In a decision handed down on February 28 2026 in Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC & Others, the High Court of Delhi considered how copyright protection interacts with key exceptions: fair dealing (for reporting current events) and de minimis use (trivial copying). The court also examined when a party can seek relief against groundless threats of infringement proceedings under Section 60 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
Background
The facts of the case were as follows:
Associated Broadcasting Company Limited (TV9) operates TV channels and digital news platforms in India and runs multiple YouTube channels under the YouTube Partner Program (Google LLC). Between 2020 and 2023, TV9 produced several news programmes covering major global events and current affairs. These programmes primarily comprised original reporting and editorial content but also contained limited portions of third‑party footage, obtained under a valid international licensing agreement with Associated Press Television News Limited (APTN) or sourced from material publicly available.
In December 2023, TV9 received multiple YouTube copyright strike notices from defendant Nos. 2–5, alleging infringement in certain TV9 videos. The notices did not include documentary proof of ownership/authorship at the time.
TV9 filed counter‑notifications asserting that its use of the footage was protected under the doctrines of fair dealing and de minimis use.
TV9 also sought to engage with the defendants to resolve the matter. US-based counsel, representing defendant Nos. 2–4, requested disclosure of confidential business documents, including YouTube revenue and channel performance data, as a precondition to discussion. TV9 declined to furnish these documents, treating it as an attempt at extortion.
Defendant No. 3 filed a copyright suit in the Northern District of California, which was voluntarily dismissed without merits adjudication; defendants 2, 4, and 5 filed no independent proceedings.
As continued strike notices exposed TV9’s channels to possible takedown under YouTube’s three-strike policy, TV9 sought a declaration of non-infringement and relief against groundless threats.
Issues for determination
The High Court of Delhi framed the following issues:
Whether TV9’s use of the allegedly copyrighted footage constituted infringement;
Whether the defendants had issued actionable groundless threats under Section 60 of the Copyright Act;
Whether the use qualified as fair dealing for reporting current events under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act; and
Whether the use was sufficiently trivial to satisfy the de minimis doctrine.
Defendant Nos. 2–5 did not appear, despite service. Their right to file written statements was closed, and the matter proceeded ex parte. TV9 therefore sought summary judgment.
The court’s analysis
Fair dealing (reporting current events) – Section 52(1)(a)(iii)
The High Court of Delhi reviewed the disputed videos and noted they were full-length news programmes in which the impugned footage appeared only as brief, segmented clips (about 4–5 seconds). The clips were used to illustrate and contextualise events such as natural disasters, conflicts, and other major developments. On these facts, the court held that the use was directly connected to reporting current events and fell within the fair dealing exception.
De minimis use (trivial copying)
The court reiterated the principle of de minimis non curat lex (“the law does not concern itself with trifles”), which excludes claims where the copying is too trivial to cause legally recognisable harm. It assessed both the quantity and importance of the copied footage and found that:
The impugned clips formed a small fraction of the overall programmes;
The clips were not used continuously or as the dominant feature; and
The defendants showed no market substitution or economic harm.
The court also noted TV9’s assertion that substantial portions were independently licensed from APTN, and these assertions were not controverted because the defendants did not appear. The use was therefore held to be too trivial to sustain an infringement claim.
Groundless threats – Section 60 of the Copyright Act
Section 60 of the Copyright Act provides relief against groundless threats of infringement proceedings. A person making threats can avoid liability if they commence and prosecute infringement proceedings with due diligence.
The court held that “commences and prosecutes” requires more than merely filing a suit; it must be pursued to a stage where rights can be adjudicated. Because defendant No. 3’s US lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without any determination on the merits of the case, it did not satisfy this requirement.
On the record, the US case listed only defendant No. 3 as the plaintiff. As regards defendant Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the court noted that no court proceedings were initiated at all.
The court also observed that YouTube copyright strike notices are an intermediary-driven compliance mechanism, not proceedings before a competent court. Such notices cannot adjudicate ownership disputes or determine infringement.
In these circumstances, the court concluded that the defendants had issued groundless threats actionable under Section 60.
Key takeaways
The primary implications of the case are as follows:
Short, contextual clips in news programmes can qualify for fair dealing when used for reporting current events;
Trivial, non-dominant use may be de minimis, especially where no market harm is shown;
Platform enforcement tools (e.g., copyright strikes) are not court proceedings and cannot resolve ownership/infringement disputes; and
Section 60 of the Copyright Act can be invoked against groundless threats unless the threatening party genuinely prosecutes infringement proceedings with due diligence.
