Delhi court in Anamika Sood v. Saregama held that wrongful YouTube copyright takedowns require proof of substantial copying, not mere similarity, protecting original creators from overreaching enforcement.
When copyright enforcement becomes overreach, the law draws a firm line.
This case matters because it sits at the intersection of digital platform governance and substantive copyright law, where a single takedown notice can erase visibility, revenue, and reputation overnight. Courts are increasingly being asked to scrutinize not just infringement claims, but the misuse of enforcement mechanisms themselves.
The dispute arose when singer Anamika Sood released her song “Ferrareee”, which quickly gained traction online. Shortly thereafter, Saregama issued a copyright takedown notice to YouTube, alleging that the “hook” of the song infringed its rights in “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” from the film Naya Daur. Acting on this notice, YouTube removed the song. The plaintiff challenged the takedown, asserting authorship, originality, and significant financial and reputational harm caused by the removal.
Saregama’s defence was direct: it claimed subsisting copyright in the original song through historical agreements and argued that even copying the “hook” or catch portion constitutes infringement. It further contended that the plaintiff’s work lacked originality, and that any copyright registration relied upon was merely prima facie and insufficient to establish ownership.
The case thus turned on a crucial question: Was “Ferrareee” an original work, or an infringing adaptation, and did Saregama have the legal basis to trigger a takedown?
The Court’s reasoning is particularly instructive. It reaffirmed that copyright protects expression, not ideas, and that originality does not demand novelty but requires sufficient skill, labour, and minimal creativity. Even if a work draws from a folk or traditional source, it can qualify as original if it reflects independent creative input. Applying this, the Court found that the plaintiff’s song—despite inspiration from a Punjabi folk composition, constituted a distinct and original work in its lyrics, arrangement, and overall expression.
On the allegation of copying, the Court emphasized a holistic comparison. It rejected the defendant’s reliance on the “hook part” in isolation, noting the absence of concrete evidence demonstrating substantial similarity. Importantly, the defendant failed to produce material substantiating its claim that the allegedly copied portion was identical or distinctive enough to amount to infringement.
The key distinction: copyright infringement is not triggered by resemblance, it requires substantial and material copying, assessed from the perspective of the work as a whole, not its most catchy fragment.
Ultimately, the Court held in favour of the plaintiff. It declared her the rightful copyright owner of the song “Ferrareee”, found the takedown unjustified, and awarded ₹5 lakh in damages against Saregama for the wrongful copyright strike.
The broader takeaway is clear: as automated and notice-driven enforcement systems dominate digital platforms, courts are increasingly unwilling to tolerate aggressive or unsubstantiated copyright claims. The burden lies squarely on the claimant, not just to assert rights, but to prove infringement with precision.
Because in copyright law, protection of rights cannot come at the cost of suppressing originality.
Case: Anamika Sood v. Saregama India Ltd., CS (Comm) 170/2021, District Judge (Commercial)-05, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, Judgment dated 18.04.2026.
This article is intended for general information purposes only. Readers should seek independent legal counsel before acting on any information provided herein. If you require any further information, you may reach out at hello@lawfluencers.com.