Facebook's edit function misused to backdate posts and claim copyright: Influencers move Delhi HC

Two digital creators have filed commercial suits before the Delhi High Court alleging that Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanisms are being misused by unidentified persons to interfere with the creators' Instagram accounts and original content.

The suits filed by financial educator Pushkar Raj Thakur and digital creator Neeraj Joshi involve allegations that false copyright strikes are being weaponised to threaten the deletion of content uploaded by creators or the suspension or deletion of their accounts.

A key allegation concerns the use of Facebook's edit feature to backdate posts which are then used to launch false copyright strikes.

In Neeraj Joshi's case, Justice Jyoti Singh on July 9 recorded Meta’s statement that if his account has not already been permanently disabled, it would investigate the allegations and preserve his verified Instagram account bearing the username @Neerajjoshi5014.

The Court also directed Meta to provide the requisite Basic Subscriber Information and IP logs to Joshi within three weeks. These details could help identify the anonymous persons allegedly responsible for interfering with the account.

Summons were issued in the suit. Joshi’s application seeking an interim injunction will be heard on August 5.

Joshi’s case follows a suit by Pushkar Raj Thakur.

Both suits have detailed the manner in which copyright strikes can allegedly be weaponised against original creators.

The suits allege that certain persons first upload unrelated photographs or videos through old Facebook posts. After a creator publishes an original reel on Instagram, others allegedly download it and use the “Edit Post” feature available on Facebook’s desktop version to replace the material in the old post with the creator's video.

According to the suit, the publication date displayed on Facebook continues to reflect the date on which the original, unrelated material was uploaded. This creates the impression that the stolen video was published by the alleged infringer before the creator uploaded it.

The manipulated post is then allegedly used to claim ownership through Meta’s Rights Manager and initiate copyright strikes against the creator's original Instagram content.

The creators have contended that Meta’s automated copyright enforcement system acted upon such claims without adequately examining the authorship, metadata, edit history or actual publication chronology of the videos.

Thakur points out that dozens of his videos were removed, disabled or restricted. The suit also alleged that Meta denied Thakur access to Rights Manager, even as the alleged infringers continued using the same mechanism against him.

On May 29, while dealing with Thakur's suir, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked Meta to obtain instructions and explain what measures it had taken or could take against the alleged misuse of its platform.

The matter subsequently came before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on July 1. Meta assured the Court that Thakur’s videos would not be removed on the basis of copyright strikes until the next hearing. It also said that his account would not be closed because of repeated copyright strikes.

Meta further agreed to restore the deleted videos once Thakur supplied the relevant URLs. The Court recorded these assurances and listed the matter for July 17.

Thakur has sought an injunction restraining Meta from removing his original content on the basis of fraudulent or backdated claims. He has also sought directions requiring the company to introduce KYC safeguards, timestamp-integrity protections, metadata verification and anti-manipulation protocols within Rights Manager.

He has further claimed approximately ₹2 crore in damages from Meta and the alleged infringers for loss of followers, monetisation opportunities, sponsorships and commercial goodwill.

The two cases reflect a growing concern among digital creators that copyright enforcement tools intended to protect original content can themselves be used to target creators through fraudulent ownership claims.

A related public interest litigation (PIL) petition is also pending before the High Court.

Neeraj Joshi and Pushkar Raj Thakur were represented by Advocates Muskaan Garg and Himanshu Goyal.

Meta was represented by Advocates Varun Pathak, Vishesh Sharma and Prasidhi Agrawal.

In Thakur’s case, Google was represented by Advocates Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehersa and Aiswarya Debadarshini, while Telegram was represented by Advocate Madhav Khosla.

[Read Neeraj Joshi Order]

[Read Pushkar Raj Thakur Order]