ANI gets rap for overreaching court orders in dispute with Dynamite News

ANI gets rap for overreaching court orders in dispute with Dynamite News

It began with Asian News International (ANI) filing a copyright infringement suit against Dynamite News for unauthorised use of nine of its videos.

An appeal by ANI against an order directing YouTube to unblock the channel of Dynamite News Network was dismissed by the Delhi High Court which criticized the news agency for bypassing judicial proceedings in its copyright dispute. Strong disapproval was expressed by a division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla over ANI’s conduct noting that the agency directly approached YouTube to block Dynamite News’ channel even though the case was already pending before the court.

It began with Asian News International (ANI) filing a copyright infringement suit against Dynamite News for unauthorised use of nine of its videos.

Subsequently, YouTube blocked Dynamite News’ channel after receiving copyright strikes from ANI. On March 21 however, unblocking of the channel was allowed by the single judge once Dynamite News took upon itself to remove the nine videos.

Notwithstanding, ANI later claimed infringement of eight more of its videos and again approached YouTube directly instead of informing the court. YouTube issued new copyright strikes and re-blocked the Dynamite news channel acting on ANI’s complaint. Dynamite then sought relief from the single judge who ordered YouTube to restore the channel on October 14, subject to the removal of the disputed videos.

Reportedly while hearing ANI’s appeal against the October 14 order, the division bench said that ANI’s conduct “deserves to be deprecated”. The bench reportedly said, “We express our displeasure in the manner the appellant [ANI] has proceeded in this matter. The YouTube channel of the respondent [Dynamite News] was unblocked after the March 21 order passed by the single judge in ANI’s copyright suit. The manner in which the appellant ANI managed to get the said order reversed and getting the respondent’s YT channel once again blocked by directly approaching YT, in respect to the URLs that were prior to passing of the March 21 order, deserves to be deprecated.”

The videos in question were uploaded before the March 21 order and hence did not violate the earlier directions; the bench found. The single judge had been “unduly indulgent” toward ANI by directing Dynamite News to take down the disputed URLs without even checking the infringement claim – the bench held. The court reportedly stated: “We fail to see how the appellant in any manner can be aggrieved. The order has directed respondent to take down the URLs for which YT channel will have to be unblocked. With that we are clear that appellant’s grievance stood assuaged.”

Representing Dynamite News, senior advocate Chander Lall argued that ANI’s actions were tantamount to overreach as the agency tried to pressure his client into taking a licence for its content. He reportedly told the court, “We went through negotiations, mediation. Threats were handed out saying that we will remove your channel if you do not take our licence. I have removed everything.”

ANI’s appeal was dismissed at the threshold by the bench which noted that no legitimate grievance existed.