Can YouTube copyright strikes without intent to litigate constitute groundless threats under Section 60 of Copyright Act?

Introduction

Why should legitimate journalistic expression, particularly in the reporting of current events, be vulnerable to automated copyright enforcement mechanisms deployed by digital platforms? In an era where news dissemination is increasingly mediated by platform-driven ecosystems, this concern becomes especially acute. The growing reliance on algorithmic enforcement tools has created a structural tension between the statutory right to report news and the rigid compliance frameworks of digital intermediaries, raising a fundamental legal question: can editorial autonomy be curtailed by the unilateral activation of platform-based “takedown” mechanisms, particularly when invoked without any genuine intent to pursue legal remedies?

This very tension lay at the heart of Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC and Others¹, where the plaintiff, operates the TV9 Network. The dispute before the Delhi High Court was to determine whether the systemic deployment of copyright strikes against videos on TV9’s YouTube news channels absent a bona fide intention to initiate legal proceedings amounts to an actionable groundless threat under the Copyright Act, 1957 . The Court held that the plaintiff’s use of short clips on its YouTube channels constituted fair dealing and de minimis use, and further observed that the issuance of copyright strikes without instituting or pursuing legal action falls within the ambit of actionable groundless threats under Section 60². The judgment, therefore, represents a significant recalibration of the balance between copyright enforcement and the freedom of the press in the digital age.

Fair Dealing and the De Minimis Threshold: Recognising Contextual Use

The Court’s analysis was anchored in Section 52(1)(a)(iii)³ of the Copyright Act, which expressly permits fair dealing with copyrighted works for the purpose of reporting current events. In applying this provision, the Court emphasized that the character of use must be assessed contextually, particularly where third-party content is embedded within a broader framework of news reporting, commentary, and editorial presentation. Crucially, the Court implicitly recognised the transformative character of such use. The impugned clips were not disseminated by TV9 as standalone content, nor were they exploited for independent commercial gain. Rather, they were incorporated as incidental elements within a larger journalistic narrative, thereby serving an informational and public interest function. This contextual integration distinguished TV9’s use from acts of infringement.

The Court’s reasoning was further strengthened through the application of the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex the law does not concern itself with trifles. In a quantitative assessment, the disputed clips used by TV9 were found to span only a few seconds within significantly longer broadcasts. Relying on the precedent of India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.⁴, the Court held that such trivial appropriation, absent demonstrable commercial harm or market substitution, falls outside the scope of actionable infringement. Taken together, the Court’s findings underscore that copyright protection, while robust, is not absolute. It must be interpreted in a manner that accommodates the practical realities of news reporting and preserves the public’s right to information.

Groundless Threats and the Limits of Platform Enforcement

Perhaps the most significant contribution of the judgment lies in its treatment of platform-based enforcement mechanisms. The case exposed the growing tendency of rights holders to utilise intermediary-driven processes such as YouTube copyright strikes as a means of exerting pressure without subjecting their claims to judicial scrutiny.

Addressing this concern, the Court invoked Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides a remedy against groundless threats of infringement proceedings. It clarified that the issuance of a copyright strike against TV9 despite its immediate and often severe consequences, including content removal and potential channel suspension does not constitute the “commencement” of legal proceedings. For such threats to be legally sustainable, they must be accompanied by a genuine intention to initiate and diligently prosecute infringement actions before a competent court. In the absence of such follow-through, the Court held that these threats remain actionable.

By granting an injunction restraining the defendants from issuing further such notices against the TV9 network, the Court effectively curtailed the misuse of automated enforcement tools. Importantly, the ruling recognises the chilling effect that unchecked platform-based actions can have on journalistic speech. It prevents the circumvention of due process through technological proxies and ensures that allegations of infringement are tested within the framework of judicial adjudication. In doing so, the Court transforms what was previously a unilateral enforcement mechanism into a potential source of legal liability for the claimant, thereby restoring procedural discipline in digital copyright enforcement.

Conclusion

The decision in Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC and Others represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of Indian copyright jurisprudence. It restores a necessary equilibrium between the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the constitutional imperative of a free and informed press. For media organisations like TV9, the judgment provides a clear strategic assurance: the incidental and context-driven use of third-party content for genuine news reporting will be afforded legal protection. For rights holders, it serves as a caution against the deployment of coercive enforcement practices that bypass judicial oversight. And for digital intermediaries, it underscores the importance of neutrality within the broader ecosystem of content governance. Ultimately, the ruling affirms that copyright law cannot be weaponised to stifle journalism. By solidifying the legitimacy of fair dealing and imposing accountability on the misuse of enforcement mechanisms, the Delhi High Court has safeguarded the digital conscience of the newsroom ensuring that the pursuit of information remains resilient in the face of evolving technological constraints.

Citations

1. Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC and Others, CS(COMM) 9/2024 ↩︎
2. Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 ↩︎
3. Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957 ↩︎
4. India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 192 DLT 502 ↩︎

Expositor(s): Adv. Aparna Shukla