CASE NO.

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTER AND SCHOLAR OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD & ORS. V.
RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPYING SERVICES AND
ANR.

(233(2016)DLT279)

THE DELHI UNIVERSITY PHOTOOCOPY CASE

________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

The case in question, better known as known as the Delhi university photocopy case is a
landmark judgement in the domain of copyright law. The aforementioned issue originated
when a couple of hugely and widely known publishers lodged a complaint against a photocopy
shop ion the campus of Delhi university. The point of contention here was that the shop
compiled the resource materials from their books into one “course pack”. The plaintiffs claimed
that this was a copyright infringement of their intellectual property. The author first discusses
the background of the case. Following this, issues and contention of the parties. Further, the
judgement is discussed and conclusively, a critical analysis by the author.

1. PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

Case No : Civil Appeal No 25/1995

Jurisdiction : High Court of Delhi

Case Filed on : 2013

Case Decided on : 16/09/16

Judges : Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Legal Provisions involved : Copyright Act,1957

Case Summary Prepared by : Kashvi Vachhani, Gujarat National Law University

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In August 2012, a suit was filed in the High court of Delhi by leading publishers across the
domain of academia namely Oxford University press, Cambridge University Press and
Taylor and Francis group for infringement of copyright of their resource materials against a
publishing shop situated in the campus of Delhi University. It was the assertion of the plaintiffs
that the defendants were liable for copyright infringement of their published work. They
republished sizable amounts of excerpts from their work and made a compendium of sorts.
This makes them accountable under section 14 and 51 of the Indian Copyright Act. It was
maintained by the plaintiffs that the defendants ought to be issued a license under the IRRO.
As a result it would be permissible for fifteen percent of the original work to be reprinted by
them. The defendants to the suit are: Delhi University ( Defendant No.1) and Rameshwari
Photocopy Service ( Defendant No. 2).

In year of 2013, ASEAK((Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge), an

Union/association of students of the university pleaded to become a party to the suit claiming
that they were personally affected by the injunction. They were identified as Defendants No.3.
Additionally, SEAK((Society for Promotion of Equitable Access to Knowledge) also
pleaded to be a party to the suit claiming that defendants are entitled take the defence of fair
trade under Section 52 1(1). Their request was allowed. They identified as Defendants No. 4.

3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

The issues concerning this case are twofold.

I. Whether the compendiums published by the defendants can be deemed as copyright

infringement under the Copyright act?

II. Whether such republishing of the material as fair trade use is admissible under the act or not
?
4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Þ Plaintiffs

1. It was first appealed by the plaintiff that they are entitled to a relief of permanent
injunction. Here they maintained that the defendants supplied course packs comprising
copies of their published work. This, makes them liable under the Copyright Act,1957.

2. They asserted that the defendants ought not to take defense under Section 52(1)(i). Here
it was contended that the there was no form of instruction by a teacher. Since, they took
excerpts from their publications and sold them in the form of compendium, holds them
answerable.

3. They maintained that such activity is competitive in the marketplace of books because
people will be more inclined to buy course packs at a lower price and also out of
convenience. Hence, the actual publications will face deterrence in their worth.

4. Following this, it was also contented that they surely had a commercial intent as the
course packs were being photocopied at rupees fifty per page at the shop as opposed to
25 rupees per page being charged elsewhere.

5. Further, the plaintiff made an assertion that India was to follow the Berne convention
and the defendant were to be issued licenses under IRRO (Indian Reprographic
Rights Organization) to publish these course packs. Additionally, asserted that
“Municipal law must recognize international law norms, and the unanimity of nations
necessitates that international law rules be incorporated in municipal law, even without
specific statutory authorization, as long as they do not contradict with other Acts of
Parliament.” (Gramophone Company of India Ltd. V. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, 1984
(16 ) UJ 475)
Þ Defendants

1. The defense counsel argued that republication was done in conformity with the relevant
sections of the Act. They took the defense of fair trade under 52 (a) and (h).

2. Defendants (1) also countered the claim of competitive nature of the activity by saying
that their course packets had no substantial effect on the market for their work.
Moreover, this only helps the students as they are unable to bear the expense of the
actual published works.

3. The phrase "reproduction" contained in Section 52(1)(i) did not restrict the number of
copies made by educational institutions.
4. The defendants discussed the nuances of the phrase “instruction” in Section 52 of the
Act and contended that it doesn’t only extend to classroom education but goes beyond
that. It begins with the commencement of an academic session.

5. The defendants maintained that since there is no copyright infringement, licensing

under IRRO is immaterial.

6. The defendant (4) argued that the case should be looked at through a different lens.
Firstly, the compendium had no actual influence on the sale of the books. It was also
argued that 55 authors were cited and 34 of them didn’t make any opposition to the suit.
Further, owing to the economic and social condition of the country, not everyone can
afford the expense of education and academic materials. The number of excerpts
borrowed from the book were not in a sizable amount.
5. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED

The genesis of the case finds itself around Article 52 of Copyright Act,1957. Additionally,
attention is also drawn to Sections 2 (m),13,14,51 and 52.

(a) Section 2 (m) : This relates to the term “infringing copy” which is defined as a “(a)
reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work ; (b) a copy of a cinematograph
film made on any medium by any means or (c) any other recording embodying the same sound
recording, made by any means or the sound recording or a cinematographic film or (d)
broadcasting of a programme or performance if reproduction of sound recording is made or
imported in contravention of the provisions of the Act.”

(b) Section 13 : Inarguably the most important section in the statute. It entails the subject matter
of copyright. Section(1) talks about how the jurisdiction of the act is extended across India. It
also lists works which are protected by this statute.

(c) Section 14 enumerates and defines the concept of copyright.

(d) Section 51 states that copyright is breached when someone does something that the
copyright holder has an exclusive right to do under the Act. As a result, if no exclusive right
exists, there is no violation.

(e) Section 52 defines what doesn’t amount to copyright infringement. Here, Here the court
enunciates that it is immaterial if an acts holds an exclusive right to copyright, if is touched
upon in section 52, that will not entail copyright infringement.
6. JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF

The Court after assessing the arguments was of the opinion that copyright law is not a natural
law but a statutory law. It observed that “ Therefore there can be no copyright in any author or
producer save as provided under the copyright act.”
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs are not in competition with "course packs" or assemblages.
The Court insisted that even if these compilations were not made, students would still go ahead
and borrow the books from the library at no cost. Hence, there is no direct threat to the
intellectual property of the plaintiffs.

In Paragraph,29 of the judgement, Justice Edwall discusses the relevance of the Section 52 of
the Act. The court says that Section 51 says that copyright is said to be infringed when one
performs an act which can only be done by the person who has been bestowed with the
exclusive right of copyright of the same. Following this, the Court enumerates what Section 52
entails. It comprises exceptions to copyright infringement. Here the Court enunciates that it is
immaterial if an acts holds an exclusive right to copyright, if is touched upon in Section 52,
that will not entail copyright infringement. However, they need not be read together as Section
52 should be read broadly. The rights of person mentioned in Section 52 – section14 should be
read along with Section 51.
Further while discussing Sec 52 (1)(i) , it says that reproduction is not only constricted to a
stereotypical teacher student discussion, it also extends to educational institutions “in course
of instruction”.

The phrase “in course of instruction” relates to the entire process or program covering the term,
rather than merely the process carried out in the lecture. The Court asserts that since its
established that a student’s action of photocopy of the resource material doesn’t amount to
infringement, the act of photocopying by the university for their students also will not be
considered infringement.

Additionally, it is immaterial if the machine is installed inside the library or outside or is done
by a student or by a person employed or a contractor.
Lastly, on IRRO licences, the court maintains that it is unnecessary as all the act of the
defendants are in conformity of section 52(1)(i). Later the suit was appealed in the a Divisional
bench of The High Court.
7. COMMENTARY

The Delhi university photocopy is a case which has changed the trajectory of Copyright law.
The whole debate surges around the rights of a creator against the user rights. It invokes the
conundrum - Whether the rights of the creators should be put first or the user rights should be
held to a higher ground. It is a prodigious judgement because the case has been decided by a
literal interpretation or application of the statute. By ascertaining that copyright law is not a
common law, it has strayed away from the usual fair trade test. This case brings out the
sensititviy of the copyright law to the user rights and maintains that protection of intellectual
property is paramount as long it is not detrimental to the welfare objectives of the society and
doesn’t wrong the oppressed.

However, the author would bring attention to a point of cognizance that a grave desideratum
for a provision that is determinant of what degree of reproduction of copyrighted content does
not constitute violation of copyright law for academic purposes.

8. IMPORTANT CASES REFERENCES

• Bombay Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Ramachandra Laxman Belosay

(03.04.1959 - BOMHC), 1959 ( 61 ) BOMLR 1129.
• Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. vs. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., 2008 (37 ) PTC
353 ( SC ).
• Gramophone Company of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Ors., 1984 (16)
UJ 475.
• Smita Subhash Sawant v. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin, (2015 ) 6 MLJ 748 ( SC ).
• Supreme Court, in S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
• The State of Maharashtra and P.C. Singh vs. Praful B. Desai and Ors., 2003 (2 ) UJ
769.