YouTuber Agrees to Edit Controversial Video Following Court Order

Court Directs YouTuber to Amend Video Content

YouTuber Mohak Mangal informed the Delhi High Court on Thursday that he would modify his video concerning Asian News International (ANI) to eliminate the contentious segments, as reported by a legal news outlet.

This announcement followed Justice Amit Bansal's directive for Mangal to remove parts of the video that were deemed defamatory towards the news organization.

The court was addressing a defamation lawsuit initiated by ANI against Mangal, who had accused the agency of extortion and blackmail in his video. The lawsuit also included comedian Kunal Kamra and Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of AltNews, as defendants for disseminating Mangal’s video on social platforms.

Justice Bansal noted that Mangal had consented to set the video to “private mode” and make necessary edits to remove the objectionable content as discussed during the hearing.

Once the contentious material is excised, the video may be re-uploaded.

Earlier that day, the court remarked that Mangal should have conveyed his message in a more respectful manner and instructed his legal counsel to consider removing the video.

In his video titled “Dear ANI,” uploaded on Sunday, Mangal accused ANI of extortion after the agency issued copyright strikes against his YouTube channel for utilizing its footage.

A copyright strike on YouTube occurs when the content owner asserts that a video has used their material without authorization. YouTube evaluates the claim and, if substantiated, restricts the creator from monetizing the video or may remove it entirely. Accumulating three strikes can result in the termination of a channel.

Mangal argued that his use of the footage fell under the “fair use” doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as critiques, reviews, or educational content.

As of Thursday, Mangal's video had garnered 5.8 million views.

During the court proceedings, ANI's advocate Amit Sibal asserted that there had been an unlawful dissemination of the agency’s copyrighted material on YouTube, according to the legal news outlet.

Sibal claimed, “I [ANI] offered a license. They could have rejected my offer, but to pressure me, they published defamatory material. This is retaliation against my offer.”

The advocate accused Mangal of launching a media campaign against ANI that escalated into a “concerted effort” to defame the agency. He stated, “They are labeling me as thugs, extortionists, and using other derogatory terms,” as reported.

The judge was informed that Mangal was profiting not only from ANI’s videos but also from the allegedly defamatory content.

“He has 4.2 million subscribers, using my content to generate revenue and attract viewers,” Sibal argued. “He includes my registered trademark and has transcribed a fabricated conversation with me, indicating in small print that it is a recreation.”

Sibal also alleged that the social media posts by Kamra and Zubair seemed to be a “concerted effort” against ANI, aimed at exerting pressure on the agency. He noted that there were calls to boycott ANI.

Mangal’s attorney, Chander Lall, accused ANI of failing to follow proper procedures. “If they have a grievance against me, they cannot extort money from me by threatening to block my channel if I don’t comply,” Lall stated.

Another attorney for Mangal, Nakul Gandhi, mentioned that the YouTuber’s channel would face termination after three strikes, preventing him from creating a new channel, as reported.

In response, Justice Bansal remarked, “Your actions and video were premature.”

“There was no threat to your channel,” the judge added. “It was their responsibility to approach the court. There was no reason to create a disparaging video.”

Zubair also agreed to retract his social media comments regarding the issue, with his counsel noting that he had made a civil comment on the broader topic but was willing to remove his remarks.

Kamra initially consented to delete one of his multiple posts on the matter, with his counsel arguing that the remaining posts were protected under free speech rights, as they pertained to a matter of public interest.

However, the judge indicated that the language used was not acceptable to the court, leading Kamra to agree to remove all posts.

Details of ANI’s Lawsuit

In its lawsuit, ANI asserted that Mangal's video aimed to “discredit and insult” the agency and its services associated with its registered trademarks.

Mangal reportedly acknowledged using ANI’s original copyrighted videos for profit, as claimed by the news agency in its lawsuit, which also stated that he published the video filled with defamatory and harmful statements despite this acknowledgment.

The lawsuit further alleged that Kamra, Zubair, and others who shared Mangal’s video on social media had “independently published additional false, baseless, and malicious statements targeting the plaintiff and its founders.”

ANI contended that these statements lacked any factual or legal basis and were intended to “malign” the agency’s reputation among the public.

The lawsuit sought damages amounting to Rs 2.1 crore.

Additionally, it requested a permanent and mandatory injunction against Mangal, including orders to remove the video, cease using ANI’s trademarks, and refrain from publishing or circulating further “false, misleading, or defamatory” content against the agency.

Similar restraining orders were sought against Kamra, Zubair, and others to prevent them from making or sharing defamatory statements about ANI.