Summary
In the case of TV9, namely Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC and Others, the Delhi High Court held that TV9’s use of short clips in its news reporting could qualify as fair dealing and could also fall within de minimis use. The court found that limited and embedded use of footage for reporting current events did not amount to copyright infringement. It also held that YouTube copyright strikes, when not followed by proper legal action, could amount to groundless threats.
Copyright Infringement and Groundless Threats in News Reporting
The plaintiff operates the TV9 network and publishes news content on television and digital platforms, including YouTube. The defendants issued multiple copyright strike notices against the plaintiff’s videos, alleging unauthorised use of footage relating to natural disasters and global events.
In response, the plaintiff submitted counter notifications and relied on fair dealing and minimal use. It also stated that substantial portions of some content were sourced through a licensing arrangement with APTN, while other disputed portions were used only as part of news presentation. The defendants did not appear before the court, and the matter proceeded ex parte.
Questions Before the Court
1. Whether TV9’s use of short clips in news reporting amounted to fair dealing under the Copyright Act.
2. Whether TV9’s use of limited portions of footage qualified as de minimis use.
3. Whether issuance of YouTube copyright strikes without proper legal action amounted to groundless threats.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
– The plaintiff argued that the clips were used only for reporting current events and public interest issues such as natural disasters and global conflict. It stated that such use is protected as fair dealing under Section 52.
– The plaintiff also contended that only small portions of the alleged works were used, often lasting only a few seconds within longer news programmes. It argued that such use was trivial and fell within the doctrine of de minimis.
– The plaintiff further argued that major portions of the allegedly infringing material in some videos were sourced through a valid APTN licence, while the remaining disputed material was used in a limited manner within news content. It also stated that the defendants had not proved ownership in the works they relied upon.
– The plaintiff also argued that the defendants issued YouTube copyright strikes and made demands, but did not diligently pursue proper legal proceedings. According to the plaintiff, these acts amounted to groundless threats.
Defendant’s Position
The defendants did not appear and did not file any written statement or reply. The court therefore proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff’s assertions and documents remained uncontroverted.
Court’s Analysis of Fair Dealing and De Minimis Use
The court stated that Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act protects fair dealing with a work for reporting current events and current affairs. The court said that whether use is fair depends on the facts, including the extent of the extract and the way it is used.
The court observed that the clips used by TV9 were brief and formed only a small part of longer news videos. It noted that the extracts were embedded within a larger narrative, commentary, and presentation, and were not shown to be standalone broadcasts or independent commercial exploitation of the original footage.
According to the court, the tabulated details placed on record showed that in several instances the disputed portions ran only for a few seconds, while the full videos ran for several minutes. The court treated this as relevant both to fair dealing and to de minimis use.
The court also considered TV9’s case that major portions of the footage in some videos were taken from the APTN portal under licence. Since the defendants did not file any written statement or material to dispute the existence or scope of that licence, the court treated that assertion as uncontroverted.
On de minimis use, the court relied on India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. and observed that the doctrine filters out claims where copying is trivial and causes no demonstrable harm to the copyright owner. The court said that, in the context of news reporting and given the limited duration of the extracts, the use by TV9 fell within fair use and de minimis non curat lex.
On YouTube strikes, the court observed that a strike notice is part of an intermediary driven compliance process. It said that such a strike does not by itself amount to recourse before a competent court. The court noted that under the YouTube process, a claimant must take legal action after a counter notification if it wants the content to remain blocked on that basis.
The court further observed that issuing strike notices, demanding documents, and warning of adverse consequences do not amount to commencement and prosecution of an action for infringement. Since the defendants either did not initiate proper proceedings or did not pursue them to adjudication, the court held that the threats remained actionable under Section 60.
Findings
– The court held that TV9’s use of the clips in its news videos amounted to fair dealing for reporting current events.
– The court held that the limited use of footage also qualified as de minimis use.
– The court declared that TV9’s videos and the use of the disputed works in those videos did not amount to copyright infringement.
– The court restrained the defendants from issuing groundless threats alleging copyright infringement in respect of the subject videos.
Relevant Paras
Para 11
“Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Act provides that a fair dealing with a work while reporting current event or a current affair does not constitute an infringement of copyright.”
Para 12
“The table indicates that the extracts from the Subject Works are brief and segmented, and are embedded within the larger narrative and commentary forming part of the Subject Videos.”
Para 13
“In several instances, the portions of the Subject Works amount to mere seconds out of Subject Videos running several minutes in length.”
Para 14
“In view of the limited duration of the Subject Works used in the Subject Videos, the context of news reporting, and no demonstrated harm to the right of the alleged copyright owner namely Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Subject Videos would fall within the doctrine of fair use and de minimis non curat lex and that the use of the Subject Works by the Plaintiff in the Subject Videos does not constitute infringement.”
Para 31
“A strike notice, as explained by Defendant No. 1, is an intermediary-driven compliance process and does not, by itself, amount to recourse before a competent court of law.”
Case Citation
Associated Broadcasting Company Ltd. v Google LLC & Ors., CS(COMM) 9/2024 (Del. H.C. Feb. 28, 2026)
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/61568883/ Visited on: 24 March 2026
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.