Navigating Copyright Strikes on YouTube: Guidance for Indian Creators

On September 10, YouTuber FilmiIndian (Deeksha Sharma) went public about receiving repeated copyright strikes from a major production house upon publishing a negative review for a particular movie.¹ The content in question? Not pirated films, but movie posters, stills, and short review snippets from the marketing material of the movie being reviewed by her, and now, she faces the risk of her entire channel being wiped out under YouTube’s “three-strike” rule (viz., YouTube channels that get 3 copyright strikes in 90 days are subject to termination).²

Strikes against review channels suggest an uncomfortable truth: Copyright law may be used to potentially suppress commentary. In FilmiIndian’s case, the strikes coincided with her negative review of a recent movie. Reportedly, she is not alone; other Indian movie review channels on YouTube have also faced sudden copyright strikes from production houses after unfavourable reviews.³

These incidents point to a much larger conversation: How copyright law, meant to incentivise creativity, may be increasingly used to stifle commentary and criticism in India. What makes this practice particularly egregious is that rights holders often have the legal option to claim revenue from the content while allowing the channel to remain operational via a “copyright claim”, but they may consciously opt to issue “copyright strikes” instead, magnifying the risk of termination of the YouTube content creator’s channel and exerting amplified operational risk for creators.⁴

The recent ANI controversy⁵ highlighted YouTube’s copyright policy’s potential to be possibly leveraged for revenue.⁶ YouTuber Mohak Mangal alleged that ANI demanded nearly 50 lakh rupees to remove a copyright strike on his YouTube channel for using an 11-second clip in a 16-minute video⁷, while Rajat Pawar alleged that ANI demanded 18 lakhs rupees to remove a copyright strike on his YouTube channel for using a 10-second clip in a 10-minute video.⁸

What is the law on “fair dealing”, and what is “de minimis”?

YouTube creators should be aware that Indian copyright law explicitly protects certain uses of copyrighted material, including criticism, reviews, news reporting, and educational purposes. This is referred to as “fair dealing” under the Copyright Act, 1957.⁹

In simple terms, this means that if you use a short clip, a few images, or snippets of a movie’s trailer or song to explain, comment on, or review it, you may be allowed to do so without it being considered a violation of copyright.

Another important principle that YouTube creators should be aware of is the “de minimis” principle. The de minimis principle establishes that even the use of a portion of a copyrighted work may not constitute infringement if such use is insubstantial and does not prejudice the legitimate economic interests of the copyright owner, consistent with the principles under Indian copyright law.

In simple words, this means that if you use a tiny portion of someone else’s work, like a short clip, a few seconds of a song, or a couple of images for your commentary or critique, and it does not affect the original creator’s ability to sell or profit from their work, the law may usually not consider it as a violation of the owner’s copyright.

For creators, this means that you do not have to be scared of using small clips or images, as long as your use of such clips or images is for commentary or criticism, and you are not just copying the entire or a substantial portion of the work in question.

The Indian courts have consistently applied these principles in cases relevant to short clips, commentary, and news reporting, such as in India TV Independent News Service (P) Ltd. v. Yashraj Films (P) Ltd.¹⁰, where broadcasting a 17-second clip in a news programme was held not to constitute infringement, recognising both fair dealing and the de minimis doctrine.

Platform-policy mismatch

Despite these statutory protections, platforms like YouTube appear to operate under a “guilty until proven innocent” model. Copyright claimants can issue these copyright strikes with minimal oversight, and the burden falls immediately on creators to submit a counter-notification, which carries both procedural and reputational risk if the claimant escalates to litigation.¹¹

This mismatch is particularly challenging in India. Many creators remain unaware of the protections afforded under Section 52 or the de minimis doctrine. Moreover, India currently lacks a statutory penalty for false takedown notices comparable to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1998¹², leaving creators exposed to potential misuse of the system. In fact, some content owners and production houses are alleged to have outsourced the enforcement of their copyrights to specialised agencies or third-party firms, which are then licensed to issue copyright strikes on YouTube on their behalf.¹³ This allows claimants to target large volumes of content efficiently, often with minimal oversight of individual cases. While this can be used for legitimate enforcement of intellectual property, it may also be misused to issue copyright strikes in bulk against creators who use short clips, images, or review snippets, sometimes disregarding fair dealing or de minimis protections.

Nonetheless, these procedural hurdles should not foster a sense of helplessness. The law supports fair dealing; creators must understand and assert their rights.

What should YouTube creators do?

Creators should be reassured that the law offers substantial protection, provided they understand their rights and document lawful use. Creators may be allowed to use posters, stills, and short clips for commentary, review, and educational purposes under Section 52. Additionally, Section 60 usually provides remedies against groundless threats, allowing creators to seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages if someone threatens you with legal action for infringement and that threat is baseless. Section 60 may deter rights-holders from using copyright as a potential means of deterrence.

Procedurally, creators should respond to strikes promptly and thoughtfully. Filing a “counter-notification” with YouTube is an essential procedural step, but it should be undertaken with the support of a properly documented record demonstrating that the material in question falls within the scope of fair dealing or the de minimis doctrine. Such documentation should include evidence of clip duration, context of use, the underlying purpose, and transformative intent. While detailed records are key, involving a legal professional may provide practical and useful support in preparing the counter-notification, as these records will significantly fortify the creator’s position should the matter escalate to court.

At the platform level, creators can collaborate and advocate for specific safeguards on YouTube. These may include mandatory human review before a copyright strike counts toward channel termination, explicit carve-outs for short clips used in commentary, and a transparent, fast-track counter-notification system. Collaboration with creator collectives and legal professionals can provide guidance and amplify these reforms.

The practical effect of unbalanced enforcement is a narrowing of speech. Reviewers may hesitate to critique movies, news commentators may remove illustrative clips, and creators may self-censor entirely. When copyright is potentially misused to protect reputation rather than foster creative expression, it risks becoming a tool for censorship. Creators must recognise that their rights are protected under Indian law, even if platform mechanisms appear intimidating.

By combining legal knowledge, careful documentation, and proactive engagement with platforms, Indian creators can safeguard their work and continue to produce critical, educational, and creative content without undue risk from possibly disproportionate enforcement.