‘Copyright strikes used to extort creators’: Delhi HC asks Meta, Centre to respond

The following day, his video was blocked worldwide by Meta Platforms after a complaint filed by a person identifying themself as “Nayon Mia”. Joshi subsequently approached the Delhi HC through a PIL, citing instances of nearly 40 creators who he claimed had faced similar situations.

Through his lawyer Tejbir Singh, Joshi has alleged that scammers exploit a vulnerability in Facebook’s desktop version to manipulate timestamps. According to his petition, bad-faith actors upload unrelated or arbitrary material on Facebook pages with little to no engagement or followers.

When a legitimate creator uploads a new, original reel on Instagram, the scammers allegedly download it and use the “Edit Post” functionality on their older Facebook posts to replace the original media with the creator’s video.

Mahak Kapoor, a content creator in the automobile space, has seven of her reels facing copyright strikes. (Photo: Mahak Kapoor)

The altered post continues to display the earlier publication date, creating the appearance that the scammers had published the content first and owned the copyright.

Using these backdated posts, the scammers allegedly invoke Meta’s “Rights Manager”, a copyright enforcement tool designed to protect intellectual property. The automated system, relying on the older timestamp, assumes that the scammer is the original creator and accepts the copyright complaint, the petition explains.

The PIL seeks formation of a special investigation team to probe what he describes as an “organised cyber extortion racket” and directions to Meta Platforms to establish a grievance mechanism involving human review instead of only automated review.

During Tuesday’s hearing, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Meta, questioned the maintainability of the PIL. “In any mechanism, there will be rogue players, that can’t be helped….None of the 40 (exemplified in Joshi’s PIL) have come to court…We want to take proactive steps to curb the rogue actors,” he argued.

The bench, however, issued notice to Meta Platforms and the Centre, while orally observing, “Nothing will preclude you to address the grievance” of Joshi. The court noted that “there is a larger issue of digital extortion” involved in the matter.

The Centre’s counsel, advocate Ishkaran Bhandari, who is himself a content creator, acknowledged Joshi’s concern as a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed during the course of the hearing.

Significantly, Delhi HC on Monday disposed of two petitions – one filed by the Jat Association and another by creator Riddhima Sharma – making similar allegations of extortion through copyright strikes allegedly initiated by rogue actors. The court permitted the petitioners to approach Meta Platforms’ grievance officer, under which Instagram operates, and directed Meta Platforms to decide their grievances expeditiously.

A content creator’s ordeal

Mahak Kapoor, a 26-year old Delhi-based content creator in the automobile space, has been at the receiving end of extortion threats after being held ransom through copyright strikes on seven reels on Instagram posted earlier this month. The reels are no longer available on her feed, blocked by Meta.

With a following of over a million, the commerce graduate has been creating content since July 2020, starting off with YouTube, and then expanding to Instagram and Facebook.

Speaking to The Indian Express, she said: “On July 3, I received the first copyright strike and it left me puzzled because all my content is completely original. I raised a grievance with Meta, and then an appeal, but both were rejected. The next day, I received more copyright strikes. I also got emails from suspicious email IDs demanding that money be transferred to them and, in turn, they will remove the copyright strike.”

“Extortion is a never-ending cycle, if I give in once, it will continue forever. I could not sleep for two days. What do I do, should I simply hand over my six years of work to a stranger?” she asked. She said she complained on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and also approached the police station but there’s been no action so far.

Kapoor also considered approaching the court but the cost of litigation has deterred her. “Court fees would be somewhere around Rs 2 lakh and the lawyer would charge around Rs 2.5 lakh. It does not feel right that I spend around Rs 4-5 lakh to establish ownership over what is rightfully mine.”