- JUDGMENT SUMMARY: The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors.
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 9 December 2016
- BENCH: Pradeep Nandrajog, J. and Yogesh Khanna, J.
SUBJECT:
The DU Photocopy Case was a landmark case in India which involved essentially the interpretation of section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act).
FACTS:
In 2012, five publishers namely the Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), Cambridge University Press (India), Taylor & Francis Group (UK) and Taylor & Francis Books (India) filed a suit before the Delhi High Court praying for a permanent injunction against the Delhi University and Rameshwari Photocopy Services alleging infringement of their copyrights in their publications which were photocopied and distributed to students in coursepacks. The Delhi HC granted an ad-interim injunction. Subsequently, Society for the Promotion of Educational Access and Knowledge (SPEAK) and Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) were impleaded as defendants in the suit. In September 2016, the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court decided the case in favour of the defendants. Aggrieved by the order of Single Judge the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Division Bench.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act.
Section 52(1)(i) mentions the exception of copyright infringement where there is a reproduction of any literary, dramatic, musical or any artistic work by -
- By any teacher or student in the course of instruction,
- As part of the question to be answered in an examination
- In answers to such questions.
ISSUES:
The main issues in question before the court were:
Whether the right of reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction is absolute and not limited by the condition of it being fair use?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
Plaintiff's Contentions: It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant(1), Rameshwari Photocopy Services prepared the course packs based on the syllabus issued by the defendant(2), Delhi University. Also, the faculty of University were recommending and encouraging their students to buy these packs instead of the original books. The University was providing the defendant(1) with the plaintiffs’ books kept in their library. There was a profit motive behind the defendants photocopying and compiling the coursepacks. They further contended that Section 52(1)(i) only covered reproduction ‘in the course of instruction’ and not ‘in the course of preparation for instruction’ and therefore Section 52(1)(i) was not applicable since reproduction by the defendants, could not be classified as reproduction by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction. Also, reproduction in the manner carried out by the defendants if held falling within the ambit of Section 52(1)(i) would render Section 52(1)(h) redundant. According to the plaintiffs, reproduction by defendants fell within the scope of Section 52(1)(h) and would have to be restricted to two passages from works by the same author published by the same publisher during any period of five years as mentioned under the sub-Section.
Defendant's Contentions: It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the preparation of course packs by them amounts to fair use within the meaning of Sections 52(1)(a) and (h) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was further submitted that its activity did not affect the market for the plaintiffs' books since they were charging a nominal price for its services and the course packs consisted of only small portions from the said books. As per the defendants, the students could not afford to buy all the books, extracts of which were mentioned in the syllabus prepared by the University.
They contended Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 permits students and educational institutions to copy portions from any work for research and educational purpose and Rameshwari Photocopy Services has been licensed by the University to operate a photocopy shop within its premises to facilitate photocopying by students for educational and research purpose. Also, no restriction on the quantum of reproduction under Section 52(1)(i) has been provided under the Copyright Act, 1957 and therefore unlimited photocopying would be permitted. They argued that the term 'reproduction' used in Section 52(1)(i) was distinct from the term 'publication' used in Section 52(1)(h) and therefore, Section 52(1)(h) would not apply to the preparation of coursepacks to be used by students for an educational purpose.
Court's observations:
The division bench of the High Court observed that in the absence of does an express fair use limitation under Section 52(1)(i), only the general principle of fair use can be interpreted into it. It was noted that fairness of the use under Section 52(1)(i) is to be determined at the touchstone of the extent justified by the purpose of the use i.e. education and not by its quantitative or quantitative extent. In other words, the use of the copyrighted work would be fair use to the extent justified for the purpose of education. It also held that the fair dealing standard has been provided Section 52(1)(a) and thus cannot be imported into its other clauses including clause (i). The Court rejected the contention that four factors on which fair use is determined in other jurisdiction would guide fair use of copyrighted material during the course of instruction.
Thus, the Division Bench’s judgment held that to determine whether the use of a copyrighted work is permitted under Section 52(1)(i), it is only to be seen whether the work used was necessary for achieving the purpose of educational instruction, irrespective of the quantum of the work which is used.
The court rejected the argument of the publishers that unauthorized making and distribution of course packs has harmed or is likely to harm the market of their books. It observed that a student is not a prospective customer of the multiple books used in the course packs and in the absence of course packs he/she would have referred to these books in the library.
The court relying upon Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, held that the word ‘reproduction’, defined as ‘making a copy of’, includes its plural as well i.e. making more than one copy of the original work or photocopying. Similarly, it observed that the words ‘teacher’ and ‘student’ also include ‘teachers’ and ‘students’ and thus concluded that making of several copies of a work by teachers or students is covered under Section 52(1)(i) of the Act.
The Court refused to grant an interim injunction to the plaintiff-publishers and ruled that making and distribution of course packs to students by the defendants do not amount to copyright infringement as long as the inclusion of the works photocopied regardless of the quantity was justified by the purpose of educational instruction. Accordingly, the suit was remanded to the single bench for a fact-specific determination on whether the copyrighted materials included in the course packs, in this case, were necessary for the purpose of instructional use by the teacher to the students. Until then, the defendants could continue to make and supply the coursepacks to the students.
However, on March 9, 2017, it was reported that the three plaintiff-publishers announced to withdraw the suit against the defendants and not to continue the Rameshwari photocopy shop case further in the courts.
Conclusion:
Section 52(1)(i) is the educational exception in the Copyright Act which permits reproduction of copyrighted works in the course of instruction. In the present case, the court held that photocopying qualifies as the reproduction of the work by a teacher in the course of instruction under Section 52(1)(i) of the Act and does not amount to copyright infringement. It can be concluded that the educational institutions do not require the consent of the publishers for making and distributing coursepacks to students if the copyrighted materials included in them are necessary for the instructional purposes by the teacher to the students.
