.jpg)
India’s ‘fair dealing’ law provides limited protection to content creators under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, media legal experts have told e4m, explaining that the permitted use of copyrighted material for criticism, review, or news reporting is allowed only if the use is deemed “fair”.
However, the term “fair” remains undefined in Indian law, making it difficult for creators to gauge what qualifies as permissible use. Unlike the structured fair use test in other countries, Indian courts evaluate each case individually, focusing on context rather than fixed criteria.
Legal experts clarify that using short clips — such as 5 to 10 seconds — does not automatically protect a creator from copyright violation. Courts do not follow a time-based rule and instead assess whether the reused content has been recontextualised to offer new meaning or expression.
Turns out that most reaction and commentary videos fall short of this requirement, as they are often seen as derivative rather than transformative. Satire and critique receive legal protection only when the creator’s intent is clear, deliberate, and original.
And it is due to this ambiguity that many creators unknowingly operate in legally risky territory.
Dr. Radhika Agarwal, a content creator, also known as teekhi_mircheee on social media, stated, “As a content creator, copyright concerns are always at the back of my mind, especially when using a trending audio clip or referencing popular media. There have been times I’ve avoided certain ideas just to steer clear of potential copyright issues.”
“I try to stay within fair use by keeping clips short, adding my own commentary, and ensuring the content is clearly transformative. I’d love to see more clarity and collaboration — maybe even shared licensing models or creator-friendly guidelines that encourage creativity without fear of takedowns,” she said.
The Trigger
Justin Lawrence, Head of Platform Operations at Dot Media, highlighted the procedural gap that has sparked controversy among content creators. “If somebody is using their content, the first thing that the label or the platform does is send a claim for that particular video only, wherein the revenue for that video goes to the label or the party managing the content,” he explained.
However, Lawrence noted that in the Mohak Mangal vs ANI case, the creators were issued takedown notices directly, bypassing the usual route. “If a channel receives three takedown notices, it gets deleted—no matter how big it is,” he warned.
Creators like Thagesh and Mohak, he said, have expressed discontent because their use was limited to a few seconds of footage. “They should first send them an email or at least a claim. That’s where they went wrong. That’s why these creators are now refusing to engage with such platforms,” Lawrence added.
Beyond takedowns, he also flagged the lack of consistency in licensing fees. “They don’t have any benchmarks either. One creator was asked for Rs 48 lakh, another for Rs 15 lakh, using the content from the same source,” he said. “Have they communicated this to anybody before—that we are charging this much for one year? No.”
Following the backlash, Press Trust of India (PTI) stepped in to offer more affordable access to its content, attempting to provide creators a more flexible alternative.
Credit Where Due
In line with YouTube’s recommended practices, Lawrence pointed out that responsibility isn’t one-sided. “Creators should always, if they’re using any content, give credit in the description or in the video itself,” he noted. “That’s free advertising for media houses, and also the creator can continue building their content.”
He cautioned that copyright applies to audio too. “Even if they’re using audio, give credit in the description or on the video.”
Citing another example, he said, “T-Series filed a case against Kunal Kamra... Even if there was no song, it was his own script and only the background tune was the same. That’s acceptable.”
While he acknowledged that such rules might hinder creativity, Lawrence concluded, “YouTube has a fair use policy. No matter how important it is, you cannot use somebody else’s content. In the end, they have spent money. So it’s their property.”
Lawrence also revealed that creators can edit or remove disputed content even after publishing. “If I want to edit a one-year-old video, I can mute it, blur it, erase it.” Once edited, the claim gets lifted automatically. “So once you erase it, then any media houses cannot object,” he said.
Fair Use vs Fair Dealing
Ankit Sahni, Partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates, explained that licensing remains a grey area. “While platforms like YouTube offer some tools like Content ID and audio libraries, there’s no centralized system in India for clearing rights to music, news clips, or stock visuals.”
He pointed to the rise of automated copyright strikes. “The growing prevalence of automated copyright strikes without prior notice is a growing concern. While not expressly prohibited under Indian law, it undermines the due process expectations of affected creators.”
Isheta T. Batra, Founder of TrailBlazer Advocates, noted that many global platforms like Epidemic Sound, Artlist, Getty Images, Envato, and Pexels offer stock licences. But creators need to evaluate usage rights, including commercial and non-commercial, YouTube or OTT, and global or regional scope.
“News footage presents a more complicated situation to handle. News channels lack standardized licensing systems which means that using their footage with proper attribution may lead to content takedowns. The best approach for creators involves dealing directly with the media agency through their representatives. Specialized legal counsel proves essential for creators by showing them how to manage complicated processes, create contracts, and obtain precise licenses without excessive costs or licensing mistakes.”
She added a practical suggestion: “Always document your source, proof of licence (even free ones), and usage intent. If you're ever hit with a takedown, you’ll need to demonstrate good faith. Also consider creating your library of safe-to-use intros, graphics, and transitions—it reduces licensing dependency and gives you creative autonomy.”
Lavin Hirani, Managing Partner at Hirani & Associates, explained with an example, “On YouTube, short clips (5–10 seconds) from trending videos may qualify as fair dealing if minimal, transformative (e.g., adding critique or humor), and non-detrimental to the original’s value. For example, satirizing a film trailer clip is likely protected; using it as background isn’t. The Super Cassettes v. Myspace (2011) case supports transformative use, but YouTube’s Content ID, tied to U.S. DMCA, often flags fair dealing content, forcing creators to appeal.”
Moez Ahmed, a lawyer who has closely represented content creators in legal disputes, commented on the widespread use of viral trend videos, such as Prashant’s “Croissant” clip. He stated, “If dozens of influencers remix or reuse his audio or visuals without any licensing or permission, even if it’s part of a trend, that doesn’t automatically make it legal. Unless their use is clearly satirical or parodic and adds new expression or commentary, it can still be a copyright infringement.”
Ahmed also referred to the Kunal Kamra vs T-Series case. “Unfortunately, Indian law doesn’t yet have a clear system for penalising abuse of copyright takedown mechanisms,” he said. “But creators can contest such takedowns by filing counter-notices and, if needed, seeking legal relief from courts.” The comedian has also sought that route.
.jpg)
