Case Study: The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr.

By Harish Khan 15 Minutes Read

“Under Section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the fair use of copyrighted material for educational purposes, including the creation of course packs by educational institutions, does not constitute copyright infringement.”

Citation: CS(OS) No. 2349/2012

Date of Judgment: 16^th September, 2016

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Rajiv Sahai (J)

Facts

• In August 2012, three publishing houses—Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor & Francis—initiated a lawsuit against Rameshwari Photocopy Services, a photocopy shop, and Delhi University (DU).
• The publishers alleged that the shop’s practice of photocopying textbooks to create course packs for DU students constituted copyright infringement. These course packs contained excerpts from various textbooks, which the publishers claimed infringed their copyright.
• In response to the lawsuit, the Delhi High Court issued a temporary injunction in October 2012, restraining the photocopy shop from selling the course packs until the case was resolved. This led to a cessation of such services by other photocopy shops in the area, causing significant disruption to the students who relied on these materials.
• The case attracted widespread attention and sparked a debate on the accessibility of educational resources, with several academics and students rallying against the publishers’ actions.
• The plaintiffs, comprising the three publishing houses, argued that the reproduction of copyrighted material by the defendants, specifically the creation and distribution of course packs, infringed their exclusive rights under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. They contended that the act of photocopying substantial portions of their textbooks, even for educational purposes, violated their copyright and amounted to textbook piracy.
• The plaintiffs also argued that the term “course of instruction” should be narrowly interpreted to include only direct interactions between teachers and students, such as lectures and tutorials, thereby excluding the reproduction of materials for course packs.
• The defendants, Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Delhi University, argued that their actions fell within the scope of fair dealing under Section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act, which permits the reproduction of works by teachers or pupils in the course of instruction. They contended that the provision should be interpreted broadly to reflect the realities of modern education in India, where instruction is not limited to direct classroom interactions but includes a variety of educational activities.
• The defendants further argued that the creation of course packs was essential for making education accessible to all students, especially those from low-income families, and that it did not infringe on the copyright holders’ rights since the purpose was purely educational.

Decision of the Delhi High Court

• The Court held that reproducing books and distributing copies thereof for educational purposes is not copyright infringement. It emphasized the delicate balance between the interests of copyright owners and users, underscoring that the law is designed to encourage the creation of works while also permitting users to enjoy these works, thereby promoting arts and knowledge.
• The Court recognized that copyright is a statutory right under the Copyright Act. According to this Act, photocopying original literary works is an exclusive right of the copyright owner, and such acts would generally constitute infringement under Section 51 unless they fall within the exceptions listed in Section 52. Section 52 includes scenarios that do not constitute infringement, such as fair dealing for research, educational institutions, libraries, review, reportage, and criticism.
• The Court ruled that photocopying, preparing course packs, and distributing them falls within the scope of Section 52(1)(i), which states that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction does not constitute infringement. The Court interpreted “course of instruction” broadly, stating that it includes the entire process of imparting and receiving instruction throughout the academic session, not just direct classroom interaction.
• The Court dismissed the argument that the protection under Section 52(1)(i) should be limited to individual teachers and pupils, recognizing that education in India is largely institutionalized. It also rejected the contention that “course of instruction” should be restricted to lectures and tutorials. Relying on Longman Group Ltd. v. Carrington Technical Institute Board of Governors[1] the court held that “course of instruction” encompasses all activities related to instruction, including syllabus preparation and examinations.\
• The Court also considered the absurdity of treating the same act of photocopying differently based on who performed it. It noted that if a student photocopies a book for personal use, it is protected under fair dealing; therefore, the same act by Delhi University should also be protected. The Court stated in Para 76 that “…when the effect of the action is the same, differences in the mode of action should not affect whether an act constitutes infringement.”
• Furthermore, the Court held that it was irrelevant whether the university itself or a licensed contractor made the course packs. As long as the act was protected under Section 52, it did not matter who performed the photocopying.
• The Court clarified that Rameshwari, the contractor making course packs, was not a competitor of the plaintiffs, as it only compiled small portions of prescribed textbooks. It noted that prohibiting such compilations would not lead students to buy the textbooks but rather force them to resort to copying the text by hand, which is impractical for many students, particularly those from low-income families.
• The Court in para 87 also made a broader statement on the evolution of human practices, emphasizing that “… no law should be interpreted to result in regression.”
• The Court further distinguished between issuing copies of books from a library, which is permissible, and making copies of the books for distribution, which would constitute infringement.
• The Court in para 37 stated that “The defendant thus, though entitled to issue the books, published by the plaintiffs and purchased by it and kept by the defendant in its library, to whosoever is entitled to issuance of the said books from the library, per Section 14(a)(i) and Section 51(a)(i) would not be entitled to make photocopies of substantial part of the said book for distribution to the students and if does the same, would be committing infringement of the copyright therein.”
• In summary, the Court concluded that the following acts do not amount to copyright infringement:

1. Photocopying portions of books by teachers, students, or educational institutions.
2. Making course packs from such photocopied portions.
3. Selling these course packs at a reasonable price.
4. Permitting photocopying within educational institutions.

• The Court upheld that copyright is a statutory right, not an absolute natural right, and is subject to limitations and exceptions under the law. The ruling reaffirms the purpose of copyright law to stimulate intellectual activity and benefit the public, especially in the context of education. The judgment represents a significant victory for access to education in India and is likely to have far-reaching implications in academic circles and the copyright industry.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Does the reproduction of copyrighted work for educational purposes constitute copyright infringement?

No

The court held that reproduction of copyrighted work for educational purposes falls within the exceptions provided under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act. This section allows for the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction, making such acts exempt from being considered copyright infringement.

This reasoning of the Court can be found in Para 72 where it held that “the words ―in the course of instruction within the meaning of Section 52(1)(i) supra would include reproduction of any work while the process of imparting instruction by the teacher and receiving instruction by the pupil continues… Similarly the words ―in the course of instruction‖, even if the word ―instruction have to be given the same meaning as lecture’, have to include within their ambit the prescription of syllabus the preparation of which both the teacher and the pupil are required to do before the lecture and the studies which the pupils are to do post lecture and so that the teachers can reproduce the work as part of the question and the pupils can answer the questions by reproducing the work, in an examination. Resultantly, reproduction of any copyrighted work by the teacher for the purpose of imparting instruction to the pupil as prescribed in the syllabus during the academic year would be within the meaning of Section 52 (1)(i) of the Act.”

2. Does “fair dealing” under Section 52 of the Copyright Act apply to the reproduction of copyrighted materials for creating course packs?

Yes

The court determined that the creation of course packs by reproducing portions of copyrighted materials qualifies as “fair dealing” under Section 52(1)(i). The court reasoned that this practice is part of the educational process, which is protected under the fair dealing provisions of the Act.

3. Is the “course of instruction” limited to individual teacher-student interactions?

No

The court clarified that “course of instruction” should be interpreted broadly to include the entire academic process, such as syllabus preparation, classroom teaching, and the distribution of educational materials. This broader interpretation supports the inclusion of activities like the preparation of course packs within the scope of permissible activities under the Copyright Act.

4. Does the involvement of a third-party contractor (e.g., Rameshwari Photocopy Services) in the reproduction and distribution of course packs impact the legality of the action under copyright law?

No

The court ruled that it is irrelevant whether the university itself or a third-party contractor produces the course packs, as long as the purpose is educational and falls within the scope of Section 52(1)(i). The court emphasized that the protection under this section extends to acts carried out on behalf of the university for educational purposes.

5. Can students individually photocopy portions of copyrighted books for private use without infringing on copyright law?

Yes

The court noted that when students photocopy portions of copyrighted books for private use, it is protected under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. The court extended this reasoning to the university’s actions, stating that if individual students are allowed to photocopy materials for their own use, the university should also be allowed to do so for educational purposes.

6. Does copyright law grant absolute ownership of works to authors, preventing any form of reproduction by educational institutions?

No

The court emphasized that copyright law is designed to balance the rights of copyright holders with the public’s access to knowledge and education. While authors have significant rights, these are not absolute, and the law provides specific exceptions, particularly in the context of education, to ensure that knowledge dissemination is not unduly restricted.

[1] (1991) 2 NZLR 574.

Harish Khan

This is Harish Khan, Enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. Currently, working as Legal Manager at Blackbull Law House. Pursued B.B.A. LL.B (Hons) Specialised in Business Laws from Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla [H.P]. completed LL.M Specialised in Business Laws from Amity University, Lucknow [U.P].