Wholesale Reproduction Of News Videos As Substitutes Is Not Fair Dealing Under Copyright Act: Delhi High Court Decrees Suit Filed By ANI
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of ANI after finding that RSY News had no real prospect of defending its unauthorized reproduction and publication of ANI’s videos.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the wholesale reproduction of news videos, which operates as a substitute for the original copyrighted works, does not constitute fair dealing for reporting current events under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Court granted an ex parte summary judgment and permanently restrained RSY News from reproducing or publishing ANI Media’s copyrighted videos without authorisation.
The Court was hearing a commercial copyright suit and an application for summary judgment filed by ANI Media against RSY News concerning 12 videos uploaded across four YouTube channels. Google LLC, which operates YouTube, was impleaded as the intermediary hosting the impugned content.
A Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while stating that “by uploading these videos on its YouTube channels, defendant No. 1 has copied the plaintiff’s cinematograph films and communicated them to the public, both being acts within the exclusive domain of the plaintiff”, further held that such use cannot be “regarded as fair dealing for the reporting of current events under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act”.
“The wholesale reproduction of ten videos operates as a substitute for the plaintiff’s works”, the Bench added.
Advocate Lahar Jain appeared for ANI Media. RSY News remained ex parte, while Advocate Mamta Rani Jha appeared for Google LLC.
Background
ANI described itself as a multimedia news agency providing syndicated news feeds under the brands “Asian News International” and “ANI”. It submitted that news channels, newspapers and news agencies subscribe to its syndicated content for consideration.
RSY News operated four YouTube channels which collectively had more than four million subscribers when the suit was instituted. Between August and October 2024, it uploaded 12 videos which reproduced wholly or substantially ten videos created by ANI.
The material before the Court included frame-wise comparisons, durations and timestamps of the original and allegedly infringing videos. The judgment noted that the uploaded videos retained ANI’s logo on microphones and on-screen graphics, while RSY News superimposed its own mark. Some frames also contained the words “Source: ANI”.
ANI invoked YouTube’s copyright-protection mechanism and issued copyright strikes, following which the videos were removed. RSY News issued a counter-notification claiming that it possessed a licence from another company, but ANI denied ever authorising that company to use or sub-license its works.
The Court initially granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining RSY News from using ANI’s copyrighted content and directed the removal of the identified videos. Despite service, RSY News neither appeared nor filed a written statement and was eventually proceeded against ex parte.
ANI sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to commercial disputes, read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022. Google submitted that it had no role in creating the content and would comply with an appropriate direction concerning the specified URLs after adjudication of ANI’s rights.
Court’s Observations
The Court, at the outset, explained that Order XIII-A CPC permits summary adjudication where the claimant or defendant has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no compelling reason to conduct a trial.
Relying upon Su-Kam Power Systems Limited v. Kunwer Sachdev (2019), the Court observed that a trial is no longer the default procedure in a commercial dispute where the available process enables the Court to determine the necessary facts and apply the law fairly.
The Court also considered Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited v. Delhi Development Authority (2026), in which the Supreme Court held that the prospect of success or defence must be real and substantial rather than fanciful or speculative. The Court noted that summary proceedings should not become a mini-trial but may be used when oral evidence and a full trial are unnecessary.
Referring to Applause Entertainment Private Limited v. 9xmovies (2025), the Court held that fresh notice of the summary-judgment application was unnecessary because RSY News had already been served and proceeded against ex parte.
The Court further applied Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v. Google LLC (2026) and noted that the plaint averments remained unrebutted and the documents were deemed admitted because no written statement or affidavit of admission and denial had been filed.
The Court nevertheless clarified: “The absence of a defence, however, does not relieve this Court of the obligation to satisfy itself that the plaint, read with the documents on record, establishes the plaintiff’s entitlement to the reliefs claimed.”
The Court found that each original video was a visual recording accompanied by sound and constituted a “cinematograph film” under Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act.
It noted that the plaint identified the journalist or cameraperson who created each video and stated that the recording was made with ANI’s equipment, for valuable consideration and at its instance. The professional services agreement placed on record also assigned the intellectual property in the works to ANI.
The Court held that these unrebutted materials established ANI’s ownership under the proviso to Section 17 of the Copyright Act. It further held that Section 14(d) conferred upon ANI the exclusive right to reproduce the videos and communicate them to the public.
The Court found that ten of the 12 infringing videos reproduced the corresponding ANI videos either entirely or virtually in their entirety. Another video reproduced a continuous segment exceeding five minutes from an ANI interview.
The Court held: “By uploading these videos on its YouTube channels, defendant No. 1 has copied the plaintiff’s cinematograph films and communicated them to the public, both being acts within the exclusive domain of the plaintiff.”
The Court noted that one video reproduced an exclusive interview of more than 19 minutes, while others reproduced interviews, political roadshows, news reports and recordings of public events with little or no independent content.
The Court observed that the only justification ever offered by RSY News was the purported licence mentioned in its counter-notification on YouTube.
It held that the existence of such a licence was especially within RSY News’s knowledge. Despite being served with the suit, it neither appeared nor produced the licence, while ANI specifically denied granting any authorisation to the entity from which RSY News allegedly obtained it.
The Court held: “Such a defence is fanciful and not real, within the meaning of paragraph 59(v) of Reliance Eminent (supra).”
The Court found that one of the infringing videos was uploaded on the same day that ANI made the corresponding original video available exclusively to subscribers through its secure syndicated feed. RSY News was not a subscriber, and ANI uploaded that video on YouTube nearly two months later.
The Court also found that a segment used in another infringing video formed nearly one-fourth of that video and included an exclusive interview. It held that the reproduced portion was qualitatively substantial.
The Court observed: “The use in neither case is trivial or incidental to any independent reporting.”
It consequently held that the reproduction could not be protected as fair dealing for reporting current events. The videos operated as substitutes for ANI’s content instead of using limited extracts for independent reporting, review or criticism.
The Court noted that the dates, channels, durations, timestamps, frame-wise comparisons, copyright strikes and counter-notifications were all established through documentary material and stood admitted.
It found that there was no issue requiring the weighing of oral evidence or assessment of a witness’s credibility. The Court held: “This Court is, therefore, of the view that defendant no. 1 has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there is no compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.”
Conclusion
The Court allowed ANI’s application for summary judgment and decreed the suit ex parte against RSY News.
It permanently restrained RSY News and persons acting on its behalf from reproducing, uploading, publishing, communicating, distributing, republishing or otherwise exploiting ANI’s original videos or other copyrighted works on YouTube or any other platform without authorisation.
The Court directed RSY News to remove the 12 identified infringing videos and any other content reproducing ANI’s copyrighted works, to the extent that such material had not already been removed.
It confirmed and made absolute the earlier directions requiring Google to take down, block and disable access to the 12 specified URLs and ensure that they remained inaccessible.
The Court declined ANI’s request for a direction requiring RSY News to publish a public acknowledgment of the infringement. It also declined the claim for damages of approximately ₹2 crore. ANI had withdrawn its prayer seeking deletion of all four YouTube channels operated by RSY News.
Cause Title: ANI Media Private Limited v. RSY News and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8749)
Appearances
Plaintiff: Advocate Lahar Jain
Defendants: Advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima, Aishwarya and Jahanvi
