New Delhi: Following claims that the platform's copyright-protection system was being abused to target legitimate content creators, the Delhi High Court questioned Meta about how its Rights Manager tool is made available to users. The Court intervened during the hearing of a copyright dispute brought by content creator Mohit Kumar, who claimed that his original movies had been duplicated, registered through Meta's copyright-management system, and then his social media accounts had been subject to copyright strikes. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani asked Meta to explain who qualifies for access to the Meta Rights Manager tool and why applications from some creators are rejected. The Court also sought details of Meta's policy governing access to the system and the reasons for rejecting applications.
Court Questions Access to Meta's Copyright Tool
During the hearing, the Court raised a fundamental question: if Rights Manager is designed to protect original creators, why do many genuine creators struggle to obtain access to it? The judge asked Meta to place its eligibility requirements and access policy on record. Because Rights Manager is intended to assist copyright owners in finding similar content that appears across Meta's platforms, the question assumes importance. Depending on the rights holder's settings, matching material can potentially be monitored, blocked, or subjected to other enforcement measures. However, the Court's case raises questions regarding what happens when the system is purportedly used by someone who does not genuinely own the content.
Creator Says His Own Videos Were Targeted
Mohit Kumar, a business, e-commerce, and artificial intelligence coach who produces instructional content online under the moniker "Rise With Mohit," has filed the lawsuit. According to Kumar, people downloaded his original videos and then used Meta's copyright management system to claim them as their own. According to his lawyers, the alleged misuse then resulted in copyright strikes being issued against Kumar's social media accounts. The creator also told the Court that he had attempted to obtain access to Rights Manager on three separate occasions, but his applications were rejected without, according to his counsel, a satisfactory explanation. His legal team argued that the situation creates an unusual imbalance: genuine creators can spend years building audiences and producing original work, yet may not have access to the same automated protection mechanisms allegedly available to others.
Why Fake Copyright Strikes Can Be Serious
Copyright complaints can have significant consequences for online creators. A social media account can represent years of videos, followers, advertising relationships, monetisation revenue and business opportunities. Repeated copyright complaints can therefore create substantial disruption even before a dispute over ownership is finally resolved. For creators who depend on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram for their livelihood, losing access to content or facing repeated enforcement actions can potentially affect both their audience and income. The case has consequently attracted attention beyond the individual dispute because it raises questions about whether automated copyright-protection systems contain adequate safeguards against misuse.
Meta Says Kumar's Content Has Been Restored
Meta's lawyers told the Court that the copyright strikes complained of by Kumar had already been reversed. The company also stated that content removed following those disputed strikes had been restored. Meta further informed the Court that Kumar's accounts had not been suspended and remained accessible. The company said that, subject to technical verification, the accounts would not be removed on the basis of the disputed copyright claims. Meta's counsel also indicated that the company would reconsider Kumar's request for access to Rights Manager after verifying the information submitted by him. The company agreed to provide the relevant eligibility policy and criteria to the Court.
Delhi High Court Wants Greater Transparency
The Court's questions appear to focus on transparency in the operation of Meta's copyright-protection mechanism. If access to Rights Manager is restricted, creators need to understand what standards they must meet. At the same time, if users can obtain powerful copyright-enforcement capabilities, platforms need safeguards to prevent those tools from being used to make false claims. The Court directed that content removed because of allegedly fraudulent copyright strikes should be restored where Kumar provides adequate material demonstrating that the content belongs to him and that the disputed claims are false. The judge also observed that similar problems have surfaced in other cases involving digital creators. This suggests that the Court may be examining the issue as more than an isolated dispute between one creator and Meta.
A Larger Challenge for Social Media Platforms
The case highlights a growing challenge for technology companies. Platforms need effective copyright systems because original creators and copyright owners require protection against unauthorised copying. At the same time, automated enforcement can become problematic if false claims are accepted too easily or if legitimate creators struggle to challenge them. The controversy surrounding Meta Rights Manager therefore raises an important question about the balance between automated copyright enforcement and human verification. For creators, the central concern is simple: a system intended to protect intellectual property should not become a mechanism through which legitimate owners are forced to defend their own work. For platforms, the challenge is equally significant. They must protect copyrighted material while ensuring that enforcement tools cannot easily be manipulated.
Court Issues Summons, Next Hearing in September
The Delhi High Court has issued summons in the suit and notice on Kumar's application seeking interim relief. The matter is scheduled to come up again on September 24, along with a connected case involving similar concerns. The next hearing could provide greater clarity on Meta's eligibility requirements for Rights Manager and how the company handles allegations of fraudulent copyright claims. The proceedings may also become relevant for thousands of Indian creators who rely on Facebook and Instagram to distribute educational, entertainment, business, and informational content. For now, the Delhi High Court's scrutiny puts the spotlight firmly on Meta Rights Manager and the safeguards surrounding one of the platform's key copyright-protection mechanisms. The case could ultimately influence how social media platforms balance creator protection, copyright enforcement and safeguards against fraudulent claims.
