I shall now analyse the applicability of each provision in this dispute. The four factors are: the purpose and character of use, nature of the work, amount and substantiality of copying, and effect of use on the market for the original work.

Hence, for Newslaundry to claim this exception it must prove that its use amounted to fair dealing and that it fell within the ambit of either of the above-mentioned two purposes.Īs I have highlighted here, fair dealing in India, as per the Delhi High Court, has been interpreted to incorporate a test based on four constitutive factors, similar to the United States. It provides that any use of a copyrighted work for the purposes of, inter alia, “criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work” or “the reporting of current events and current affairs” is exempt from an infringement claim provided that it constitutes ‘fair dealing’ with the work. Section 52(1)(a) specifically is important for the purpose of the present debate. Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, provides for certain acts which are an exception to the general norm of copyright infringement. I shall first briefly summarise the test to be applied and then assess the facts of the present dispute in light of the standard. In this post, I shall elaborate on one of the points mentioned by Divij, that the use by Newslaundry falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided under the Indian copyright law. Divij highlighted the use of copyright strikes as a new form of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (‘SLAPPs’) using the problematic takedown structure of YouTube. The videos in relation to which the copyright claims were made contained clips from videos of Aaj Tak’s reporting and as per Newslaundry were used to critique Aaj Tak’s reporting on certain issues. In a recent post, Divij discussed the use of copyright infringement claims by Aaj Tak against the independent media platform, Newslaundry.

You tube aaj tak