Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of Oxford & Ors v.

Rameshwari Photocopy
Services & Ors. (popularly known as the Delhi University Photocopy Case in India) 
Copyrighted materials are subject to intellectual property. Copyright is a legal right that grants
the creator of any work exclusive right (subject to certain limitation and exception to copyright
law) to use, distribute, reproduce, to have control over derivatives works and public performance
etc. Every country has different copyright law but many aspects of national copyright law have
been standardized through international copyright agreement. The Indian Courts has always been
vigilant against infringement of Copyright of foreign authors/owners, including software, motion
pictures, the screenplay of motion pictures and database. But such protection from infringement
does not available where there has been a use of any copyrighted material through the fair use
and dealing. The Copyright Act prohibits photocopying unless the copying falls within the ambit
of fair use doctrine exception. Under fair use doctrine, one can photocopy copyrighted stuff even
without owner’s permission.

Background of the Case

In the present case, a complaint had been filed against a photocopy shop and Delhi
University by Big publishing houses. The defendants (i.e. Rameshwari photocopy shop and
Delhi University) were accused by the plaintiffs that they regularly compile up the data from
copyrighted books published under their publication and provide it to the students in Delhi
University. In 2012, publishers like Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press United
Kingdom, Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd., Taylor & Francis Group, United
Kingdom and Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd. accused the above mentioned defendants
for “infringing the copyrights of their publications materials by photocopying, reproduction and
distribution on a large scale and circulating among the students and teachers of the university”.
The publishers sought to restrain the photocopy shop from supplying photocopied course packs
to students as it was violating the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and asked for compensation
amount of  Rs.60,01200 and Rs.65000 for court fees. The whole scenario of this case was
revolving around the topic whether copyright law was violated by the defendants or not. So in
this case, defendants were the subject of the ambit of section 52 of the copyright Act, 1957.
Under Indian Copyright Act, 1957 Section 52(1)(a) allows any fair use and dealing with a
copyrighted matters like in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Such fair use, dealing
and practice allows the scholars and learners to make a Xerox copy of the required data from the
books for the purpose of research and private study which are not easily available to general
public or are that expensive in monetary aspect that just could not be purchased by middle class
or a normal class people.
Section 52(1)(i) defines the exception of infringement of copyrighted materials where there is a
reproduction of any literary, dramatic, musical or of any artistic work by -:
 By any teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction,
 As part of the question to be answered in an examination,
 in answers, to such questions
 The word ‘instruction’ in section 52 (1)(i) do not restrict to a lecture room or classroom,
thus the scope of this provision is not limited to reproduction of a work by a teacher in
the course of a lecture but also includes reproduction for the purpose of making and
issuing course packs.
 The term ‘teacher’ in Section 52 (1)(i) is not limited to an individual teacher but includes
the whole educational institution.
Delhi High Court Decision
The division bench of the Delhi High Court passed a landmark judgment with regards to the
issue. By the passing of this judgment it was settled that educational institutions do not infringe
section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 by simply photocopying certain portions of different
books to formulate study materials or course packs that fall under the syllabus. However, this act
of photocopying must be justified educational instruction. It was further held that for formulating
such course packs or study material, the educational institutions do not require the permission of
the publisher if they are necessary to the students and only for purpose of instructional use. 
Analysis

Most of the people belong to middle or lower class unable to afford the books published by the
reputed publication but that does not give right to an Institution to circulate their content among
their student in a large scale by infringing the copyright law. There is the necessity of a provision
that would determine to which extent the reproduction of copyrighted material would not amount
to infringement of copyright law for the educational purpose, till then everyone can claim relief
against infringement of copyright work. After all –“The More You Take, the Less Fair Your
Use Is Likely to Be”