THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS & SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

OXFORD & ORS. Vs. RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICES & ANR

Case
Rameshwari Photocopy Service is a tiny shop, located on the campus of the Delhi
School of Economics. The photocopier used to provide photocopies of course packs, which are
limited excerpts(portions) from copyrighted books. These photocopied excerpts were compiled
together by the teaching staff of the University according to the syllabus and teaching plan.
In 2012, three academic publishers, Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge
University Press (CUP) and Taylor & Francis, sued the University of Delhi (DU) and
Rameshwari Photocopy Service for copyright infringement for photocopying parts of their
textbooks and distributing them in course packs – collections of assigned reading materials –
exclusively to students for a fee. The publishers sought a ban on all course packs issued by the
photocopy vendor in accordance to the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
Here the publishers made an argument that the creation of course packs and the
photocopying of academic material for the same amounted to an infringement of the copyrights
of the authors and publishers, whereas the defendants made a counter argument that the
reproduction of materials for educational purposes fell within the exceptions to copyright under
Section 52(1) (i) of the Copyright Act.

The Critical Issue

The nature of Section 52 of the Copyright Act is such that any act falling within
its scope will not constitute infringement. Section 52(1) allows for the reproduction of any work
i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction
ii) as part of the questions to be answered in an examination
iii) in answers to such questions in the examinations

The dilemma of the dispute was about whether course packs distributed by
Rameshwari Photocopy services fall within this exception. The petitioners tried their best to
provide a narrow reading of the section, claiming that the section allows the provision of
materials only in the course of a lecture and that too restricted to a classroom.

Judgement

Considering the plaintiff’s(publishers) argument if the distribution of course packs

amounted to infringement of copyrights then Delhi University required obtaining a license from
Reprographic Rights Organisation such as IRRO for preparing course packs. Such order was also
passed however in October 2012, the order was restrained.
This led to two different scenarios.
a) University of Delhi library issuing copies of the book to the public and giving
photocopies of the work.
b) Students issuing books from the University of Delhi Library and photocopying the
work.
The court interpreted the case in the following manner-
In the first scenario, if University of Delhi Library itself was issuing material and
providing photocopies of the books by respective publishers by labelling them as notes provided
by ‘Delhi University’, then it would definitely have been infringement of copyrights of the works.
In the second situation, if a student trying to get notes from certain books which are
available at the University of Delhi Library goes and gets photocopies of parts of certain books,
then it is considered as fair use, because here the library is only issuing the book it has purchased
and anyway the aim of purchase of books is that it should be used by its students.
In addition to this, the Court also noted that if a student took photographs of pages of
a textbook from the University of Delhi library on one’s cell phone and then proceeded to print
the same that would be protected under fair use as it is merely as advancement in technology of
copying by hand or photocopying.
The Court also took into consideration that the education in DU is heavily
subsidized, which enables students from low-income families to attend the university. Hence, the
access to education cannot be curtailed in such cases. Therefore in a major victory to access to
education, and breaking the stereotype of a common man’s idea about copyrights the Delhi High
Court ruled through a judgment, which recognized the actions of the defendant (Rameshwari
Photocopy Service) did not amount to infringement, that no trial was required and that suit was
dismissed.

Deciphering the court’s judgement

 Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw who was hearing the case concluded that, “Copyright is a
statutory right and not natural right and hence any right that is granted to owners is also
limited by exceptions carved out by law.”
 Court recognized that copyright is a statutory right, photocopying original literary work is
an exclusive right of the owner of the copyright and that the making of photocopies by
DU will be considered infringement.
 But the court also noted the difference between DU issuing photocopies and a photocopy
service in the premises of the DU campus issuing photocopies.
 In the court’s opinion, copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of
knowledge.
 In this case if the judgment was granted in favour of the publishers then many students
would not have had the access to the books and so it was indirectly limiting the spread f
knowledge.
 Hence the court decided to go in favour with the defendant.
 British Singer Ed Sheeran accused of copying another singer’s track

Case

British Singer Ed Sheeran was accused of copying “note-for-note” from a song called ‘Amazing’.
This song was sung by Matt Cradle, another English singer, who had recorded the track in 2009.
The song was written by Thomas Leonard and Martin Harrington.

Harrington, Leonard and their publishers Halo-Songs filed the lawsuit back in June 2016 alleging
that Sheeran’s “Photograph” was too similar to their 2009 track “Amazing”. The songwriters
claimed the chorus of Photograph and Amazing shared 39 identical notes and that the similarities
were “instantly recognisable to the ordinary observer”.

The plaintiff (Halo-Songs) said in their argument that in many instances the defendant has
precisely done note-for-note copying which makes up nearly one half of Photograph. Songwriters
Martin Harrington and Thomas Leonard alleged that the song was derivative of their work and
sought $20 million in damages.

Judgement

 Sheeran was specifically accused of, 'participating in a scheme aiding, inducing, and
contributing to copyright infringement in the U.S.
 The court noted that there were 39 notes in the chorus that share 'pitch, rhythmic duration,
and placement in the measure.'
 In addition the court also noted, a similarity of words, vocal style, vocal melody, melody,
and rhythm are clear indicators, among other things, that Photograph copies Amazing.'
 An undisclosed agreement was done between the parties in an order signed by Judge
James Selna at a California court.