Back
Rules Wholesale Copy of ANI Videos by Not
The has delivered a decisive victory for news agency , granting a that permanently restrains from reproducing ANI's copyrighted video works. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the wholesale copying of news videos cannot be shielded by the '' exception under copyright law, especially when the copied material directly substitutes the original content.
The case centred on twelve infringing videos uploaded across four YouTube channels operated by — , UP , Delhi , and Bihar —between August and October 2024. These videos reproduced, in whole or substantial part, ten original ANI works, including exclusive interviews with MPs Saayoni Ghosh and Ravneet Singh Bittu, political strategist Prashant Kishor, Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini, and spiritual leader Swami Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, as well as footage of Arvind Kejriwal's roadshow and Dr. S. Jaishankar boarding an aircraft.
Wholesale Copying: Not
ANI argued that it owned the copyright in the videos as '' under , and that had reproduced them without licence, infringing its exclusive rights under . The court noted that frame-by-frame comparisons showed ANI's logo remained visible on microphones and graphics, with ' mark merely superimposed—and some frames even carried the legend 'Source: ANI'.
The only defence ever advanced by —a purported licence from , claimed in counter-notifications to YouTube—was dismissed as "fanciful and not real". The defendant, though served, never appeared or filed a written statement, and was proceeded against .
Justice Kaurav unequivocally rejected any claim:
"Nor can the use be regarded as for the reporting of current events under . The wholesale reproduction of ten videos operates as a substitute for the plaintiff's works."
The court emphasised that in ten of the twelve videos, the reproduction was either entire or virtually so; one infringing video lifted a continuous block of over five minutes from ANI's exclusive interview with Prashant Kishor. Crucially, the third infringing video was published on the same day ANI had made the original available only to its subscribers via a secure syndicated feed, nearly two months before it appeared on YouTube—demonstrating that had accessed the content through unauthorised means.
: No Real Prospect of Defence
Applying the grounds under
, and Rule 27 of the
Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, the court found that
had
"
"
and that no oral evidence was required. The unrebutted plaint and documentary evidence—including dates, timestamps, and video comparisons—established infringement without any
.
The court also confirmed the earlier interim directions against (which operates YouTube) to take down, block, and disable access to the twelve identified infringing URLs. Google, impleaded as an , did not contest the infringement but stated it would comply with any court order.
Granted, Declined
The permanently restrains , its proprietors, partners, directors, and agents from reproducing, uploading, publishing, or distributing ANI's copyrighted works without authorisation. must remove the infringing videos and any other infringing content from its YouTube channels.
However, the court declined ANI's prayers seeking Rs. 2 crore in and a direction for to publish a public acknowledgment of the infringement. ANI had earlier given up its request to have the YouTube channels deleted.
The suit, along with pending applications, stands disposed of. The judgment reinforces that the '' exception does not shield wholesale copying in the news industry, and that digital platforms cannot rely on unverified licence claims to avoid liability.
