[superasn]

This is the new source of income and a lot of media orgs are getting paid - take ANI in India.

Theyve been hitting YouTubers like Mohak Mangal, Nitish Rajput, Dhruv Rathee with copyright strikes for using just a few seconds of news clips which you would think is fair use.

Then they privately message creators demanding $60000 to remove the strikes or else the channel gets deleted after the third strike.

It s not about protecting content anymore it's copyright extortion. Fair use doesn't matter. System like Youtube makes it easy to abuse and nearly impossible to fight.

It s turning into a business model: pay otherwise your channels with millions of subs get deleted

[1] https://the420.in/dhruv-rathee-mohak-mangal-nitish-rajput-an...

[kirrent]

'Which you would think is fair use' - I must admit I wouldn't think that. When I consider Indian content creators making use of clips from Indian media organisations I can't really imagine why Indian copyright law fair dealing provisions, which are far narrower than the US provisions, wouldn't apply. Sure, you get to argue the strike on Youtube using their DMCA based system, but that has no legal bearing on your liability under Indian law.

I really like this aspect of US copyright law. I think the recent Anthropic judgement is a great example of how flexible US law is. I wish more jurisdictions would adopt it.

[dartharva]

> Indian copyright law fair dealing provisions, which are far narrower than the US provisions

Are they really? I've been believing the opposite. What fair use does US allow that India doesn't?

[kirrent]

Very different in character. The US fair use four factor test (https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/) is really flexible. You don't need to fall into an enumerated exception to infringement to argue that your use is transformative, won't substitute in the marketplace, etc.

Look at the famous Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case. Google scanned every work they could put their hands on and showed excerpts to searching users. Copying and distribution on an incredible scale! Yet, they get to argue that it won't substitute in the marketplace (the snippets are too small to prevent people buying a book), it's a transformative use (this is about searching books not reading books), and the actual disclosed text is small (even if the copying in the backend is large scale).

On the other hand, fair dealing is purpose specific. Those enumerated purposes vary across jurisdictions and India's seems broadish (I live in a different fair dealing jurisdiction). Reading s52 your purposes are:

- private or personal use, including research

- criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work

- reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public.

Within those confines, you then get to argue purpose (e.g. how transformative), amount used, market effect, nature of the copyrighted work, etc. But if your use doesn't fall into the allowed purposes, you're out of luck to begin with.

I'm not familiar enough with Indian common law to know if the media clips those youtubers you mentioned should fall within the reporting purpose. I'm sure the answer would be complex. But all of this is to say, we often treat the world like it has one copyright law (one of the better ones) when that's not the case! Something appreciated by TFA.

[dartharva]

If what you say were true, Indian media conglomerates like the Times Group would be clamoring to sue the hell out of Google for every excerpt shown, yet I haven't heard of a single such case. What ANI did with Indian Youtubers was exploiting the Youtube platform's broken copyright reporting mechanism, not actual litigation.

[lesuorac]

https://bytescare.com/blog/fair-use-copyright-india-vs-us

The big one being transformative use is fair-use in the US but not India.

[giantrobot]

> It s not about protecting content anymore it's copyright extortion.

It's always been about copyright extortion.