The ongoing rift between ANI and digital content creators raises critical questions about content rights and digital freedoms

When YouTubers accused ANI of using copyright strikes to demand exorbitant licensing fees, it raised critical questions about fair use, media ownership, and the rights of independent voices on digital platforms.

A major controversy has erupted between Asian News International (ANI), one of India’s most prominent news agencies, and a number of Indian content creators, following serious allegations regarding a copyright strike. Creators have alleged that ANI has misused YouTube’s copyright strike mechanism to issue takedown notices, subsequently demanding exorbitant licensing fees. These strikes are in regard to brief segments of news footage used in their videos. This has further raised concerns regarding digital rights, fair use, and the ethical boundaries of copyright enforcement. 

The matter came to public attention after YouTuber Mohak Mangal released a detailed video titled "Dear ANI," in which he accused the agency of striking his content twice for using clips lasting merely 9 to 11 seconds. He claimed that the excerpts he used were included strictly for commentary and public interest reporting. He argued that the ones, particularly in videos addressing sensitive issues, should fall under fair use protections due to their educational and journalistic intent. According to him, ANI’s response to these alleged infringements was not only aggressive but also financially burdensome, as the agency reportedly demanded licensing fees ranging from ₹45 to ₹48 lakh, offering to lift the strikes only upon payment or through a formal licensing arrangement. He described it as a form of extortion that sets a troubling precedent for how large media organisations can leverage legal tools to suppress or intimidate independent voices operating on platforms like YouTube. 

Also Read: The curious case of Vishal Mega Mart’s security guard memes. Here’s what we know!

In the wake of his disclosure, a lot of digital creators have come forward with similar experiences, further intensifying the debate surrounding the balance of power between legacy media houses and digital content creators. According to them, such aggressive copyright enforcement not only threatens the principles of fair use and freedom of expression but also risks creating a hostile environment. This ongoing dispute has also started broader discussions about the responsibilities of platforms like YouTube in safeguarding fair use, the need for better transparency and reform in copyright governance, and the importance of protecting independent creators from potential misuse of legal frameworks. 

In defense of ANI, it’s worth considering their perspective as a private news agency that invests significant resources in producing original content. ANI employs journalists, videographers, and other staff to gather news, often in challenging conditions, which incurs substantial costs. Unlike public-funded or government-run entities, ANI relies on revenue to sustain operations, and licensing fees for their footage are a legitimate way to protect their intellectual property and fund their work.

Many YouTubers, particularly those covering news and current affairs, have indeed used ANI’s content and sometimes without permission, to create videos that attract audiences and generate ad revenue. While some argue this falls under fair use for commentary or education, ANI could reasonably claim that creators profit directly from their work without compensating the agency. For example, a YouTuber using even a short clip of ANI’s exclusive footage in a monetized video could be seen as leveraging ANI’s resources to build their credibility and income, which isn’t inherently fair to the original content producer. If ANI is now enforcing stricter licensing policies, this could reflect a response to the changing internet media space where content reuse has become rampant. Historically, lax regulations or enforcement might have allowed creators to use such content freely, but ANI’s decision to formalize licensing agreements aligns with standard practices in media industries globally. Other news agencies, like Reuters or AP, also charge for footage, and ANI’s pursuit of fees isn’t inherently unreasonable, especially if they’re targeting high-earning channels that have built businesses partly on their content.

That said, the execution also matters. If ANI’s fees (e.g., ₹15-50 lakh) are disproportionately high or come with aggressive copyright strikes, it risks alienating creators and appearing exploitative. A balanced approach with clear licensing terms and transparent communication would better justify their position. Without ANI’s public response, it’s hard to fully assess their intent, but as a private entity, they’re within their rights to protect their content and seek fair compensation, especially if creators have profited from it over time. 

What are your thoughts on this ongoing controversy? Tell us in the comments below.

For more such news on latest trends, follow us on @socialketchup