After Raghav Chadha raised copyright in parliament, creators explained the cost of inaction

New Delhi: India’s creator economy is no longer a fringe phenomenon driven by viral entertainment. It is now a serious economic, educational, and cultural force, shaping how citizens consume news, understand policy, learn financial literacy, and even make purchasing decisions. Yet, the legal framework governing this fast-growing ecosystem remains anchored in a pre-digital past.

That disconnect came sharply into focus last week when Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha raised concerns during Zero Hour, calling for urgent amendments to the Copyright Act of 1957. His intervention did more than flag a legislative gap; it triggered a wider conversation across India’s creator community, many of whom say the law no longer reflects how content is created, shared, or monetised today.

Chadha’s central warning was blunt: content creators’ livelihoods should be determined by law and not by "arbitrary algorithms". In a country where millions now earn through YouTube channels, Instagram pages, and short-form video platforms, copyright enforcement has real-world consequences: lost income, vanished audiences, and years of work erased overnight.

“This is not entertainment. This is livelihood.”

In Parliament, Chadha underscored a fundamental shift in how content functions in modern India. Social media channels, he argued, are no longer hobbies or side projects; they are assets.

"Whether it is their YouTube channel or Instagram page, it is not a source of entertainment for them. In fact, it is their source of income, their asset. It is the fruit of their hard work," Chadha said.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Raghav Chadha (@raghavchadha88)

That framing resonates strongly with creators themselves. For CA Sakchi Jain, a Chartered Accountant and digital content creator, copyright compliance is not a casual or careless matter. “I’m very conscious of why I’m using the content in the first place. If it’s not adding context, critique, or education, I don’t use it,” she explained.

CA Isha Jaiswal, another finance creator, echoes that discipline. “I follow three simple rules: First, I always add my own explanation or opinion; I don’t just repost someone else’s content. Second, I keep clips very short, only using what’s needed to make my point.”

Their statements directly reinforce Chadha’s argument: creators are not seeking shortcuts. They are already practising restraint, transformation, and attribution, often without legal clarity or protection.

Fair use vs piracy: The line creators walk every day

One of Chadha’s strongest interventions was his insistence that fair use must not be equated with piracy. Using copyrighted material for a few seconds, for commentary, satire, parody, education, or news reporting, should not invite the same punishment as wholesale infringement.

That distinction is precisely where creators say the law fails them.

Jain explained, “I keep clips short, use only what’s necessary, and make sure my voice and explanation clearly lead the content. I’m careful that my video cannot replace the original work and only helps people understand it better.”

Jaiswal added another layer of diligence: “I always mention where the content came from. For financial topics, I also check facts myself so my content has real value beyond just showing someone else’s work.”

Despite this, creators operate in a legal grey zone because the Copyright Act, drafted in 1957, never anticipated reels, shorts, reaction videos, or algorithm-driven platforms.

As Chadha pointed out in Parliament, the law speaks of “fair dealing” in the context of books, journals, and magazines, not Instagram stories or YouTube explainers.

How digital communication actually works

One of Chadha’s key demands was to formally define digital fair use, including transformative, incidental, proportionate, educational, and public-interest use. That demand closely mirrors what creators say they need protection for.

“Reaction and commentary formats need to be protected, along with short news clips used for explanation and educational breakdowns,” Jain argued. She also highlighted a reality lawmakers often overlook: “Incidental use, like something playing in the background, should also be covered. This is how creators genuinely communicate today.”

Jaiswal is equally specific. “Short clips for education (under 30 seconds) should be allowed, especially when explaining news or policies. Reporting facts and analysing news should be clearly protected; creators shouldn’t be punished for discussing important topics.”

In real-world videos, content is rarely sterile or controlled. Public spaces include music, screens, logos, and ambient media. “Also, background content like music playing in public or logos visible in real videos,” Jaiswal noted.

Her summary captured the core principle at stake: “Basically, if a creator is adding their own value and not just copying, they should be protected.”

Algorithms as judge, jury, and executioner

Chadha’s sharpest warning in Parliament was about arbitrary copyright strikes, often triggered automatically, enforced instantly, and explained poorly, if at all. Creators say this is not a theoretical risk. It is a lived experience.

“Transparency is still quite poor. Most creators receive basic notices with no clear explanation of what actually triggered the claim,” Jain said. “Then you’re left guessing, appealing, and waiting, while the content is already taken down or demonetised,” she added.

Jaiswal described the same imbalance. “It’s very unclear. We get automated messages that don’t explain what exactly went wrong or why. There’s not enough information to defend ourselves—just vague statements about ‘copyright claim.’”

The appeals process, she added, often feels futile. “Appealing feels useless. Platforms care more about speed than fairness.”

For creators whose income depends on consistency, reach, and audience trust, the cost is enormous. Jain summed it up simply: “That uncertainty is stressful, especially when the use is genuine.”

A law frozen in 1957

Both creators agree with Chadha’s diagnosis: the problem is structural.

“The biggest gap is that the law does not reflect how content is created today, especially short-form and social media content,” Jain explained. “There is no clear guidance on fair use for digital platforms, which makes enforcement unpredictable,” she added.

“The biggest problem is no clear rules for digital content, what’s okay for reels, shorts, or reaction videos,” Jaiswal said.  She also pointed to unchecked automation: “Second, there’s nothing about how automated copyright systems should work.”

Perhaps most troubling, she said, is the absence of accountability. “Third, platforms face no consequences when fake claims are filed against creators.”

Educational and news-related content, both agree, is particularly exposed. “We urgently need clear rules for educational and news content on digital platforms,” Jaiswal stressed.

The reform that matters most

In Parliament, Chadha made three core demands: defining digital fair use, introducing proportionality in enforcement, and mandating due process before takedowns.

Creators overwhelmingly support that final point.

“I think the most effective fix would be a simple and fast dispute resolution process that actually works for creators,” Jain said. “Most creators do not have the time, money, or legal support to fight long cases.”

Jaiswal challenged the current power structure directly. “Right now, platforms make all decisions with no oversight.” Her solution is not cosmetic but institutional: “We creators need a fast system with real people who understand digital content, not just lawyers.”

An independent dispute mechanism, she believes, would create long-term clarity. “An independent body would make things fair and create clear examples for future cases.”

Her conclusion is uncompromising, and perhaps the strongest endorsement of Chadha’s intervention: “Without this, nothing else matters.”

A moment Parliament cannot ignore

What makes this moment significant is not just one MP’s speech, but the chorus of lived experience that followed it. Chadha raised the issue in Parliament; creators across sectors, finance, education, and commentary have now filled in the human cost.

They are asking for clarity, proportionality, and fairness, for a law that understands how modern communication works, and for systems that do not punish transformation as theft. If India wants its creator economy to remain innovative, credible, and globally competitive, copyright law must stop treating digital creators as exceptions. After Parliament spoke, the creators answered. The question now is whether the law will listen.