Judgement Briefs

Intellectual Property Rights

The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Anr.

235 (2016) DLT 409 (DB)

Citation
235 (2016) DLT 409 (DB)
Court
Delhi High Court
Date
9 December 2016
Bench
Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna JJ.

Facts

  • Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis published academic books used by students of the University of Delhi.
  • Teachers of the University prepared reading lists and selected extracts from different books for particular courses.
  • Rameshwari Photocopy Services operated from the Delhi University campus under a licence from the University.
  • The photocopy shop reproduced the selected chapters and compiled them into bound “course packs” for students.
  • Students paid only the photocopying and binding charges. The shop did not independently decide which portions would be copied.
  • The publishers alleged that the systematic copying of substantial portions of their books infringed copyright.
  • The defendants relied upon Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which permits reproduction of a work by a teacher or pupil “in the course of instruction.”
  • A Single Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the preparation of course packs fell within the educational exception.
  • The publishers appealed to the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Issue

  • Whether photocopying extracts from copyrighted books for university course packs amounted to infringement.
  • Whether reproduction through a commercial photocopy shop could qualify as reproduction “by a teacher or pupil.”
  • How broadly the expression “in the course of instruction” under Section 52(1)(i) should be interpreted.

Rule

  • Section 52 identifies acts that do not constitute copyright infringement.
  • Section 52(1)(i) permits reproduction of a work:
  • by a teacher or pupil;
  • in the course of instruction.
  • “Instruction” is not confined to the actual time during which a teacher speaks inside a classroom.
  • Copyright law must balance the author’s economic rights with the public interest in education and access to knowledge.
  • The educational exception is distinct from the narrower fair-dealing exceptions and does not prescribe a fixed numerical limit on the amount that may be copied.
  • However, the copying must remain connected with and justified by the instructional purpose.

Application

  • The Court examined the complete educational process rather than treating classroom teaching as an isolated event.
  • Instruction includes:
  • preparation by teachers before class;
  • prescribed reading by students;
  • classroom discussion;
  • assignments and examinations;
  • study undertaken to understand the course.
  • The extracts were selected by faculty members because they were considered necessary for particular subjects.
  • Students were not buying general anthologies chosen by the photocopy shop. The course packs were directly connected to the syllabus and were prepared under the University’s supervision.
  • The fact that a photocopy shop physically reproduced the material did not automatically remove the protection of Section 52.
  • A teacher or student may use an agent to perform the mechanical task of copying. The section would become impractical if every teacher or student had to personally operate the photocopying machine.
  • The Court rejected the proposition that copying automatically becomes infringing merely because several chapters or a substantial percentage of a book are reproduced.
  • The relevant question is not only how much was copied, but why it was copied and whether that amount was reasonably required for instruction.
  • At the same time, the Division Bench did not grant unlimited permission to reproduce whole textbooks or create commercial substitutes.
  • It observed that factual questions could remain regarding:
  • whether the course packs contained only material genuinely required for teaching;
  • whether the copying substituted for purchase of the books;
  • whether the packs functioned as textbooks rather than instructional compilations.
  • The Single Judge had dismissed the entire suit without a full trial on these limited factual matters. The Division Bench therefore restored the suit for examination of those questions.

Conclusion

  • The Court held that “in the course of instruction” must be interpreted broadly to cover the entire teaching and learning process.
  • Photocopying through an authorised shop may be treated as copying by or on behalf of teachers and pupils.
  • Course-pack reproduction is not automatically infringing merely because it is organised or involves substantial extracts.
  • Nevertheless, Section 52(1)(i) protects only copying genuinely connected with and reasonably necessary for instruction.
  • The suit was restored for limited factual determination rather than finally declaring every course pack lawful.
  • Use this case for: the educational exception protects reproduction reasonably required for teaching, including copying performed through an authorised agent.