The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought details from technology company Meta on its criterion for granting creators access to the Rights Manager tool, after allegations that fraudsters were misusing the platform to lodge bogus copyright claims against original content.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to place on record its policy governing access to Rights Manager, including the eligibility requirements and reasons why applications may be rejected.
The court was hearing a suit filed by Mohit Kumar, an artificial intelligence (AI), business and ecommerce coach who publishes educational content on social media under the name ‘Rise With Mohit’. Kumar alleged that unknown persons had downloaded his videos, falsely claimed ownership of them through the Meta Rights Manager and subsequently used it to trigger copyright strikes against his accounts.
Meta Rights Manager is a digital copyright and content protection tool on Facebook and Instagram. It automatically scans platforms to find copies of an original videos, audio, or images. One can use it to block, track, or monetise stolen or unauthorised uploads of one’s original work.
Kumar’s counsel submitted that he had applied for access to the tool on three occasions but his application was rejected without being given a specific reason. The counsel also claimed that some creators with a relatively small following had obtained access, while established creators with substantial engagement and commercial collaborations could not.
The court questioned the rationale behind restricting access to the tool. “Why doesn’t everybody have access to it then?” Justice Bhambhani asked.
The counsel argued that fraudulent copyright claims could have serious consequences for creators, including loss of accounts, monetisation, brand partnerships and years of accumulated content.
Meta told the court that the disputed copyright strikes against Kumar had been reversed and that content removed pursuant to those claims had been restored. It said his accounts had never been suspended and remained accessible.
The company further stated that, subject to technical verification, Kumar’s accounts would not be removed on the basis of the disputed claims. Meta also agreed to reconsider his application for access to Rights Manager. It had agreed to place the relevant policy and eligibility criteria before the court.
The court directed Meta to restore any content deleted pursuant to fraudulent copyright strikes if Kumar provides material establishing his ownership and demonstrating that the claims were bogus.
Justice Bhambhani observed that similar concerns had surfaced in other cases involving digital content creators, warranting closer examination of Meta’s system.
“There are some chinks in the armour, some loopholes that have been noticed. We better sort it out,” the judge said, noting that deficiencies in the system were contributing to increased litigation.
The matter will next be heard on September 24 along with a connected case.
