The Delhi High Court recently restrained certain foreign entities, including a Turkey-based media organization, from making “groundless" copyright infringement threats against Indian media organization TV9 Network [Associated Broadcasting Company Limited Vs Google LLC & Ors].

Justice Tejas Karia was dealing with TV9 Network's plea challenging the copyright strikes issued against it on YouTube by these foreign entities (defendants) over use of their videos covering natural calamities and global security incidents.

The defendants had issued copyright notices in relation to the videos covering Laura Hurricane in US, Israel Hamas war, New York floods, with real-time footage sourced online.

The Court found TV9 had used only brief extracts of the videos within the larger narrative of their programs. The use was not a standalone broadcast or independent commercial exploitation, it added.

“The portions of the subject works [videos] are of limited and segmented duration, forming part of a larger narrative and commentary contained in the Subject Videos. The use of subject works [videos] is embedded within the overall programme content and is not shown to be a standalone broadcast or independent commercial exploitation of the subject works,” the Court noted.

Further, the Court also took into account TV9's claim that major portions of the videos were taken from Associated Press Television News Limited (APTN) portal under the APTL License. 

The defendants were proceeded ex parte as they did not appear before the Court and the judge gave a prima facie ruling favoring TV9.

The Court held that the usage of these videos did not constitute copyright infringement.

“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.”

It also restrained the defendants from issuing groundless threats to TV9.

“Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 [foreign journalists] are restrained from issuing any groundless threats to the Plaintiff alleging copyright infringement in respect of the Subject Videos,” the Court stated. 

Associated Broadcasting Company Limited, which owns the channel TV9 Network and operates several YouTube channels, had moved the Court to restrain the defendants from the threat of copyright infringement

TV9 stated that it initially received “threatening” notice from a US based law firm regarding alleged copyright infringement of foreign journalists’ content. The law firm stated that ‘the matter will go very poorly’ for TV9. 

Google, which operates YouTube, submitted that it was merely an intermediary and will not contest the issues between TV9 and the foreign entities.

The Court noted that Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act provides that a fair dealing of a work, while reporting current event or a current affair, does not constitute an infringement of copyright.

It explained that courts in ascertaining whether extracts taken from copyrighted work have been put to fair use, have considered the extent and the length of the extracts as a relevant factor.

It added that while long extracts followed by short comments in certain circumstances have been held to be unfair, short extracts followed by long comments may be fair.

"However, the Courts have also observed that it is impossible to define what is ‘fair dealing’ and that it is a question of fact and degree of impression," the Bench further said.

After examining the videos, the Court concluded that only brief extracts were used as part of composite programmes. It, thus, concluded that TV9’s use was covered by the doctrine of fair use.

The Court further observed that since the foreign entities had not instituted any copyright infringement suit against TV9, their threat was actionable under Section 60 of the Indian Copyright Act. 

The provision allows a party to approach courts in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings.

“Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, who evidently have not instituted any action affording resolution of the disputes between the Parties on the aspect of the infringement of the copyright in the Subject Works before a competent court despite the Plaintiff having submitted counter-notifications, the issuance of Strike Notices to the Plaintiff, coupled with the absence of ‘any action’ as envisaged under Section 60 of the Act, renders the threats actionable within the meaning of Section 60 of the Act,” the Court said. 

With these observations, the matter was disposed of. 

Advocates Harsh Kaushik, Shwetank Tripathi, Deepank Singhal, Devangini and Harsh Prakash appeared for TV9. 

Advocate Aishwarya Kane appeared for Google. 

[Read Judgment]