What happens when copyright enforcement tools become instruments of commercial control? This question lies at the centre of Anamika Sood v. Google LLC & Saregama India Ltd. The Saket District Court recognised independent artist Anamika Sood as the owner of her song “Ferrareee” and rejected Saregama’s infringement claim.
The Court found that Saregama relied on a copyright that had already expired. While the judgment settled the ownership dispute, it did not address a larger concern. The case raises questions about the misuse of automated copyright strike systems against independent creators.
Court Ruling in Favour of Anamika Sood
On 18 April 2026, the Saket District Court ruled in favour of Anamika Sood after a five-year legal battle. The Court applied established copyright principles and rejected Saregama’s infringement allegations. It also awarded Sood ₹5 lakhs as nominal damages.
The judgment focused on originality, copyright duration, and the lay observer test. However, the Court did not examine whether the copyright strike itself amounted to bad-faith conduct.
Copyright Strike and Its Impact
Sood initially approached Saregama to discuss rights relating to her song. The negotiations failed. She later released “Ferrareee” on YouTube, where it gained nearly two million views and attracted sponsorships, distribution opportunities, and performance offers.
After the song became popular, Saregama issued a copyright strike. The company claimed that the song resembled “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Ka.” However, the copyright in that work had expired in 2017. The strike led to the removal of Sood’s song from YouTube.
When litigation began, Saregama withdrew the strike without contesting the claim. During cross-examination, its Vice President (Legal) admitted that the company had not produced documentary evidence supporting the alleged similarity.
Problems with Automated Copyright Systems
YouTube relies heavily on automated systems such as Content ID. Rights holders upload reference files, and the system automatically identifies potential matches. YouTube generally acts on these claims without independently verifying ownership.
This approach creates opportunities for misuse. Claims may remain active even after copyrights expire. As a result, creators often have no practical remedy except expensive and lengthy litigation.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted that Content ID continuously scans content and may flag material after later algorithmic updates. This makes accountability more difficult and increases the risk of wrongful takedowns.
Legal Gaps in India
Indian law offers limited protection against wrongful copyright strikes. Section 60 of the Copyright Act allows actions against groundless threats. However, it was not designed for modern digital takedown systems.
Courts have also taken different approaches in similar cases. In some situations, they have granted broad relief to rights holders. In others, they have acted to prevent misuse. Recent decisions suggest growing judicial awareness of platform-based enforcement systems, but no clear framework exists for imposing liability for wrongful claims.
Need for Reform
Other jurisdictions provide stronger safeguards. In the United States, Section 512(f) of the DMCA allows claims for damages when parties knowingly submit false takedown notices. The European Union’s Digital Services Act also requires transparency and penalises repeated misuse.
India lacks comparable protections. Regulators could introduce mandatory good-faith certifications and penalties for false claims. Lawmakers should also consider specific provisions addressing wrongful takedowns in the Copyright Act.
Conclusion
The Anamika Sood judgment confirms the rights of an independent creator. However, it also exposes weaknesses in India’s digital copyright framework. Wrongful takedowns can erase views, reduce visibility, and disrupt commercial opportunities. Without stronger safeguards, copyright enforcement tools may continue to serve as instruments of commercial control rather than genuine legal protection.
