University Of Oxford V. Rameshwari Photocopy Service

Court: Delhi High Court

Case name: "The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Ors. Versus Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors."

Decided: 9 December 2016

Bench: JusticePradeep Nandrajog, JusticeYogesh Khanna

Factual Background

Rameshwari Photocopy Service was founded in 1998 and is owned by Dharampal Singh.
Despite the University of Delhi's initial denial, certain professors at the Delhi School of Economics compiled course packs containing excerpts from books published by the plaintiffs. Rameshwari Photocopy Service was responsible for photocopying, binding these pages, and distributing them to students at a cost of 50 paise (US$0.01) per page. 1

In 2012, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), Taylor & Francis Group (UK), Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd., and Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd. Started a legal suit against defendants, for copyright infringement. The Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and the Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge (SPEAK) requested to be included as defendants in the lawsuit, and this request was approved.

In late 2012, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order prohibiting Rameshwari Services from distributing photocopied course packages. Court instructed local commissioner to inspect the stores and seize if infringing copies were found.

In 2016, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismissed the complaint and lifted the injunction, allowing Rameshwari Photocopy Services to continue selling the course packages.

Later in the same year, a two-judge bench threw aside the prior judgment and allowed for the litigation trial to proceed, saying that the duplication of copyrighted books for educational purposes was not copyright breaches. At the same time, the Delhi High Court refused to issue an injunction on the business and instead required it to give quarterly reports of the coursepacks it was selling.

Issues

• Whether the copying of copyrighted information for educational purposes was under the exceptions granted in Section 52 of the Act, notably regarding fair use.
• Whether the Defendant's acts violate section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and are considered as copyright violation.

Plaintiff's argument

• The plaintiffs asserted that the Delhi School of Economics (DSE) had authorized copyright infringement by permitting Rameshwari Photocopy Services (RPS) to reproduce copyrighted pages, and the provision of the publications from its library.
• The plaintiffs asserted that the course packs were being used as textbooks and thus directly competing with the plaintiffs' original work. The course packs were entirely made of photocopied pages from the plaintiffs' copyrighted works.
• The plaintiffs asserted that RPS was acting commercially, since it was charging 40-50 paise per sheet for the course packs, which was far above what photocopiers usually charged (about 20-25 paise).
• The plaintiffs assumed the defense would be based on Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act 1957, and argued that, this exception would not be applicable. The plaintiffs pointed out that this section permitted reproducing "in the course of instruction" not "in the course of preparation for instruction." The plaintiffs argued that with the assistance of DSE, RPS was not reproducing during instruction time by a teacher or pupil.
• The plaintiffs contested that instead RPS's actions were covered by Section 52(1)(h), which would limit RPS to two passages by the same author and publisher in a period of five years.

Defendants Arguments

Rameshwari Photocopy Services' Position

• The making of course packs was fair dealing under Sections 52(1)(a) and (h) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Their actions negatively impacted the market of the publisher's works.
• Students could not afford to buy all books on the syllabus.

University of Delhi's Position

• Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957, allows students and institutions to reproduce ay work for research and education purpose.
• There is no limitation on the amount reproduced in Section 52(1)(i).
• The university entered into an agreement with RPS to provide photocopying services to its students for educational reasons.
• Section 52(1)(h) does not apply because reproduction in reason 52(1)(i) is not the same as publication in reason 52(1)(h).
• the term "publication" means to provide a work to the public, which is a wider audience than the audience of just the university students.
• Course of Instruction should be given wider interpretation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

First, the Court stated that copyright is a statutory right under the Copyright Act, 1957, which has precedence over any natural or common law rights. The copyright owner has the exclusive rights of reproduction and issuing copies unless, of course, these rights are subject to any statutory qualifications or exceptions. The Court stressed that the acts set out in Section 52 of the Act are statutorily exempted from being deemed copyright infringements, regardless of the terminology used, and should be interpreted as being statutes in their own right, rather than being provisions which qualify or narrow existing copyright infringement.

The Court found that, the University acts of photocopying a piece of work and distributing it to students, i.e. photocopying the copyrighted works into course packs (and allowing the creation of master copies to the photocopy service) constitute reproduction and distribution as necessary to establish copyright. However, still may not constitute copyright infringement as they may be protected within the exceptions of Section 52.

The Court considered the application of Section 52(1)(h), (i), and (j). The Court held that Section 52(1)(h) did not apply in this case, because course packs consist entirely of a copyrighted work, and not "mainly" from non-copyrighted work, as required. The Court held that Section 52(1)(j) was not applicable to the facts.

The Court also focused on the exemption in Section 52(1)(i) for reproducing material by a teacher or a pupil "in the course of instruction." In assessing this exemption, the Court adopted an expansive interpretation of the phrase "in the course of instruction," and applied established rules of statutory interpretation and precedent. The Court determined that "in the course of instruction" encompasses the whole process of imparting instruction in an academic session, including syllabus preparation, prescribed reading, the act of preparing for instruction and the follow-up to that instruction. The Court held that this would not be limited to face-to-face instruction in the classroom.

The Court rejected the argument that the University itself was not a "teacher" under the provisions of Section 52(1)(i) and its finding noted that statutory teaching (and reproduction) can take place in the name of teachers and is suited to the exception. The Court also found that students represent the "public" for the purposes of the definition of "publication" in Section 3 of the Act, but in that photocopying already published works does not result in "publication" in the statutory sense where the words "the public" mean simply that new issuance to the public for the first time.

The copyright in the manner alleged. The Court ruled that the acts of distributing from the University library and students copying some small parts for individual use are legal acts of fair dealing. The writer did not turn the act into an infringement by entering into an agreement with the photocopying service so that they can make copies for students at a nominal price, particularly considering the limited number of books and subsidized education required to increase access to knowledge in such a highly populated country as India.

The Court also considered international treaties, including the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, that provide minimum standards but leave a wide range of discretion to the Indian legislature in determining the nature and scope of exceptions. The legislature's decision to include broad exceptions for reproduction "in the course of instruction" without limits was respected. The Court decided that it would not impose any form of invalid restrictions judicially, beyond what was already included in the Act or the international obligations.

The Court distinguished the foreign decisions, considering that there were different statutes in place while stressing that Indian law defined itself by the respective statute's scheme and constitutional values of the right to education and access to knowledge.

In conclusion, the Court found that the defendants' conduct fell within the exceptions found in section 52(1)(i) and did not amount to copyright infringement in the respect alleged.

Held:

The complaint was rejected based on the ground that the defendants' act of creating and disseminating photocopied course packets were not acts of infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, given that the acts were covered bonus the statutory exceptions in Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Court ruled that a trial was unnecessary, as it only concerns a question of law. The defendants had the right to reproduce a copyrighted work for educational purposes, including institutional copying and distribution.
The decision supports a broad interpretation of "in the course of instruction" that goes beyond simply creating courses and establishing syllabuses, and it clarifies the limits of educational exceptions under Indian copyright law.

References

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors. (2016) 16 DRJ (SN) 678. Delhi High Court, India.

Chawla, K. (2017). Oxford University V. Rameshwari Photocopy Services—Reshaping the Copyright Discourse. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 13(1).

University of Oxford Vs. Rameshwari Photocopy Services: An analysis. (n.d.). Law Times Journal. Retrieved from University of Oxford Vs. Rameshwari Photocopy Services: An analysis - Law Times Journal

University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services | Delhi High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine. (n.d.). CaseMine. Retrieved from [University Of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services | Delhi High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine].

Singh, A. (2024, November 9). University of Oxford vs Rameshwari Photocopy Service || (2016) 16 DRJ (SN) 678 || Case Summary. Bench Notes. Retrieved from [University of Oxford vs Rameshwari Photocopy Service ||(2016) 16 DRJ (SN) 678 || Case Summary].

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.