- 27 May 2025
Fair Use & Copyright Strikes on YouTube Videos: Understanding of Law in India
With the rise of content creation on platforms like YouTube, creators today frequently encounter terms such as “Copyright Claim” and “Copyright Strike.” While many casually refer to both as the same, they are legally and functionally distinct. A copyright claim is primarily a monetisation-related dispute where the original rights holder claims earnings from a video. However, a copyright strike is a more serious matter. It signifies a formal takedown of content by YouTube on behalf of a copyright holder, which also affects the standing of the creator's account. Accumulation of three such strikes can result in permanent removal of the channel.
Legal Framework: The Copyright Act, 1957
In India, all matters relating to copyright are governed under the Copyright Act, 1957. The term copyright refers to the exclusive legal rights held by the creator or owner of original works. As per Section 2(d)(v) of the Act, “author” means, in case of the cinematograph films or sound recordings. A creator can also formally relinquish their copyright under Section 21 or license it to others under Section 30. The term of copyright protection for cinematograph films extends up to sixty years from the year following the date of publication, as per Section 26 of the Act.
Copyright Infringement and Civil or Criminal Consequences
Section 51 of the Copyright Act defines what constitutes infringement. It is an infringement if a person, without a valid license or permission, uses a copyrighted work in a manner that breaches the rights granted exclusively to the copyright holder. The person may be liable for both civil and criminal penalties. Civil remedies under Section 55 include injunctions, damages, and accounts. Section 63 imposes criminal liability for infringement, providing for imprisonment can attract punishment between six months to three years and a fine between fifty thousand rupees to two lakh rupees. Repeat offences may attract enhanced penalties under Section 63A.
Understanding Fair Dealing and Exceptions
There are certain exceptions to copyright infringement in India under Section 52 of the Act. This section allows for “fair dealing” of a work under limited purposes such as private use, research, criticism or review, and reporting of current events. This is often equated with the doctrine of fair use as understood in international jurisdictions. However, fair dealing is not an absolute defence and must be evaluated on case-specific factors such as the nature and extent of use, purpose of reproduction, and market effect on the original work.
Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases
Indian courts have provided significant interpretation regarding fair use. In the case of Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, 1996, the Kerala High Court outlined factors such as the quantum of material used, the purpose of use, and whether the reuse creates market competition. In Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. News Nation Network Pvt. Ltd. (2022), the Bombay High Court held that even one minute of unauthorised use is not protected under fair use if it carries commercial intent. In Saregama India Ltd. v. Alkesh Gupta (2013), the Calcutta High Court ruled that streaming and monetisation of copyrighted content without permission cannot be defended under the fair use clause. The Delhi High Court’s ruling in India TV v. Yash Raj Films (2012) emphasized the perspective of the average viewer in determining copyright infringement.
YouTube Policies versus Indian Law
Although YouTube has its own internal policies, including the three-strike rule and content ID system, these policies are subordinate to the national laws of the country in which the user operates. YouTube’s fair use policies align broadly with the four-factor test laid out in the United States Supreme Court judgment in Folsom v. Marsh. These factors include the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the potential market. However, in India, Section 52 governs the applicability of fair use, and creators cannot solely rely on YouTube’s internal policies to escape legal liability.
Performer’s Rights and Digital Distribution
In addition to copyright, performers are granted specific rights under Section 38 of the Act, known as performer’s rights. These rights continue for fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the performance is made. This means that any unauthorised uploading or commercial use of a performer’s act can also amount to infringement of performer’s rights.
What to Do When a Copyright Strike Occurs
When a copyright strike is issued on YouTube, the user has a few options. First, they can send a counter notification under the YouTube dispute process if they believe their use qualifies under fair dealing. Second, they may contact the rights holder to request retraction. Third, if the strike is accepted and no further action is taken, the strike remains on record for ninety days. You Tube usually updates its policies to protect creators rights.
How to Avoid Copyright Liability as a Creator
The best protection against copyright strikes is the use of original content. If external content must be used, creators should rely on content that is either licensed, available in public domain for commercial use, or explicitly provided with permission. Attribution is helpful but not a substitute for permission. Avoiding real-time replication of protected music, videos, or graphics without valid licensing is critical.
Conclusion: Awareness, Compliance and Legal Safety
In the digital age, content is both easily created and easily infringed. YouTube content creators must be cautious and informed about the copyright laws applicable in India. Strikes and claims may appear to be part of the YouTube ecosystem, but their consequences stem from the Copyright Act, 1957 and can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. Understanding the difference between fair use and infringement, securing proper licenses, and respecting the exclusive rights of original creators is not just legally sound—it is ethically essential. As jurisprudence continues to evolve, creators must align themselves with both the letter and spirit of the law to avoid liability.
Disclaimer
The contents in this article are just for informational purposes only. Efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information, the author(s) and publisher do not guarantee its completeness or precision. Any matter written in this article does not express the opinion of the author or the publisher. Additionally, it does not reflect the views of the organisation. Readers should self-analyse the information and perceive accordingly. The author(s), The publisher and the organisation are not responsible for any losses or damage occurring due to the interpretation of the article.
