ANI's Aggressive Copyright Strikes Against YouTubers Spark Debate Over Fair Use and Digital Rights

New Delhi, India – A recent surge in copyright strikes issued by Asian News International (ANI) against Indian YouTubers, including prominent content creator Akassh Ashok Gupta, has ignited a debate over fair use, digital rights, and potential political motivations. The controversy gained traction following a tweet from "Autism Capital 🧩" on September 20, 2025, which questioned, "> Why would the right do this?" in response to the actions.

Akassh Ashok Gupta, known for his "Peepoye Network" and social activism, publicly stated on June 11 that ANI had issued two copyright strikes against his channel for using "short, fair use clips added for commentary, critique, or analysis." This incident is part of a broader pattern where ANI has allegedly targeted numerous YouTubers, leading to concerns about the weaponization of YouTube's copyright system. The strikes, if accumulated to three, can result in permanent channel termination, threatening the livelihoods of creators.

The issue highlights a complex legal landscape in India, where the application of the Indian Copyright Act's "fair dealing" provisions clashes with the broader Intermediary Guidelines under the Information Technology (IT) Act. While the Copyright Act allows for limited use of copyrighted material for purposes like news reporting and commentary, YouTube's global three-strike policy, which is not explicitly mandated by Indian law, often leads to content removal based on initial claims. Critics argue that this system disproportionately impacts creators and lacks robust safeguards for fair use.

ANI, a major news agency, has defended its actions, asserting that it is protecting its original content and that "Fair use is not a free pass to copy original news content." However, reports indicate that ANI has, in some instances, allegedly followed up strikes with demands for licensing fees and penalties, reaching up to Rs. 45 lakh from creators. The ambiguity surrounding whether YouTube requires actual court injunctions versus mere "diary numbers" of court filings further complicates the matter, leaving many YouTubers in a vulnerable position.

The tweet from Autism Capital suggests a political dimension to these copyright disputes, implying that such actions might be orchestrated by "the right" to suppress certain narratives or voices. While ANI maintains its stance on copyright enforcement, the ongoing legal and ethical questions surrounding these strikes continue to fuel discussions about freedom of speech and the future of independent content creation in India's digital space.