Delhi High Court Flags YouTube Over Fair Use: Mohak Mangal’s Case Sparks Debate on Free Speech
Introduction:
The recent hearing in the Delhi High Court between ANI and YouTube creator Mohak Mangal has ignited a nationwide discussion on the balance between copyright, fair use, and freedom of speech. The case highlights how digital platforms, content creators, and traditional media navigate legal boundaries in India’s digital age.
1. Background of the Case
Mohak Mangal, a popular YouTube creator, faced two separate lawsuits from ANI:
- Defamation and Disparagement: ANI claimed Mohak portrayed them as extortionists after demanding licensing fees. Mohak removed the objectionable remarks as directed by the court.
- Copyright Infringement: ANI alleged Mohak used 10 of their videos without authorization, adding their logo, and demanded permanent injunctions, ₹50 lakh in damages, and accusations of piracy and unjust enrichment.
The copyright case was eventually transferred to the Delhi High Court. Mohak filed an application seeking reinstatement of his videos that were removed by YouTube following ANI’s copyright strikes.
2. Heated Courtroom Debate
Before Justice Manmeet Preet Singh Arora, the court heard arguments from both sides. Mohak’s senior advocates, Diya Kapoor and Nakul Gandhi, argued that his use of short clips (7 seconds in a 30-minute video) clearly falls under fair use, meant for reference, commentary, and analysis.
YouTube, however, refused to reinstate the videos until a judicial order was obtained, which prompted the judge to criticize the platform’s casual approach. Justice Arora observed that YouTube cannot bypass the judicial system and act as a judge over what content should remain online.
3. Content Creator’s Perspective
Mohak’s team argued that videos represent not just content but a creator’s identity, reach, and livelihood. Removing content without judicial oversight causes irreparable harm. Mohak rejected ANI’s offer to edit out clips in exchange for dropping the lawsuit, emphasizing the principle of fair use for creators.
Diya Kapoor highlighted that requiring permission for every news clip makes analytical and educational content impossible, which is detrimental to public discourse.
4. ANI’s Standpoint
ANI’s senior advocates, Saurabh Kripal and Siddh Kumar, countered that as a news agency, their work is a paid, resource-intensive process. Unauthorized use threatens financial sustainability. While their concerns are valid, the case raises a broader question of how fair use is applied in educational and analytical contexts.
5. Court’s Direction and Implications
Justice Arora directed both YouTube and ANI to file detailed, on-merits replies within two weeks. The court emphasized that YouTube, as a private platform, cannot act as a judicial authority and must evaluate fair use claims properly.
This case is more than just Mohak Mangal’s videos; it underscores a larger debate about free speech, corporate control, and creators’ rights in India’s digital era. The judgment will be closely watched for its impact on fair use, freedom of expression, and digital content regulation.
6. Conclusion
As YouTube and ANI prepare their detailed responses, the case shines a spotlight on the tension between copyright protection and creators’ rights. The court’s scrutiny signals that platforms cannot unilaterally decide what content stays online, and fair use remains a critical principle for fostering public discourse and analytical commentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment