Copyright is not an inevitable, divine, or natural right

University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford_v._Rameshwari_Photocopy_Service

Full text of the single bench judgment of the case CS(OS) 2439/2012 dated 16-09-2016:

http://164.100.69.66/jupload/dhc/RSE/judgement/16-09-2016/RSE16092016S24392012.pdf#page=79

Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.

Full text of the division bench judgment of the case RFA(OS)-81/2016, dated 09-12-2016:

http://164.100.69.66/jupload/dhc/PNJ/judgement/09-12-2016/PNJ09122016RFAOS812016.pdf

Five publishers namely the Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), Cambridge University Press (India), Taylor & Francis Group (UK) and Taylor & Francis Books (India) instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court in August 2012 for permanent injunction against the Delhi University and Rameshwari Photocopy Service alleging them of infringing their copyrights. They claimed infringement based on the fact that defendants copied excerpts from the books published by them and compiled them to make study materials and course packs. They contented that this Act of the defendants clearly violates the copyrights protected under section 51 of the Copyrights Act

The petition moved by the publishers had prompted a rare display of solidarity as Delhi University teachers and students, irrespective of political affiliations, jointly opposed the move. 

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/delhi-photocopy-shop-wins-case-against-global-publishers-over-copyright-infringement-693985

Delhi University supported the photocopiers, saying the use of reproduced copyrighted books by student was a “reasonable educational needs” and should not be treated as infringement. Students also rallied behind the kiosk, saying most of the books were too expensive.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/publishers-lose-copyright-case-against-du-s-photocopy-shop/story-Yly8FJ1mNjf71snIL8tpvO.html

The decision of the Single bench:

The single Judge, Rajiv SahaiEndlaw J., dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and held that neither of the defendants infringed the copyrights of the plaintiff-publishers. Relying upon Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyrights Act, he held that the impugned actions of the defendant do not amount to copyright infringement. The said section provides that there is no copyright infringement of any kind of reproduction of a copyrighted work, if such reproduction is done on the instruction of the teacher and the work is part of the syllabus of the students.

Provisions of law involved: Section 52 of the Copyrights Act.

Highlights of the judgment:

• Section 52 of the Copyright Act must be interpreted broadly and in favour of educational institutions, which otherwise should be interpreted narrowly.
• The copyright Act aims at developing the intellectual enrichment of the public and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is only a statutory right and not a natural right.
• The making of course packs by a University does not infringe the copyrights of the publishers. Therefore, there is no infringement even when the photocopy is outside the library of the University or is done with the help of and assistance of someone. This is the reason why Defendant 1 was not liable for infringement.
• Photocopying of certain portions of the publisher’s work does not amount to infringement if it done for the benefits of the students. Just like how when students photocopy certain pages or take photographs of the same for their personal benefit does not amount to infringement.
• The term instruction extends to the whole academic session of an educational institution.
• The term teacher mentioned in section 52 should be interpreted to include the entire educational institution.

https://lawtimesjournal.in/university-of-oxford-vs-rameshwari-photocopy-services-an-analysis/

Division bench findings of law

Judgements Point No.31:"...unless the legislative intent expressly excludes fair use, and especially when a person’s result of labour is being utilized by somebody else, fair use must be read into the statute..."[1]

Judgements Point No.33 & 35: "..In the context of teaching and use of copyrighted material, the fairness in the use can be determined on the touchstone of ‘extent justified by the purpose’...."[1]

"...that the four factors on which fair use is determined in jurisdictions abroad would guide fair use of copyrighted material during course of instruction. The qualitative and quantitative test which is one of the four tests would not apply to clause (i).."[1]

Judgements Point No. 57 clarifies difference between reproduction‘ and ‘publication‘ according to this ruling, "...Publication need not be for the benefit of or available to or meant for reading by all the members of the community. A targeted audience would also be a public as rightly urged by learned counsel for the appellants. But, a publication would have the element of profit, which would be missing in the case of reproduction of a work by a teacher to be used in the course of instruction while imparting education to the pupils. That apart, if reproduction includes the plural, it cannot be held that making of multiple copies would be impermissible. It happens in law that footprints of one concept fall in the territory of other but that does not mean that the former should be restricted.."[1]

A day in the life of Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop, Delhi University 

In DU, from desperate students to helpless teachers, many roads lead to the small photocopy shop that has won a copyright case against major publishers

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-day-in-the-life-of-rameshwari-photocopy-service-shop-delhi-university-4432772/