The storm brewing between Asian News International (ANI) and India’s YouTube creators is forcing the country to confront a critical question: Where does fair use end and commercial misuse begin?

What began as routine commentary on the news has now turned into a high-stakes debate about content ownership, monetization, and the future of creative freedom. At the heart of it is a clash between a legacy media house protecting its intellectual property and a creator community scrambling to adapt to suddenly enforced boundaries.

This isn’t just a legal issue. It’s a wake-up call. A test of maturity for the Indian creator economy. BLOCK X as an organisation that stands for the rights of the copyright owners, here is our analysis of this brewing issue.

Fair Use or Free Ride?

For years, creators in India operated in a gray area by borrowing news clips to add commentary, build narratives, and earn revenue, all under the assumption of fair use. This scenario changed as YouTube’s policies evolved and monetization exploded, the stakes got higher. Now, ANI is taking a stand. Copyright strikes have been issued. Licenses are being demanded. Subscription models introduced. And creators are crying foul.

The question here- Is this truly an attack on free speech? Or simply a push for commercial fairness?

ANI: A Private Business, Not a Public Broadcaster

Before we start dissecting the issue, we must understand that unlike state-run media, ANI is a private content powerhouse. Their business model hinges on exclusive video footage from news bites, soundbites, live events, all captured through investment-heavy infrastructure: camera crews, editors, licensing teams, tech systems.

In short: content is their product. And like any company, they have the right to protect it.

When creators use this footage in monetized videos, often without permission or payment, it’s not just commentary; it’s a derivative, commercial product. And under Indian copyright law, that’s a clear line being crossed.

Creators: Shaken by a Sudden Shift

For many digital creators, especially on YouTube, this feels like the rules have changed overnight. Channels built on reusing news footage now face takedowns unless they shell out for licenses, some reportedly ranging from ₹15 lakh to ₹40 lakh, with monthly options starting at ₹1 lakh.

The reality is simple: content has value. Just as creators invest in cameras, editing, thumbnails, and SEO, so do news agencies. And that value must be respected at all costs. The subscription fees may seem excessive for YouTube creators, especially when compared to the revenue they typically generate, unlike satellite news channels that operate on a different scale. Introducing a separate, tiered licensing model tailored specifically for digital creators could be a more practical and fair solution.

Copyright Law Isn’t a Gray Area

India’s Copyright Act (Section 52) does allow “fair dealing” for criticism, reporting, research, etc., but not blanket commercial use. Uploading unlicensed footage to monetized channels goes well beyond commentary. It becomes content reuse for profit. YouTube enforces this too. Three copyright strikes, and the channel is taken down. 

YouTube follows a defined process for resolving copyright disputes. If a creator believes a takedown is unjustified, they can submit a counter-notice as per YouTube’s policy. Once filed, the issue shifts to a legal matter between the creator and the claimant. The case must be taken to court within 10 days, and YouTube must be notified of the proceedings. Until a final judgment is reached, the video will remain offline.

The Big Picture

Think of it like using assets from platforms like Shutterstock/ Freepik. We are going to pay for a license if we want to use their graphics, videos, or templates, especially for commercial purposes, because we know we will get a copyright strike otherwise. The same logic applies to ANI. They produce video content, which is their intellectual property, and they sell it as a licensed asset. If ANI’s footage is being used to critique ANI itself, that might fall under “fair use” to an extent. But if their footage is being used to comment on unrelated incidents or news events, and especially if you’re monetizing that content, it’s no longer fair use – it’s commercial use. Just as any other asset platform would issue takedowns for unlicensed use of its assets, ANI has the right to protect and monetize their content in the same way.

Now coming to the larger picture, if India’s digital economy is to grow responsibly, creators must learn to navigate IP rights and not sidestep them. And agencies like ANI must offer scalable licensing models that suit creators of all sizes.

In fact, ANI’s move could shape a new monetization model- tiered content licensing for creators, based on reach, subscribers, and revenue. A win-win, if done right.

India is bursting with creator talent and we know that with power comes responsibility. By respecting the content you use, understanding what “fair use” really means and investing in original creation whenever possible or paying for what you use is the way forward. In fact, considering the current situation, PTI is also coming with a subscription model for creators to access their news.

This isn’t about silencing voices. It’s about creating a healthy, ethical content ecosystem where creators, media houses, and platforms can thrive together.