INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PSDA

CASE ANALYSIS

The Chancellor, University of Oxford & Ors

v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr.
(2016)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Nipun Gupta Jain Isha Singh
06017703520
8–L
Facts of the case:

 The facts of the case are that the petitioners in the case are the publishers, namely –
Cambridge Press, Oxford University Press, and the Taylor and Francis Press.
 These plaintiffs alleged that the acts of the defendants – who are the University of
Delhi and the photocopy service called Ramaswari Photocopy Service – where it was
stated that the University allows the second defendant to take the photocopies of the
substantial part of the copyrighted books for the purpose of preparing course materials
which had a substantial number of copyrighted contents.
 Even though it falls within the fair use doctrine, the plaintiffs alleged otherwise and
claimed permanent injunction and compensation as damages.
 The case came before the single judge bench of the Delhi HC, where the judge
dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs stating that the act falls within the purview of
Section 52 exception, that is the fair use as it is for educational purposes.
 Against the single-judge bench decision, the plaintiffs went ahead to appeal before the
division bench, which is the present case.

Issues:

 Whether preparation of course materials as a photocopy would amount to copyright

infringement or not?
 Whether the photocopies form part of course instruction as mentioned under Section
52 exception or not?

Decision:

In 2016, the Delhi HC brought a historic judgment in the Jurisprudence of copyright law that
reminded all that publishers do not possess natural right to copyright but there shall be
exceptions for illegal use of copyrighted materials as much as it is fair.

The court held that making course packs for educational purposes was not violating any
rights of copyright holders nor constituted a violation of copyrights.
This is important to create education for teaching purposes.

Analysis:

On the 9th of December, 2016, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court interpreted
Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, to allow photocopying of copyrighted literary works to
create course packs. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 52 (1) (i) of the Copyright Act, any
copyrighted material that is reproduced by a teacher or a student in the course of educational
instruction does not constitute copyright infringement.

The Division Bench pointed out that since Section 52(1)(i) does not have an express fair use
limitation, it can only be applied as the general principle dictates. Thus, it was held that when
determining if the use of a copyrighted work was fair under Section 52(1)(i), the only
standard to be upheld was the work’s necessity in achieving the purpose of educational
instruction regardless of the percentage of the work used in the process. It was also held that
students were not potential customers of the books used in the course packs because they
would ultimately refer to the same books in the library thereby not having an adverse impact
on Oxford's market.

The core issue in the case concerning the interpretation of Section 52(1)(i) was addressed
with reliance on Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act of 1897. It was held that
‘photocopying’ (making multiple copies) came under the meaning of the word 'reproduction’.
The phrase ‘in the course of instruction’ was also held to include within its scope the creation
and distribution of course packs to students, who also constituted the general public.
However, it went on to say that this distribution did not amount to publication because the
intent to publish did not include making profits off of it.

Thus, the Division Bench dismissed Oxford's appeal. The Court clarified that RPS need not
possess a license or permission to photocopy. The factual determination as to whether the
copyrighted works in the course packs were truly necessary for specific teaching purposes
was handed over to the Single Bench. On March 9th, 2017, Oxford withdrew the suit from
the Delhi High Court.