Delhi HC questions Meta over access to Rights Manager tool

MUMBAI: When the copyright guard becomes the gatekeeper, creators may have a problem. The Delhi High Court has questioned Meta over the criteria it uses to give creators access to its Rights Manager tool after an AI, business and e-commerce coach alleged that scammers misused the system to file copyright strikes against his original social media content.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani asked Meta to submit its policy governing access to Rights Manager, including the eligibility requirements and reasons applications for the tool are rejected. “Why doesn’t everybody have access to it then?” the court asked during the hearing.

The proceedings stem from a suit filed by Mohit Kumar, who publishes educational content under the social media handle “Rise With Mohit”. Kumar alleged that unknown persons downloaded his original videos, registered them through Meta’s Rights Manager as their own content and subsequently used the system to issue copyright strikes against his accounts.

Rights Manager is Meta’s content protection tool for Facebook and Instagram. It allows approved rights holders to identify content matching material they claim ownership of and take action, including blocking content or pursuing copyright claims.

Kumar told the court that he had applied for access to Rights Manager three times but was rejected without a clear explanation. His counsel also argued that some accounts with relatively few followers had access to the tool, while established creators with substantial engagement and commercial collaborations had been denied.

The court likened the alleged imbalance to “giving the key to the robber and not to the owner of the house”.

The stakes for creators can extend well beyond a single removed post. Kumar’s counsel argued that fraudulent copyright complaints can lead to repeated strikes and potentially the loss of an account, along with years of content, monetisation, brand partnerships and business opportunities.

Meta, however, told the court that the disputed copyright strikes against Kumar had been reversed and that content removed as a result had been restored. The company also said his accounts had never been suspended and remained accessible.

The court directed that any content removed following fraudulent copyright strikes should be restored if Kumar provides Meta with adequate material establishing that he is the legitimate owner of the content and that the copyright complaints were false.

Justice Bhambhani observed that similar concerns had surfaced in multiple matters involving content creators, suggesting that shortcomings in the system appeared to be contributing to further litigation. The observation puts Meta’s creator-facing copyright mechanisms under closer judicial scrutiny as more businesses and individuals depend on social platforms to publish and monetise original work.

The court subsequently issued summons in the suit and notice on Kumar’s application seeking interim relief. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on 24 September, alongside another case raising similar concerns.

For now, the court’s focus is on a simple but consequential question: who gets the key to Meta’s copyright protection system, and on what terms?