: Posts on X reflect widespread outrage, with some users accusing ANI of political bias or monopolistic behavior due to its alleged ties to power structures. However, others argue Mangal’s actions were deliberate, knowing the risks of using copyrighted material.

Current Status

As of May 28, 2025, the controversy remains unresolved. ANI has not publicly responded to Mangal’s allegations, and the strikes on his channel persist. Mangal’s letter to the I&B Ministry and public support from creators have kept the issue in the spotlight, with media outlets continuing to analyze the fair use debate. PTI’s entry into the fray has added a new dimension, potentially pressuring ANI to reconsider its approach. The creator community awaits further developments, with many hoping for intervention from YouTube India or the government to address the broader implications of copyright enforcement.

[](https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/newsmo/video/mohak-mangal-vs-ani-explained-ptis-new-move-amid-copyright-clash-2731572-2025-05-27)

Conclusion

The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal controversy underscores the complex interplay between copyright law, digital platforms, and the creator economy in India. While ANI’s enforcement of its intellectual property rights is legally grounded, Mangal’s allegations of extortion and the support from fellow creators highlight a power imbalance that threatens independent voices. The debate over fair dealing and YouTube’s Content ID system requires urgent attention to ensure that creators can operate without fear of punitive strikes or unaffordable demands. As India’s digital landscape evolves, this clash could set a precedent for how copyright disputes are resolved, balancing the rights of media agencies with the creative freedom of digital storytellers.

ANI vs Mohak Mangal: A Copyright Clash Igniting Fair Use Debate in India

Background of the Controversy

Mohak Mangal’s Stance

ANI’s Stance

The Situation: Timeline and Developments

Key Issues and Fair Use Debate

Broader Implications

Current Status

Conclusion

About the Author

Detroit Ash

Related Articles

Ayushman Bharat Vay Vandana Card: Empowering Senior Citizens with Healthcare Access

The Rise of Stand-Up Comedy Culture in India: From Niche to Mainstream

Stay Updated with Our Newsletter