Case Name: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. RSY News & Anr.
Citation: 2026: DHC:8749
Date of Decision: Tuesday, Twenty ninth day of September, Two thousand and twenty-six.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
FACTS
ANI Media Pvt. Ltd, Asian News International (ANI): ANI Media Pvt Ltd or ANI (Asian News International) is a premier multimedia news agency founded in 1971. It has a string of over a hundred bureaus with journalists and provides news video feeds on syndicate for television channels, digital and subscribers.
Defendant No. 1, RSY News owned by Raj Kumar of Patna in Bihar uploaded six regional YouTube channels (RSY News, RSY News UP, RSY News Delhi, RSY News Bihar) with more than 4 million subscribers. It uploaded twelve videos from August to October 2024 which reproduced 10 original ANI news videos, in whole or in part. The copied content contained only exclusive interviews of politicians, press briefings and subscription-based syndicated content. ANI said that RSY News has allegedly copied footage with ANI’s microphone logos and graphics, while adding its own logo on top of them. ANI’s copyright infringement takedown notices were sent through Google LLC, Defendant No. 2. RSY News provided counter-notifications alleging a third-party licence from “Swami Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.”. ANI challenged this and filed a commercial IP suit. The Delhi High Court acted ex parte as RSY News did not appear or file a written statement and ANI moved for a summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC.
ISSUES
- Whether ANI was the real owner of the copyright in the news videos in question?
- Whether ANI’s copyright has been violated by copying the videos to use on their YouTube channel, without any permission.
- Whether RSY News could defend itself, by arguing licence from a third party or having the fair dealing exception for reporting current events.
- And whether the ANI could move for a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC without the case going for a full trial.
KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS
-
- Section 14(d)- the copyright owner has exclusive rights to ‘reproduce, store, and communicate the work to the public’.
- Section 2(f)- describes “cinematograph film” as any work where some visual images are fixed with a soundtrack.
- As per Proviso (b) to Section 17- when employee journalists publish a work on behalf of the work and are remunerated for that work, the first ownership of that work vests in the employer.
- Sections 51(a)(i) and 52(1)(a)(iii) regulate infringement of copyright and the exception of fair dealing to report current affairs.
According to CPC and the Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2022 Order XIII-A read with Rule 27, the court has power to pass a summary judgment where there is no real prospect of the defendant contesting the suit successfully. Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 prescribe restrictive time-frames for the filing of a written statement and provide for the court to decide the suit, if the defendant does not file a written statement. Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act, 2000 concerns intermediaries like Google LLC.
ARGUMENTS
Section 17, Proviso (b): ANI alleged that it owned the footage under this section because its salaried journos shot it, with ANI equipment, under on-duty contracts. ANI contended that RSY News had copied entire videos without authorisation, even the ‘premium’ subscriber-only content; that the ‘alleged’ licence was a forgery; and that anything wholesale could not be fair dealing. RSY News had not responded to the suit, so ANI stated that the plaint was taken as true.
RSY News: not filed, no appearance was entered against it at ex parte. Prior to that, RSY News had asserted a valid sub-licence from Swami Entertainment in the YouTube counter notices.
Google LLC said it was a neutral intermediary under the IT Act and would agree to block the URLs based on the orders.
ANALYSIS
While ANI had also not appeared before the Court, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on the merits of the case. He held that the video streams of ANI qualified as “cinematograph films” under the Copyright Act and that ANI was the sole copyright owner of the content under Section 17, Proviso (b). A comparison of timestamps and individual frames of video streams proved that the copying was perfect and unauthorised. The Court rejected the RSY News’s allegation of sub-licence as a “fanciful premise” and untenable on the basis that RSY News could not produce any evidence in support thereof. The Court held that duplication of a whole work by ANI in the form of their videos amounted to substitution of the same in the market as original work and therefore, should not be considered under fair dealing under Section 52.
Following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Reliance Eminent Trading, the Court held that no full oral trial was required if documentary evidence established liability, and the defendant had no real defence. Herein, since RSY News did not file the written statement within 120 days, the allegations made by ANI were deemed to be admitted.
JUDGMENT
The High Court directed that ANI’s application I.A. 8733/2026 for summary judgment be allowed and the suit be decreed in its favour. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraint RSY News from uploading, copying, publishing, distributing or using ANI’s videos in any manner.
RSY News was also ordered to remove the infringing content from each of its four YouTube channels. The Court also reaffirmed its directions to Google LLC to block and disable access to the twelve infringing URLs. Nevertheless, the Court refused to award damages or compel a public apology, as ANI had asked, in the Court’s opinion these were not needed. ANI also declined to pursue its demand for the dismantling of the RSY News YouTube channels.
CONCLUSION
The judgement demonstrates the utility of a summary procedure under Order XIII-A CPC in commercial disputes in intellectual property rights. It holds that unauthorised aggregation and live re-broadcast of premium news videos on social-media platforms amounts to piratage product and may be summarily punished, in fact, with impunity, by courts when no authentic defence is set up.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- AASTHA KEDIA
Read the Judgment copy below : ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. RSY News
