2016 (12) TMI 1912 - HC - Indian Laws

Infringement of copyright - photocopying of copyrighted publications - Interpretation of Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 - fair use and reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction - HELD THAT - The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned judgment and decree holding that no triable issue on fact arises. The suit is restored for trial on the issue of fact and for which parties would be permitted to lead expert witness testimony. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application seeking interim injunction against the defendants and simultaneously on the reasoning that no triable issue arises the suit has been dismissed. Having restored the suit and identifying the triable issue warranting evidence, interim injunction cannot be granted to the appellants but respondent No.1 is directed to maintain a record of course packs photocopied by it and supplied to the students. Every six months the statement of number of course packs photocopied and supplied shall be filed in the suit. The suit would now be listed for directions before the learned Roster Judge on January 04, 2017.

Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of copyright through photocopying of copyrighted publications.
2. Interpretation of Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 regarding fair use and reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction.
3. The distinction between 'reproduction' and 'publication' under the Copyright Act, 1957.
4. The role of institutional sanction in photocopying copyrighted materials.
5. The applicability of international conventions like the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Infringement of Copyright:
The plaintiffs, comprising renowned publishing houses, alleged that Rameshwari Photocopy Services, under the authority of the Delhi School of Economics, infringed their copyright by photocopying pages from their publications to create course packs for students. The plaintiffs argued that this practice amounted to institutional sanction for copyright infringement, as the course packs were used like textbooks, competing with the plaintiffs' publications. They contended that this commercial operation violated their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. Interpretation of Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957:
The core legal issue was the interpretation of Section 52(1)(i), which allows reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction. The plaintiffs argued that this provision did not apply to the photocopying conducted by Rameshwari Photocopy Services, as it was not a fair use and was conducted with institutional intervention. The Court, however, interpreted the phrase "in the course of instruction" broadly, concluding that it encompassed the entire academic session and was not limited to classroom interactions. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the provision should be read with a fair use limitation, as the statute did not expressly incorporate such a restriction.

3. Distinction between 'Reproduction' and 'Publication':
The Court clarified that 'reproduction' under the Act includes making copies, such as photocopying, and does not necessarily equate to 'publication,' which involves making a work available to the public. The Court noted that publication typically involves a profit element, which was absent in the case of Rameshwari Photocopy Services, as they were merely reproducing material for educational purposes without making a profit beyond standard photocopying charges.

4. Role of Institutional Sanction:
The plaintiffs alleged institutional sanction by the University of Delhi, which was refuted by the Court. The Court found that the University's role ended with setting the course curriculum, and the preparation of course packs was a result of individual or collective teacher decisions, not a university mandate. The photocopying was thus not seen as an institutional act but rather as a facilitation of educational instruction.

5. Applicability of International Conventions:
The Court considered international conventions like the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement but concluded that these do not impose strict limitations on national legislation regarding educational exceptions to copyright. The Court noted that the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as amended, was consistent with India's international obligations, allowing reproduction in the course of instruction without specific quantitative limits.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, identifying triable issues of fact regarding the use of course packs and the photocopying of entire books. It restored the suit for trial, allowing parties to lead expert evidence. The Court declined to grant interim injunctions but directed Rameshwari Photocopy Services to maintain records of course packs photocopied and supplied, to be filed every six months.

← Previous Next →