Delhi Court Awards ₹5 Lakh To Karl Rock In YouTube Copyright Infringement Case

District Judge Vinod Yadav of Rohini Court passed the judgment on May 13, 2026, in a summary suit filed by Karl Edward Rice, who runs the widely followed YouTube channel “Karl Rock.” The suit was filed against UK-based content creator Adam El-Megrisi, operator of the YouTube channel “VidBrew,” along with Google LLC, its India liaison office, and other unidentified defendants.

The dispute centered around allegations that El-Megrisi systematically copied portions of Karl Rock’s original travel and investigative videos and reposted them as YouTube Shorts without permission. According to the plaintiff, the clips were reproduced almost identically, without any transformation, commentary, criticism, parody, or fair use protection.

The court noted that Karl Rock had produced detailed frame-by-frame comparisons demonstrating direct copying of footage and audio from his videos. The allegedly infringing Shorts had collectively garnered more than 26 lakh views.

Observing that the defendant’s conduct reflected a “pattern of repeated infringement,” the court referred to material showing that El-Megrisi openly promoted a business model based on “content curation” of third-party videos. The court also took note of his commercial course allegedly teaching subscribers how to generate revenue by “repurposing” existing online content.

Holding this conduct to be unlawful, the court said it amounted to wilful inducement of copyright infringement under Section 51(a)(ii) read with Section 114 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The judgment further recorded that despite takedown notices issued in May 2025 and interim injunctions passed by the court, the defendant continued uploading similar content through fresh channels. One such channel, allegedly linked to the original “VidBrew” account through a common email address, had amassed nearly one crore views and over 43,000 subscribers.

Referring to its earlier interim order, the court remarked that the defendant’s actions appeared to be “a calculated and malafide attempt to evade the due process of law.”

The court also examined the role of Google and YouTube in the dispute. It found merit in Karl Rock’s grievance that the platforms failed to adequately implement their own policies concerning repeat infringers, reused content, and account termination.

Although the court had extended its injunction internationally in February 2026, it observed that YouTube’s subsequent compliance appeared limited to India alone. This, according to the court, enabled continued circulation of infringing content.

The court recognised Karl Rock as the sole and first owner of copyright in his videos under the Copyright Act. It observed that his YouTube content, which includes travel documentaries, scam awareness videos, and cultural commentary, constitutes his primary professional and commercial work.

Since the defendants failed to effectively contest the proceedings or present any substantive defence, the court invoked the summary judgment mechanism under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. “No useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to meander mindlessly in Court and to clog the justice delivery system,” the court observed while decreeing the suit.

The court ultimately passed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from hosting, reproducing, distributing, uploading, sharing, or monetising unauthorised copies or substantial portions of Karl Rock’s copyrighted works. It also directed removal of infringing content, deactivation of connected AdSense accounts, and prevention of future uploads through linked accounts.