Have a look at the Mohak Mangal vs ANI case controversy
Popular YouTuber Mohak Mangal claimed in a widely shared video that ANI, one of India’s top news organizations, is running an “extortion racket” by taking advantage of YouTube’s copyright strike system.
YouTuber Mohak Mangal vs ANI copyright case controversy explained as video goes viral on Twitter/X
According to Mohak, ANI gave his videos several strikes for utilizing a brief clip under what he refers to as “fair use.” YouTube policy states that a channel may be permanently deleted after three copyright strikes.
#ANI is Demanding ₹45L from@mohakmangal
for a 10-sec clip in a 30-min video. This is clear fair use. This isn’t copyright—it’s censorship. We stand with Mohak. … #StandWithMohak #FairUse #FreeSpeech pic.twitter.com/E4w9Z73Nzh— GUNJAN (@gunjan_xyz) May 25, 2025
Mohak highlighted than an ANI employ told him that till now you have only received two strikes, wait for six more.
According to Mohak, ANI first imposed a strike on a video that had 11 seconds of its content in of a 16-minute video, and then it quickly issued another one. He claims that after that, an ANI representative approached him and demanded Rs. 45 lakh to fix the problem. The ANI person apparently threatened six more strikes if the company wasn’t paid, which resulted in his channel being deleted.
If you are a content creator and active on YouTube – this close to 12 min video is an absolute must watch for you. This how a young content creator @mohakmangal was almost arm-twisted by ANI to deal an exorbitant amount against the copy strike. pic.twitter.com/tdCZtbq03G
— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) May 25, 2025
Reactions from creators
The maker community’s response has been rapid and extensive. The statement, which received over 13,000 likes, was made public by creator Nitish Rajput, who has millions of followers, “YouTube should take steps to ensure creators don’t end up feeling helpless after putting in years of hard work.”
According to reports, a number of the creators Mohak spoke with acknowledged paying ANI between Rs. 18 and Rs. 50 lakh to have copyright strikes lifted. The ANI staffer is heard promising to eliminate fines in exchange for multi-lakh subscriptions to ANI’s video licensing service in purported phone conversations that Mohak partially disclosed.
The meaning of “fair use,” a clause in copyright law that permits restricted use of copyrighted content for reporting, commentary, or critique, is at the heart of the dispute. According to Mohak, his use of the video was obviously permissible under fair use guidelines.
However, it is said that ANI chose copyright strikes, a far harsher alternative, over YouTube’s revenue-sharing or content claim capabilities. Creators risk losing their platform entirely and losing revenue once a video is hit. According to Mohak, ANI is taking advantage of this to coerce creators into making enormous payments that are referred to as “penalties” or “subscriptions.”