Back
Asks Why Scammers Access 's Rights Manager But Not Creators
The has sharply questioned over its criteria for granting access to the Rights Manager tool, a free content-protection system that allows rights holders to detect and act against unauthorized use of their material on Facebook and Instagram. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed the tech giant to place on record its policy, guidelines, and eligibility requirements for the tool, while also demanding an explanation for why established content creators are being denied access even as alleged scammers appear to be exploiting the system to file fraudulent copyright claims.
The court’s remarks came during a hearing on a suit filed by Mohit Kumar, an AI, business, and e-commerce coach who publishes educational content under the handle “Rise With Mohit.” Kumar alleged that unknown persons downloaded his original videos, registered them through ’s Rights Manager as their own, and then used the tool to issue against his accounts—effectively turning the platform’s own protection mechanism into a weapon against the true creator.
The Rights Manager Conundrum
Rights Manager is designed to identify content uploaded on Facebook and Instagram that matches material claimed by a rights holder. Once a user gains access, they can monitor matches and take actions such as blocking content or issuing . For creators who rely on social media for their livelihood, the tool is a critical safeguard against piracy and unauthorized reproduction. However, Kumar’s counsel argued that the system is being abused: scammers with access are filing false claims against genuine creators, while those very creators—who would legitimately use the tool to protect their work—are being turned away.
Kumar told the court that he had applied for access to Rights Manager on three separate occasions, only to be rejected each time without any specific explanation. His counsel further pointed out that accounts with only a few hundred followers appeared to have been granted access, while established creators with substantial audience engagement and brand partnerships were being denied the same facility. This disparity, the counsel argued, was not only illogical but also deeply harmful, as a wrongful copyright strike could result in an account being removed overnight, wiping out years of content, monetization revenue, brand deals, and business opportunities.
Court’s Sharp Observations
Justice Bhambhani was visibly troubled by the apparent inconsistency in ’s access policy. “Why doesn’t everybody have access to it then?” the court asked, before delivering a memorable analogy: “It is like giving the key to the robber and not to the owner of the house.” The judge also observed that creators with huge followings and viewership should be the primary beneficiaries of an anti-plagiarism tool, not those with a mere 100 followers. “People who have a huge following and viewership and all, they are entitled, this is like an anti-plagiarism tool, right?” the court remarked.
The court’s pointed questions underscore a growing concern about the transparency and fairness of platform-based copyright enforcement mechanisms. While platforms like have implemented tools to protect intellectual property, the lack of clear, publicly available criteria for access can lead to arbitrary decisions—and, as alleged in this case, outright abuse.
’s Response and Assurance
’s counsel responded by stating that access to Rights Manager is subject to technical verification and that the company could not immediately determine whether Kumar’s claim to particular content was accurate or whether another person’s claim was accurate. The company told the court that the disputed against Kumar had been reversed and that content removed as a result had been restored. also clarified that Kumar’s accounts had never been suspended and remained accessible, and that, subject to technical verification, they would not be removed based on the contested claims.
further assured the court that Kumar’s request for Rights Manager access would be reviewed after his claims were verified, and agreed to submit its policy governing access to the tool, along with the applicable eligibility requirements, before the court. The company’s counsel emphasized that the strikes were reversed after technical verification, suggesting that the system had eventually corrected the error—but the court was not satisfied with this reactive approach.
Court’s Directions and Next Steps
Justice Bhambhani ordered to restore any content removed following fraudulent , provided Kumar submits adequate evidence demonstrating that he is the legitimate owner of the material and that the copyright claims were false. The court also noted that similar concerns were emerging in multiple cases involving digital content creators, warranting a detailed examination of the systemic issues at play. The judge observed that the problem was leading to a growing number of legal disputes, indicating that the current framework is insufficient to protect creators from bad-faith claims.
The court subsequently issued in the main suit and served notice on Kumar’s application seeking . The case has been listed for further hearing on , along with another matter involving similar allegations. This consolidated approach suggests that the court intends to address the broader issue of copyright enforcement on social media platforms, rather than merely resolving the individual dispute.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case raises significant questions about the accountability of technology companies in managing intellectual property rights on their platforms. The Rights Manager tool is a powerful mechanism, but its opaque access criteria and the ease with which it can be misused create legal vulnerabilities for genuine creators. For legal practitioners, this matter highlights the need for clearer regulatory frameworks governing platform-based copyright enforcement. It also underscores the importance of in the takedown and strike system, as erroneous claims can have devastating consequences for individuals who depend on social media for their income.
The ’s insistence on transparency from is a positive step. By requiring the company to disclose its policy and eligibility criteria, the court is pushing for a more equitable system—one where the “owner of the house” is not left outside while the “robber” is handed the key. As digital content creation continues to grow, the resolution of this case could set an important precedent for how platforms balance the protection of intellectual property with the rights of creators.
Conclusion
The has put on notice that its copyright protection tools cannot be wielded arbitrarily. The court’s directive to place its Rights Manager policy on record is a demand for accountability, and its pointed observations reflect a judiciary that is increasingly attentive to the challenges of the digital age. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by content creators, legal scholars, and technology companies alike, as it may well shape the future of copyright enforcement on social media platforms.
