Case Study: Exorbitant Licensing Fees by Monopolistic IP Holders – ANI v YouTubers

Background

The controversy arose when Mohak Mangal, a YouTuber known for socio-political content, alleged in one of his videos that ANI (Asian News International), a leading news agency, demanded an annual licensing fee of approximately ₹40 lakhs for using short video clips in his educational content. Several other creators echoed similar experiences, raising concerns about the fairness of such licensing structures—especially by an agency that deals with news content of public concern.

This brings into focus a broader legal issue: Can a monopolistic news agency charge exorbitant fees for content that arguably serves a public informational role?

Legal Framework

The relevant legal standard comes from the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly Section 31, which deals with compulsory licensing. This provision allows courts to intervene when a copyright owner unreasonably withholds permission for the use of a work that has already been published or made available to the public.

The recent Delhi High Court judgment in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024 – Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) is pivotal here.

---

Facts of the Delhi High Court Case

• Petitioner: Organized a small corporate event (50 people) and sought a license from PPL to play sound recordings.
• PPL’s Fee: ₹55,440 for any gathering of 1–150 people, with no lower tier for smaller events.
• Petitioner’s Offer: ₹16,500, proportionate to audience size.
• PPL’s Response: Rejected the offer and insisted on full tariff payment.

---

Court’s Key Findings

1. Monopoly and Unreasonable Terms: PPL’s flat-rate licensing model, irrespective of scale or usage, was deemed arbitrary and monopolistic.
2. Compulsory Licensing Justified: The court granted a compulsory license under Section 31, ruling that refusal to offer reasonable terms constitutes effective refusal.
3. Public Access and Fair Compensation: Courts emphasized the need to balance public interest with copyright holder rights.
4. Statutory Interpretation: “Performance in public” includes sound recordings. Even offers on exorbitant or inflexible terms can amount to refusal under the Act.

---

Implications for ANI Case

• ANI, like PPL, holds a near-monopoly over certain types of video content—especially news-related visuals.
• The universal application of a high fee structure without scale-sensitive licensing could be challenged under the same reasoning.
• If ANI’s pricing effectively withholds public interest content, courts may intervene similarly.
• Fair Use claims would also gain strength, especially if the videos serve educational or public-awareness purposes.

---

Conclusion

The ANI licensing fee model may be legally questionable under India’s copyright framework, especially considering the Delhi High Court’s reaffirmation of access to copyrighted works on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

The precedent from Al Hamd Tradenation v. PPL strengthens the case for fair access, compulsory licensing, and challenging monopolistic licensing structures—a line of argument that content creators like Mohak Mangal can explore further.

---

Also Read

• Mentblue Remote Internship Opportunity – June 2025 | Online | ₹7,500 Stipend | Apply Now
• Cosmo Juris Call for Members – March 2025 | Online | Perks & Certification | Apply by 9 March 2025
• Webinar on Plastic Pollution – NLU Delhi | 5 June 2025 | Online | E-Certificate | Register by 4 June 2025
• National Seminar on Policing, Cyber Frauds & Cyber Security – NLU Delhi | 9 August 2025 | Offline | Register by 15 July 2025
• Internship at AERHE Development Federation – Flexible Dates | Pan-India | Hybrid | Certificate