Ownership of Videos Featuring Ministers and Government Officials

Understand the Ownership of Videos Featuring Ministers and Government Officials and what it means for Indian YouTubers, influencers, and content creators.

In India’s fast-growing digital landscape, creators, YouTubers, and influencers often use video clips shared by ministers and government officials on platforms like Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. But a critical question remains: Who owns the videos shared by ministers and government officials on social media? Is it the government, the politician, or the news agency that distributes the footage?

This uncertainty has significant consequences. Recent copyright claims and takedowns, particularly involving Asian News International (ANI), have exposed the legal risks faced by creators, even when using short clips for education, commentary, or news reporting.

⚖️ The ANI vs. Mohak Mangal Copyright Controversy

One of the most high-profile examples involves YouTuber Mohak Mangal, who accused ANI of issuing multiple copyright strikes for using clips as short as 9 – 11 seconds. He claimed ANI demanded ₹45 – 50 lakh for a two-year license to continue using such footage – an amount he described as “digital extortion.”

Other creators like Dhruv Rathee and Nitish Rajput have echoed similar concerns, suggesting ANI is aggressively using YouTube’s automated copyright enforcement to silence independent voices or monetize public-interest content.

📹 How the Alleged Copyright Abuse Works

1. Creators use short clips from ANI in educational or civic content.

2. ANI issues copyright strikes via YouTube’s Content ID or manual reporting.

3. After three strikes, a channel can be terminated under YouTube’s policy.

4. ANI allegedly offers to remove the strikes in exchange for large licensing fees ranging from ₹15 lakh to ₹50 lakh.

🗣️ Creator Backlash and Public Reaction

Creators have described ANI’s tactics as an attack on educational freedom and democratic discourse. Videos and threads by affected YouTubers have gone viral, sparking a public conversation on:

• The lack of due process in YouTube’s takedown system.

• The power imbalance between creators and large media houses.

• The need for clear laws around fair dealing in the digital age.

Many civil society members and tech policy experts warn this could set a dangerous precedent where news footage becomes inaccessible to educators, researchers, and journalists.

🧾 ANI’s Position and Strategy

ANI maintains that its news content is created at a high cost and that unauthorized use violates its intellectual property (IP) rights. The agency appears to be:

• Commercializing its video archive.

• Establishing legal precedents to protect its content.

• Discouraging smaller creators through the threat of takedowns.

While ANI has the legal right to protect its work, critics argue that its methods undermine digital free speech and civic journalism.

📜 Indian Copyright Law: What Is Fair Dealing?

Under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, limited use of copyrighted material is permitted without permission for purposes such as:

• Criticism or review

• Reporting current events

• Education or research

However, India does not follow the detailed four-factor test used under U.S. “fair use” laws. The lack of clarity means:

• Even 5–10 seconds of a clip may be infringing if not used for an exempt purpose.

• Conversely, even 30 seconds could be considered fair dealing if used for commentary or news analysis.

This legal grey area puts creators in a vulnerable position, especially when powerful agencies initiate takedowns without room for dispute.

🌐 What Does the World Do Differently?

In the United States, works created by federal government agencies are automatically placed in the public domain.

In contrast, India lacks:

• A public domain policy for government-generated content.

• A Creative Commons-like framework for ministries.

• Clear guidance on the ownership of videos shared by public officials online.

🚨 Copyright Ownership of Videos Featuring Ministers and Government Officials on Social Media

In the digital-first world, government officials and ministries routinely share videos of speeches, announcements, and events on social media. These posts are widely seen as public information. However, ANI vs. Mohak Mangal Copyright Controversy has sparked a critical question for India’s creators:

Who actually owns the rights to videos shared by ministers and government officials on platforms like Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram?

This legal grey area has become a nightmare for YouTubers, educators, and influencers who rely on short clips for civic content, and now find themselves vulnerable to takedowns, demonetization, and even legal threats.

When ministries or politicians post videos on social media, who owns them? Possibilities include:

• The Government of India, if created officially.

• News agencies like ANI or Doordarshan, if they recorded or distributed the footage.

• The politician personally, if produced through private media teams.

Without a defined policy, creators are often caught in the middle – unsure whether their use is legal or subject to takedown.

🎯 Why This Is a Crisis for Indian Creators

Even when used for educational, news, or civic purposes, creators report:

• Receiving copyright strikes.

• Being asked to pay huge licensing fees.

• Losing monetization or access to their audience.

This not only stifles civic education and political discourse, but also threatens the livelihood of independent digital creators.

✅ What Can Creators Do to Stay Safe?

Until legal reforms are introduced, Indian creators should:

• Use videos from official government channels like PIB India or MyGov.

• Avoid using clips branded by private news agencies (e.g., ANI, DD News).

• Overlay commentary, critique, or educational value to invoke fair dealing.

• Keep documentation of sources and uses for future legal defense.

• Join digital rights forums or seek legal assistance for repeated takedowns.

🧑‍⚖️ Legal Remedies for Creators and Influencers

Currently, options for influencers and creators are limited:

• Counter-claims via YouTube carry the risk of channel deletion.

• Legal action in court is time-consuming and expensive.

• Policy reform is urgently needed to define digital fair use under Indian law.

🏛️ The Urgent Need for Policy Reform

To resolve this growing conflict, the Indian government should:

• Clearly define the ownership status of digital content shared by officials.

• Introduce a public use license for government-generated media.

• Establish YouTube-specific fair dealing guidelines.

• Create a redressal mechanism for wrongly targeted creators.

✍️ Conclusion: Time to Protect Civic Creativity

As India’s digital creator economy grows, the law must evolve. Videos of ministers and public officials should serve the public, not become legal traps for educators and journalists.

Until reforms arrive, creators must tread carefully, but continue to demand transparency, fair use protections, and digital freedom.

📞 Have Questions or Need Help?

Lawfluencers can be contacted at hello@lawfluencers.com!

This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.