Delhi High Court Seeks Clarity on Meta’s Copyright Protection Tool
The Delhi High Court has raised concerns over Meta’s distribution of its rights manager tool, questioning why legitimate content creators lack access, while scammers seem to exploit it for issuing false copyright claims. This inquiry arose during the case Mohit Kumar v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar and Others.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani asked Meta to clarify its policy and criteria for granting access to the rights manager, a tool designed to protect content on Facebook and Instagram. The court is particularly interested in understanding the grounds on which access requests are denied.
Case Background
The lawsuit was initiated by Mohit Kumar, a social media content creator known for his educational videos under the brand “Rise With Mohit.” Kumar alleges that fraudsters downloaded his original content and registered it with Meta’s rights manager as their own. These individuals then issued copyright strikes against Kumar’s profiles, leveraging the tool’s capacity to identify and manage matching content on Meta platforms.
Kumar’s legal representatives argued that despite repeated applications, he was denied access to the tool without justification. Meanwhile, accounts with minimal following appeared to have been granted access, which the court likened to entrusting a key to a thief rather than the rightful owner.
Meta’s Response and Court’s Directives
Meta assured the court that the erroneous copyright strikes against Kumar have been nullified and his content reinstated. The company confirmed that Kumar’s accounts remain active and will not be suspended based on the disputed claims. Additionally, Meta committed to reassessing Kumar’s application for the rights manager tool, pending verification of his content ownership.
More Read
The Court instructed that any content removed due to fraudulent strikes should be restored if Kumar provides proof of rightful ownership. Justice Bhambhani noted the widespread nature of such issues among content creators, suggesting a need for comprehensive policy review.
Legal Proceedings and Future Hearings
Recognizing potential policy gaps, Justice Bhambhani emphasized the necessity for Meta to address these vulnerabilities to prevent further litigations. The Court has ordered Meta to present its policy details and eligibility criteria at the next hearing, scheduled for September 24, which will also address a related case.
Kumar is represented by advocates Himanshu Goyal and Muskaan Garg, while Meta’s legal interests are being managed by advocate Amee Rana.
