YouTube vs ANI Controversy: Is This War Over Fair Use in 2025?

“The copyright bargain: a balance between protection for the artist and rights for the consumer!” 

-Robin Gross (Intellectual Property Lawyer, San Francisco, USA)

If you’ve been scrolling through YouTube lately, you might have stumbled upon the buzz surrounding the “YouTube vs ANI Controversy.” It’s a hot topic that’s got content creators and media houses locking horns. 

Let’s break it down together, shall we? 

The Spark: What Ignited the YouTube vs ANI Controversy?

Imagine you’re a YouTuber, pouring hours into creating content that educates and informs. You use a few seconds of news footage to add context, thinking it’s fair use. Suddenly, you receive a copyright strike from Asian News International (ANI), demanding a hefty sum to lift it. 

Sounds intense, right?

This scenario isn’t hypothetical. It’s the reality for several Indian YouTubers, including the popular policy educator, Mohak Mangal. He revealed that ANI issued multiple copyright strikes on his videos, demanding ₹45-50 lakh to remove them and offer a two-year license for using their footage.

Understanding the Core Issues

1. Fair Use vs Copyright Infringement

At the heart of the YouTube vs ANI Controversy lies the debate over fair use. Creators argue that using short clips for commentary or educational purposes falls under fair use, especially when the clips are just a few seconds long. However, ANI contends that any use of their content without permission constitutes copyright infringement.

2. The Power of Copyright Strikes

YouTube’s policy is clear: three copyright strikes within 90 days can lead to channel termination. This policy gives copyright holders significant power over creators, especially when disputes arise over what constitutes fair use. 

The Legal Landscape: What does Indian Law say about copyright? 

Under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, fair dealing allows for the use of copyrighted material for purposes like criticism, review, or reporting current events. However, the law also considers factors like the amount of material used and its impact on the market value of the original work.

In the YouTube vs ANI Controversy, creators argue that their use of short clips for commentary doesn’t harm ANI’s market. ANI, on the other hand, maintains that unauthorized use of their content, especially in monetized videos, affects their business model.

Voices from the Community

Mohak Mangal’s Stand 

Mohak Mangal didn’t just stop at highlighting the issue; he took action. He reached out to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, urging them to address what he perceives as misuse of copyright laws by ANI. He emphasized that such practices could stifle India’s growing digital creator community. 

Other Creators Speak Out

Mangal isn’t alone. Other creators have reported similar experiences, with demands ranging from ₹15 to ₹22 lakh. Some even paid up to ₹50 lakh for a one-year license. The common sentiment? A feeling of being cornered and coerced. 

ANI’s Perspective: Protecting Intellectual Property 

From ANI’s standpoint, they’re merely protecting their intellectual property. They argue that as a private news agency, their content is their primary product. Unauthorized use, especially in monetized content, undermines their business. 

ANI has stated, “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.” 

The Bigger Picture: Implications for the Digital Ecosystem

The YouTube vs ANI Controversy isn’t just about one creator and one news agency. It reflects broader challenges in the digital content ecosystem:- 

• Balancing Rights: How do we balance the rights of content creators with those of original content owners?
• Clarity in Fair Use: There’s a pressing need for clearer guidelines on what constitutes fair use, especially in the digital age. 
• Platform Policies: Platforms like YouTube play a pivotal role. Their policies and how they handle disputes can significantly impact creators’ livelihoods.

A Brief History of ANI: From Typewriters to Top of the News Chain

Before we compare the business models, let’s take a quick look at what ANI is and how it became such a dominant force in Indian media. 

Asian News International (ANI) was founded in 1971 by Prem Prakash, and today it stands as India’s largest multimedia news agency. If you’ve ever noticed the tiny watermark on news clips shown across different Indian channels, chances are, it’s ANI. Their video footage is broadcasted by almost every major news outlet—NDTV, Times Now, Aaj Tak—you name it.

How does ANI work?

ANI doesn’t create content for end consumers like you and me. Instead, they act as a B2B (business-to-business) agency. They gather raw footage, news updates, bytes from press conferences, political statements, and sell these to TV channels, websites, and digital media platforms. Their clients pay for licensing, which is how ANI earns revenue.

Now here’s the twist: Since they are one of the very few agencies with national-level access, their footage is often the only version available. That’s where monopoly comes in. 

ANI’s Monopoly in Indian Media

ANI has a near-monopoly in political video content in India. According to reports, ANI is the primary source of video feeds from the Indian government, Parliament, and top political leaders. 

• For instance, if there’s an official statement from the PM or footage from the Defence Ministry, ANI is likely the only agency allowed to film it. 
• This footage then gets distributed to hundreds of media companies across the country.

So when a YouTuber like Mohak Mangal or Dhruv Rathee uses a few seconds of this political footage, ANI considers it a use of their licensed and monetized content—even if the creator is adding their own voice, context, or opinion over it.

This monopoly gives ANI enormous power over content licensing. And that’s one major trigger behind the YouTube vs ANI Controversy.

Comparing Business Models: ANI vs YouTube

Here’s a side-by-side comparison to help you understand how ANI and YouTube operate differently:-

Note: We have explained a few famous controversies too! Go through the following articles for more information-

• The Nestle Controversy: Why Is Nestle Again In Trouble In India?
• What Happened In the Bournvita Controversy? Full Breakdown 
• Whistleblowers Expose Zomato & Zepto: The Hidden Cracks Behind Startup Success Stories
• 7 Biggest Companies Hindenburg Has Targeted For Fraud

Understanding the Clash through Business Models

Let’s say you’re a YouTuber creating a video on Indian politics. You want to show a 10-second clip of the PM speaking during a press conference to add authenticity. You’re not making money from ANI’s footage—but from your entire video which includes commentary, research, and animation.

Now, ANI sees this differently. They believe-

• You used their exclusive video footage
• You didn’t pay for the license
• And your video is monetized

So, they issue a copyright strike. You’re left with two choices-

1. Pay lakhs of rupees for a license (₹15-50 lakh per year)
2. Take down your video or risk your channel being terminated

This is exactly what happened i the YouTube vs ANI Controversy.

Why does this feel so Unfair to YouTubers? 

The real issue is that ANI’s business model doesn’t align with YouTube’s open-content model. On YouTube:-

• Content is meant to be shared, transformed, and commented upon.
• There’s a global understanding of fair use, especially for education and critique
• Creators depend on YouTube for income, and a single strike can shut down their channel

But ANI treats any use of its footage, no matter how short or transformative, as copyright infringement, and they demand heavy compensation.

And here’s the irony:-

ANI’s videos are often shown for free on government platforms like PIB or Sansad TV, but YouTubers are penalized for showing the same clips.

Navigating the Path Forward 

So, where do we go from here?

• Dialogue and Collaboration: Open communication between content creators and media houses can lead to mutual understanding and fair licensing agreements.
• Policy Reforms: There’s a need for policymakers to revisit and possibly reform copyright laws to reflect the realities of digital content creation.
• Platform Responsibility: Platforms like YouTube should consider implementing more nuanced systems for handling copyright disputes, ensuring fairness for all parties involved. 

Conclusion: Who’s Right in the YouTube vs ANI Controversy?

From a neutral perspective, the solution doesn’t lie in picking a side, but in changing the system-

• Lawmakers must revisit fair use laws in the Indian Copyright Act and clearly define how digital creators can use government/public interest footage.
• YouTube needs a better dispute mechanism that protects honest creators from being silenced.
• ANI must consider flexible pricing and short-term licensing for digital creators rather than blanket copyright strikes. 

Because ultimately, India thrives when both independent creators and credible news agencies coexist, without crushing each other’s freedom.

If you’ve made it this far—thanks a lot! Now you know why the YouTube vs ANI Controversy is such a big deal and how deep it goes. 

What’s your take? Should creators be allowed to use ANI footage under fair use? Or should ANI tighten its control further?

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section!