What happens when copyright enforcement tools become instruments of commercial control rather than legal protection? In a significant ruling in Anamika Sood v. Google LLC & Saregama India Ltd., the Saket District Court declared independent artist Anamika Sood the rightful owner of her song “Ferrareee”, rejecting Saregama’s infringement claims over an expired copyright. But while the judgment resolves the ownership dispute, it leaves unresolved a larger structural concern: the growing misuse of automated copyright strike systems as tools of market leverage against independent creators. Bindushree M writes on the development below. Bindushree M is a student at NLSIU.
The Copyright Strike as a Commercial Weapon: What Anamika Sood v. Saregama Does Not Say But Should
By Bindushree M
On 18 April 2026, the District Judge (Commercial Court-05), Saket, New Delhi, delivered the judgment in Anamika Sood v. Google LLC & Saregama India Ltd., declaring that Anamika Sood is the rightful owner of her the song “Ferrareee”. This was passed after a five-year legal battle against one of India’s oldest and largest music labels, Saregama. The Court applied settled copyright doctrine, rejected the infringement claim, and awarded nominal damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. On paper, the creator won. In practice, the judgment leaves untouched the more pertinent questions the facts demand: what happens when a copyright strike is not a legal remedy but a commercial weapon?
Reading Between the Lines
The striking feature of the judgment is that, though it soundly applies the established legal doctrines on originality, copyright terms, and lay observer test for infringement, it falls short of addressing a silent but major problem of copyright strikes. Anamika Sood argued that Saregama was initially approached by her when the song was being made, to negotiate a purchase of rights for her song “Ferrareee”. However, these negotiations failed. Upon the song’s release and upload on YouTube, wherein it garnered approximately two million views, the singer gained momentum with sponsorship and distribution deals, and live performance bookings. Then, Saregama issued a copyright strike alleging similarity of Anamika Sood’s song with its song “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Ka”. It is important to note that Saregama’s copyright in the song expired in 2017. The “Ferrareee” song was taken down. Most pertinently, after Sood filed a suit seeking reinstatement of her song, Saregama withdrew the strike on YouTube without contesting the copyright claim.
Saregama denied any retaliation, insisting that the strike was protective of its rights in its song. But the Court, in its finding, disposes of the right: that the copyright had expired in 2017 under Section 27 of the Copyright Act. Thus, on the date when Saregama applied for copyright strike and in the subsistence of the suit, there was no claim of copyright to the sound recording. Further, during cross-examination, the VP Legal of Saregama, Yash Asai, admitted that Saregama had filed no documentary evidence to establish the similarity that it was alleging.
A related dimension to this is that YouTube’s copyright strike system enables conditions for such misuse. They are automatically reviewed. A rights-holder manually submits an index of their copyrighted work, and the YouTube Content ID system flags matches on a sweep, without manual verification by a human. Further, YouTube does not check ownership of the content that is to be taken down, it just asks the rights-holder to confirm if they own the rights.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Content ID scans videos at upload and thereafter, matches can be triggered when new content is added to the database or when the system’s algorithm changes. So, this makes assignment of fault complicated. One view is that the scan occurred when reference file was submitted, the fault for lapsed copyright strike is with YouTube’s policy oof accepting reference files without verifying current ownership. Another view, is that match was generated on a rolling basis, the obligation is on Saregama to withdraw the file when underlying copyright strike expired.
The issue here is that YouTube has no mechanism for independently verifying whether the copyright underlying a particular reference file is in force or has expired, which in effect tilts the case in favor of the rights holders. This creates an architecture where the aggrieved has no recourse but to pursue litigation. This means a person can issue deliberate strikes against an independent creator for a lapsed copyright. Though the Court ruled in favour of the independent artist on substantial issues, it did, however, sidestep on a structural issue: whether this was a bad-faith strike used to gain commercial leverage.
This pattern is not new. Major rights holders have allegedly deliberately issued mass copyright strikes against creators, weaponising YouTube’s three-strike policy. See here. In this case, it was used to suppress a competitor who had refused to deal on Saregama’s terms, using the infrastructure instrumentally.
Loophole? No Wrongful Takedown Liability
Under the Copyright Act, Section 60 allows an alleged infringer to file a declaratory suit to challenge harassment under the alias of infringement. As noted earlier here, this provision is not designed to cover digital notice-and-takedown abuse. This “notice-and-takedown” arrangement allows the platforms to exercise independence and good faith in regulating content. The courts have been inconsistent in granting injunctive relief, like in the SciHub case, where John Doe orders are issued, or have blocked copyright strike harassment like in ANI News.
In Associated Broadcasting Company Limited vs. Google LLC & Ors. The DHC held that copyright strike notice, Youtube-driven process, is not an ‘action’ within the meaning of the proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act. This has since been extended beyond YouTube: In Avaia Ventures Private Limited v. Wildship Enterprises Private Limited, the same bench applied the Associated Broadcasting to hold Amazon’s Brand Registry complaint mechanism, restraining complaints without any court proceedings. However, Anamika Sood which pre-dates this judgement, has no benefit of the judgement or cannot be faulted for not engaging with this principle. But what both the decisions show is that law is now better equipped than before to characterize such conduct; what remains AWOL is a mechanism to make the wrongdoer pay.
Compare this to US Law: Section 512(f) of DMCA imposes liability on any person who knowingly misrepresents that online material was infringing, and imposes damages and costs for the injured person. In the EU, this law is more nuanced. Under the Digital Services Act, platforms must succinctly explain why the content was taken down and clarify whether the action was automated, creating traceability. Such takedowns can be challenged. But, most importantly, it addresses misuse by suspending/restricting users who frequently submit unfounded claims. Both these laws are tailored for digital platforms. In India, therefore, the framework remains under-equipped to address the misuse.
Inadequate Damages
In India, Courts do impose litigation costs under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, in the Amamika Sood case, it directed each party to bear its own costs despite finding merits against Saregama. This is an asymmetric dynamic. Saregama, a major player in the market, bore no consequences for the suit. Meanwhile, the plaintiff spent 5 years in Court and allegedly lost revenue she could not document.
The court relied on Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Toshiba Appliances and B.C. Hasaram & Sons v. Nirmala Agarwal to hold that speculative or computation-stage damage claims, introduced in written submissions without evidence, cannot be sustained. The plaintiff’s claim of Rs. 88 Lakhs was accordingly rejected. Instead, it awarded a nominal sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs under the heads of inconvenience, loss of viewership, and mental distress. It does not provide a reference to the calculation or make any engagement with the plaintiff’s documented promotional expenditure of Rs. 35 Lakhs. Order XX Rule 18 of CPC requires the court to specify the grounds for the decree. Significantly, Section 55(3) of the Copyright Act empowers the court to award damages. Given the Court’s own findings against the label, it omits reference to this Section and treats the conduct of the defendant as an unsuccessful claim, and orders each party to bear its own costs.
In copyright cases involving digital revenue, this appears to be a fundamental mismatch between legal doctrine to the nature of the injury. On YouTube, as the Court records as well, when a video is taken down, all accumulated views are erased. Viewership translates into watch time, which in turn leads to algorithmic placement, which in turn leads to reach and ad revenue. The Plaintiff alleges that she lost sponsorships, performance bookings, and brand deal predicted on demonstrated reach. These are ordinary commercial consequences when the brand visibility is the primary asset. The current law does not map clearly onto an injury that is structural and is designed for documentable and tangible loss.
What can Help?
Currently, under YouTube policy, a channel with three strikes within 90 days can be terminated within 7 days, even if the strikes are being contested, without any opportunity to respond before penalties are imposed. The ‘Part II’ of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, imposes due diligence obligations on intermediaries and do not require them to verify the subsistence of a copyright before acting on a complaint. A mandatory certification under the rules, imposing a civil liability, if any misrepresentation of copyright, can help, demonstrating that the takedown notice is made in good faith. This is borrowed from Section 512(f) of the US DMCA and EU Digital Services, as currently there is no recourse if a person’s content is wrongfully taken down for a misrepresented copyright claim.
Ambitiously, India needs a wrongful takedown liability provision in its Copyright Act, not in the platform’s terms of service, where it is inconsistently applied by the platforms. Section 60 of the Act requires the aggrieved to bring a declaratory suit, prove that the threat was groundless, and pursue litigation which could drag on for years. Following, Associated Broadcasting and Avaia Ventures, a Section for civil liability, specifically for damages caused due to misrepresented copyright claim can be included. Until such liability exists, the rational choice for a major players will continue to be strike first and litigate later.
Finally, the court must consider the economic infrastructure of the industry and award damages. Recognizing loss of opportunity as compensable harm and adapting probability assessments can help bridge this gap. Section 55(1) of the Act already empowers court to award damages. Courts should treat documented pre-takedown commercial momentum like sponsorship negotiations, booking confirmations, viewership as evidence for lost opportunity.
The doctrinal tools for this exist within Indian law. The Supreme Court in A.T. Brij Paul Singh v. State of Gujarat (1984) 4 SCC 59 held that a claimant need not prove actual losses where breach is established; anticipated profit margin suffices. Applying this framework by analogy to Section 55 of the Copyright Act, Anamika’s lost ad revenue and erased viewership should have been treated as a first-limb loss flowing directly from the wrongful takedown, requiring no more proof than the two million views and documented Rs. 35 lakh promotional expenditure already on record. Her lost sponsorships and performance bookings are a second-limb claim, more demanding evidentially, but not impossible, given that the commercial trajectory before the strike was documented. The Anamika Sood court was informed that the plaintiff had incurred promotional expenditure of Rs. 35 lakhs but chose not to engage with it. This omission is not on law, rather on interpretive will that the future courts should not repeat.
Conclusion
Anamika Sood won her case; she was declared the author of her work. Yet, the neat legal resolution sits uneasily with the factual matrix that led to the dispute. After half a decade of intense litigation, the court awarded the label that fought for an expired copyright, zero costs. Until the law addresses this elephant in the room, this move will embolden other labels to use strikes to pull creators into years of litigation battles by issuing false strikes and effectively avoiding any penalty.
