Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Complaint to remove videos of third parties cannot be entertained without impleading the third-party uploader as a necessary party — Courts have consistently emphasized that without impleading the actual uploader or the third-party content creator, courts cannot entertain claims for removal or injunctions against third-party videos or content. This is because the uploader or content owner is the proper party to address rights violations or seek removal. For instance, in cases involving YouTube or similar platforms, the courts have held that fight a proxy battle without impleading the person who has posted the impugned photographs and other content is not permissible, and the reliefs as prayed for, if allowed, would impose an unfair burden on YouTube to sift through and filter millions of videos ["TATA SKY LTD. VS YOU-TUBE LLC - Delhi"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"].
Platforms like YouTube or Vimeo are considered intermediaries, and their liability for third-party content is limited unless they are directly involved in infringement — These platforms are primarily hosts or mere intermediaries, and being an intermediary under the IT Act, is statutorily exempt under Section 79 from liability in respect of any third party video uploaded ["TATA SKY LTD. VS YOU-TUBE LLC - Delhi"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"]. Courts have clarified that such content is created, originated, hosted and managed by third parties, and platforms cannot be expected to pre-screen or actively monitor all uploaded content unless they have actual knowledge or are directly involved ["Capitol Records vs Vimeo - Second Circuit"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"].
Courts have dismissed petitions or complaints that attempt to remove third-party videos without impleading the uploader or third-party content creator — In multiple instances, petitions for removal or injunctions were dismissed because the third-party uploader was not impleaded, and the courts emphasized that a false complaint... was also filed by one Ms. or that the party who uploaded the content must be impleaded for effective relief ["Perumal Mudaliar vs Tmt. Lakshmi M.A. - Madras"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"].
Legal principles support that without joining the actual content owner or uploader, courts cannot entertain removal requests, as this would impose an unreasonable burden on intermediaries and violate procedural fairness — Courts have held that intermediaries cannot be expected to adjudicate upon the legality of third-party content and cannot be expected to act as arbiters of third-party claims without proper impleadment or court orders ["BINDUMOL Vs MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH - Kerala"], ["State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur VS A. Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai @ Duraimurugan - Madras"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent legal stance across these cases is that complaints or requests for removal of third-party videos or content cannot be entertained unless the actual uploader or content owner is impleaded as a necessary party. This ensures procedural fairness, avoids undue burden on platforms, and aligns with the principle that only those with a direct interest or ownership can seek relief. Therefore, a complaint to remove third-party videos without impleading the uploader or content creator is generally not maintainable ["Tawainna Anderson vs TikTok Inc - Third Circuit"], ["TATA SKY LTD. VS YOU-TUBE LLC - Delhi"], ["TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - Delhi"].
In the digital age, infringing videos uploaded by third parties on platforms like YouTube or Facebook can harm reputations, violate copyrights, or infringe trademarks. A common question arises: Can a complaint to remove videos of a third party be entertained without impleading that party as a respondent? This issue pits the rights of content owners against intermediary protections under Indian law. While courts can direct platforms to act in certain cases, limitations often require impleading the actual uploader for effective relief.
This post breaks down the legal framework, key judicial findings, and practical steps, drawing from landmark cases. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), platforms like YouTube qualify as 'intermediaries' per Section 2(1)(w) and enjoy safe harbor under Section 79, exempting them from liability for third-party content if they don't initiate or control it. Courts typically won't hold platforms accountable without evidence of their involvement. TATA SKY LTD. Vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - 2016 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5316
To remove infringing videos, aggrieved parties usually seek injunctions or specific court orders directing platforms to takedown content. The process involves:1. Filing a suit or application in a competent court (e.g., High Court or District Court).2. Demonstrating infringement (e.g., copyright violation, defamation).3. Serving notice to the platform.4. Obtaining an order for removal, often including provisions for reposts. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. VS Revant Himatsingka - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5090
However, platforms argue they merely host 'as is' content uploaded by users, not creators. The impugned links were created/uploaded/made available by third party users on YouTube and not by YouTube itself. TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS.-223_2016) TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS.
Courts have repeatedly held that complaints targeting third-party videos cannot be entertained without impleading the third-party uploader as a respondent. Without this, orders against platforms alone may fail or impose undue burdens.
In one case, the plaintiff sued platforms for defamatory content without naming the uploader: Strangely the plaintiff instituted the suit without even impleading the said man. As aforesaid, even his identity is not pleaded in the plaint. The court dismissed the suit, emphasizing intermediaries' exemption under Section 79. Sasikala Pushpa vs Facebook IndiaSasikala Pushpa VS Facebook India - 2020 Supreme(Del) 577
Similarly, a Rajya Sabha member's suit against Facebook, Google, and YouTube for alleged morphed photos was dismissed. The court noted vague claims lacking particulars and no expert evidence of morphing. Public interest in transparency outweighed privacy for public figures. Intermediaries were protected as they hosted third-party content. Sasikala Pushpa VS Facebook India - 2020 Supreme(Del) 577
Key Ratio: Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 exempts intermediaries from liability for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by them... Claims must implead uploaders; otherwise, platforms can't be forced to 'sift through and filter millions' of videos. TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS.-223_2016)
Exceptions exist where courts issue dynamic injunctions directing platforms to remove original and reposted content upon plaintiff notification, streamlining enforcement.
Defendants 2 and 3 are directed not only to take down the impugned video from their respective platforms but also, in the event the said video is reposted or circulated... to take down the video on information in that regard being provided to them by the plaintiff, without the plaintiff having to re-approach the Court. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. VS Revant Himatsingka - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5090
Here, platforms must comply upon notice, avoiding contempt. This reduces re-litigation but still requires identifying infringing links. Platforms provide uploader details if ordered. Living Media India Limited VS Aabtak Channel. com (john Does) - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 150
Yet, even these orders assume some identification of parties. Broader reliefs fail if third parties aren't joined: Granting of an order of injunction against the third party without impleading and without hearing it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Basket Ball Federation of India rep. by its Honorary Secretary General Ajay Sud VS N. S. Ziauddeen - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1405
In arbitration contexts, impleading applications were dismissed where rights weren't jeopardized, reinforcing party necessity. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. , Represented By Its Vice President Excise Legal, Mr. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur & Others VS ARKAY Energy (Rameswaram) Ltd & Others - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5379
To maximize success:- Identify Uploaders: Use platform tools or subpoenas for details before suing.- Implead All Parties: Include platforms AND third-party uploaders as defendants.- Seek Specific Relief: Request takedown of identified links plus future reposts upon notice.- File Promptly: Demonstrate prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. Basket Ball Federation of India rep. by its Honorary Secretary General Ajay Sud VS N. S. Ziauddeen - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1405- Notify Platforms First: Many have DMCA-like processes, but court orders override.- Monitor and Enforce: Post-order, inform platforms of reposts; pursue contempt if needed.
Include trademark/copyright evidence for stronger claims. Living Media India Limited VS Aabtak Channel. com (john Does) - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 150
Courts weigh right to privacy (Article 21) against freedom of speech (Article 19(1)). For politicians, public interest in knowing the meeting... far outweighed the private interest. Defamation needs concrete proof. Sasikala Pushpa VS Facebook India - 2020 Supreme(Del) 577
Stay informed on evolving digital laws. Platforms' policies complement but don't replace court orders. For persistent issues, persistent legal strategy is key.
References:- Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. VS Revant Himatsingka - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5090, Living Media India Limited VS Aabtak Channel. com (john Does) - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 150, TATA SKY LTD. Vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS. - 2016 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5316, TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS.-223_2016), TATA SKY LTD. vs YOUTUBE LLC & ORS., Sasikala Pushpa vs Facebook India, Sasikala Pushpa VS Facebook India - 2020 Supreme(Del) 577, Basket Ball Federation of India rep. by its Honorary Secretary General Ajay Sud VS N. S. Ziauddeen - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1405, Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. , Represented By Its Vice President Excise Legal, Mr. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur & Others VS ARKAY Energy (Rameswaram) Ltd & Others - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 5379
This analysis reflects judicial trends; laws may change.
#ContentTakedown #ITAct #CyberLaw
speech captures certain third-party speech. ... So when § 230(c)(1) prohibits “treat[ing]” TikTok as the “publisher” of videos posted by third parties, that means TikTok cannot be liable for the mere act of hosting those videos. See Malwarebytes, 141 S. Ct. at 14–16 (Thomas, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari); Doe ex rel. Roe v. ... Anderson asserts that TikTok’s algorithm “amalgamat[es] [] third-party vid....
Procedural History On December 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint, which named 199 videos that contained allegedly infringing uses of music licensed to Plaintiffs. In May 2012, Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint by adding over a thousand videos. ... Some Vimeo employees have published their own videos, during the time period of interest, including videos containing Plaintiffs’ music, without securing a license. ... If a video has no....
... (ii) The impugned links were created/uploaded/made available by third party users on You-Tube and not by You-Tube itself. ... It was for that purpose alone that You-Tube was a necessary and proper party without whose compliance the injunction order would have not been able to be implemented. ... This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or v....
It was for that purpose alone that YouTube was a necessary and proper party without whose compliance the injunction order would have not been able to be implemented. ... This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary authorizations. Visit our Copyright Center for more information. ... (ii) The impugned links w....
be entertained. ... Only when the parties proposed to compromise between themselves, the present impleading petition is moved by the third party in order to stall the compromise for serving her own ends. ... Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impleading petition in C.M.P.No.3417 of 2020 seeking for impleadment of the proposed third party deserve dismissed and the same is dismissed. 6. ... When the original parties have agreed to settle the lis between them....
(ii) The impugned links were created/uploaded/made available by third party users on YouTube and not by YouTube itself. ... This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary ... (iii) The reliefs as prayed for, if allowed, would impose an unfair burden on YouTube to sift through and filter million....
(ii) The impugned links were created/uploaded/made available by third party users on YouTube and not by YouTube itself. ... This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos that someone else owns the copyright to, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programs, or videos made by other users, without necessary ... (iii) The reliefs as prayed for, if allowed, would impose an unfair burden on YouTube to sift through and filter million....
Strangely the plaintiff instituted the suit without even impleading the said man. As aforesaid, even his identity is not pleaded in the plaint. ... /audio visual content with other users; these videos are third party content and/or neither created nor owned or controlled by the defendants No.2&3; YouTube is merely a platform where videos can be uploaded and accessed on the internet on `as is where is basis'; (xvi) that YouTube Community Guidelines ... fight a proxy battle wit....
/ audio visual content with other users; these videos are third party content and/or neither created nor owned or controlled by the defendants No.2&3; YouTube is merely a platform where videos can be uploaded and accessed on the internet on ''as is where is basis''; (xvi) that YouTube Community Guidelines ... Strangely the plaintiff instituted the suit without even impleading the said man. As aforesaid, even his identity is not pleaded in the plaint. ... fight a proxy battle ....
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is also an affected party and without impleading the petitioner, the appeal is filed before the Tribunal and an interim order is obtained. ... In such facts and circumstances, the petitioner is free to file an impleading petition before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the same will be entertained by the Tribunal and pass appropriate orders in it. ... Even though the appeal has been entertained by the Tribunal ....
Still further, sub-Section [2] mandates that the ACIG shall decide the application "after making such inquiry as he thinks fit" which necessarily preconditions the due application of mind to weigh the evidence on record and then determine the litmus test whether the applicants were tenants over the land for the requisite period and did they fulfill other statutory conditions also? Instead, the ACIG passed a collusive order on the basis of 'compromise' struck between the predecessor of the appellants and the 'landowner' who by that time was left with no interest in the land as it had been dec....
In other words, granting of an order of injunction against the third party without impleading and without hearing it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. We are of the firm view that the election conducted has created a legal right, which is vested with the elected persons. Therefore, such a right cannot be interfered without even hearing them. Therefore, we are of the view that the plaintiff ought to have made the office bearers as parties.
9. Thirdly, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sri Rajesh Adani and Another v Assistant Labour Commissioner and Another1, wherein it has been held: “Company is a necessary party in a complaint filed against the Directors. “The company is necessary party, whereas the other opinion was that the Company is not a necessary party and in the circumstances, the matter was referred to a larger Bench”. He also relied upon Aneeta Hada v M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited2, wherein, the learned Judge of the Division Bench held: #HL....
He also relied upon 2008 AIR SCW 3608 (Aneeta Hada Vs. 9. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2010 Kar. 3287 [Sri Rajesh Adani and another Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner and Another], wherein it has been held: “Company is a necessary party in a complaint filed against the Directors. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.], wherein the learned Judge of the Division Bench held: “The Company is necessary party, whereas the other opinion was that the Company is not a necessary party and in the circumstances, the ....
Therefore, in the result, the applications A.No.4782 and 4835 of 2009 are allowed. In such circumstances, their prayer for impleading them as a party, cannot be entertained. Therefore, the amounts would only be kept in deposit, without disbursement to the applicants and hence, the rights of the bank would not be jeopardised at this juncture.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
