Delhi High Court Bars Groundless Copyright Threats Against TV9 Over Brief Use Of Third-Party Footage

The Delhi High Court has declared that certain TV9 Network news videos uploaded on its YouTube channels do not infringe the copyright of third parties and restrained four foreign entities from issuing further groundless copyright threats against the broadcaster.

The videos covered events such as Hurricane Laura in the United States, heavy snowfall and floods, the Israel–Hamas conflict, and the 2023 Chinese balloon incident.

In a judgment dated February 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia considered whether the videos in question and the use of the disputed footage amounted to copyright infringement.

Referring to Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court noted that fair dealing for reporting current events does not constitute infringement.

The court observed that the record showed only limited and segmented use of portions of the alleged works within composite news programmes. The extracts were brief and were embedded within a larger narrative that included commentary and analysis. In these circumstances, the Court held that the videos would fall within the doctrine of fair use.

The suit was decreed against the four foreign entities that had issued the strike notices, namely the US-based media brokering company, Viral DRM LLC, the entity associated with videographer Brandon Clement, and the Ankara-based English news service.

The court restrained them, along with their directors, partners, employees, associates, affiliates, and anyone acting on their behalf, from issuing any groundless threats alleging copyright infringement in respect of the videos. It also declared that the videos and the manner in which the footage was used in them do not constitute copyright infringement of the works claimed by the defendants.

No relief was pressed against Google LLC or Google India, and the suit was disposed of accordingly insofar as they were concerned. Google LLC had submitted that it was merely an intermediary and not in a position to adjudicate contested copyright claims.

The plaintiff informed thecourt that between 2020 and2023,3 it produced news programmes covering events including Hurricane Laura in the United States, the Israel–Hamas conflict, heavy snowfall and floods in the US, and the 2023 Chinese balloon incident. In December 2023, it received multiple copyright strike notices from Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 alleging infringement in respect of portions of footage used in those programmes.

The tabulated particulars placed on record showed the duration of each Subject Video and the corresponding duration of the portions attributed to the defendants. In several instances, the portions in question ran for only a few seconds within videos of several minutes.

The plaintiff also pleaded that major portions of the footage used were sourced under a licensing agreement with Associated Press Television News Limited. The four foreign entities that issued the strike notices did not file a written statement or affidavit of admission or denial.

The Court recorded that, in these circumstances, the averments in the plaint and the documents filed stood deemed admitted.

The Court observed that while unauthorised exploitation of acinematographich film would ordinarily amount to infringement, the record in the present case reflected limited use of portions of the alleged works embedded within composite news programmes containing commentary and analysis. The Court noted that the footage was not used as a standalone broadcast or as independent commercial exploitation of the foreign entities' work.

In the absence of any rebuttal from these entities, the Court held that the plaintiff had established its case for a declaration that the use did not amount to copyright infringement.

It also held that, given the limited duration and nature of the extracts in the factual context of the case, the doctrine of de minimis applied.

The Court then considered Section 60 of the Copyright Act, which provides a remedy in cases of groundless threats. Although Viral DRM LLC had instituted copyright infringement proceedings in the United States following the counter-notification process under YouTube's policy, those proceedings were voluntarily dismissed insofar as the plaintiff's channels were concerned.

The Court held that the proviso to Section 60 requires that a person making threats must “commences and prosecutes” an action for infringement. A proceeding that is voluntarily dismissed without adjudication does not satisfy that requirement. In the absence of any subsisting action being prosecuted to determination, and in view of the issuance of strike notices without such prosecution, the threats were held to be actionable within the meaning of Section 60.

The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of Associated Broadcasting Company Limited in terms of its prayers for declaration and injunction against the foreign entities.