New Delhi – The Delhi High Court on Wednesday voiced its strong displeasure regarding the conduct of news agency Asian News International (ANI). ANI had approached YouTube to block the channel of Dynamite News Network, despite an ongoing copyright infringement case between the two entities in court.
The High Court criticized ANI’s approach while dismissing its appeal against a previous order that had directed YouTube to unblock Dynamite News’ channel. A division bench, comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, was informed that ANI had contacted YouTube with new URLs, alleging copyright infringement, without notifying the single judge who had previously ruled on the matter.
The bench stated, “We express our displeasure in the manner the appellant has proceeded in this matter. The YouTube channel of the respondent was unblocked after the March 21 order passed by the single judge in ANI’s copyright suit.”
The court further elaborated that ANI’s action of getting the March 21 order reversed by directly contacting YouTube, specifically concerning URLs that were already subject to the March 21 order, was “deprecable.”
Previously, on March 21, Dynamite News had agreed to remove nine allegedly infringing videos from its YouTube channel, claiming they were mistakenly uploaded by a staff member. Dynamite News had also undertaken not to use ANI’s videos in the future.
The issue resurfaced on October 14 when Dynamite News reported to the single judge that ANI had approached YouTube with fresh URLs, uploaded before the March 21 order, leading to the blocking of Dynamite’s channel. Dynamite News argued that ANI was attempting to circumvent the court’s order by going directly to YouTube without seeking court permission for these URLs.
In adherence to the court’s order, Dynamite News had requested YouTube to unblock its channel, expressing willingness to remove any newly identified infringing URLs.
During the recent hearing, the division bench acknowledged that the videos in question were indeed unblocked by YouTube. The court also noted that ANI did not deem it necessary to approach the original judge before taking its action with YouTube, despite being involved in ongoing litigation.
Consequently, the bench dismissed ANI’s appeal, deeming it without merit and unjustified. When ANI’s counsel requested the court to limit its observations to the current case, the court refused, stating it could not restrict other courts from considering these remarks.
The High Court concluded by emphasizing that any new infringing clip uploaded by a third party would be treated as an independent issue, and the court could not issue preemptive directives on such matters.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.