2016 (9) TMI 1678 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the two defendants namely Rameshwari Photocopy Service (carrying on business from Delhi School of Economic (DSE) University of Delhi) and the University of Delhi from infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs - applicability of doctrine of fair use - HELD THAT - The rights of persons mentioned in Section 52 are to be interpreted following the same rules as the rights of a copyright owner and are not to be read narrowly or strictly or so as not to reduce the ambit of Section 51 as is the rule of interpretation of statutes in relation to provisos or exceptions. Thus Sections 14 and 51 on the one hand and Section 52 on the other hand are to be read as any two provisions of a statute. Reliance by defendants on Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. 2008 (5) TMI 671 - SUPREME COURT in this respect is apposite. It was held that the Copyright Act seeks to maintain a balance between the interest of the owner of copyright in protecting his works on the one hand and interest of the public to have access to the works on the other. Whether the actions of the defendant no. 2 University are to be tested on the anvil of Clauses (h), (i), (j) of Section 52(1) which deal with acts in relation to education or also on the anvil of Clause (a) of Section 52(1) which deals with an acts for purposes of private or personal use criticism or review or reporting of current events if in fair dealing with the work? - HELD THAT - The settled principle of interpretation of statutes is that the legislature is to be deemed to have used the language in the context of the prevailing laws and societal situations to which the legislation is intended. Education in the country though at one time pursued in Guru-Shishya parampara (Teacher disciple tradition) has for long now been institutionalised both at school and post - school level with imparting of education by a teacher individually having no recognition. There is no reason to interpret Section 52(1)(i) as providing for an individual teacher and an individual pupil and which neither at the time of inclusion thereof in the statute nor now exists in the society - The phrase purposes of teaching research or scholarship vide Section 32(6) Explanation (d) though for the purpose of that Section only has been defined as including purposes of instructional activity at all levels in educational institutions including Schools Colleges Universities and tutorial institutions and purposes of all other types of organized educational activity . There are no reason to hold that the legislature intended to exclude teacher and pupil in an educational institution as defendant no. 2 University is from ambit thereof. Thus merely because imparting of education by teachers today is as part of an institution as the defendant no. 2 University and it is the defendant no. 2 University which on behalf of its teachers is reproducing any copyrighted work by making photocopies thereof would not mean that Section 52(1)(i) would not be applicable. The counsel for the plaintiffs also to be fair to him has not contended so. The use of the word publication in Section 52(1)(h) as distinct from the word reproduction in Section 52(1)(i) further brings out the difference between the two words. While the word publication used in Section 52(1)(h) connotes making available to the public for the first time or by way of further editions or re-print i.e. the activity in which plaintiffs are involved the word reproduction used in Section 52(1)(i) entails copying for limited use i.e. for an individual or for a class of students being taught together by a teacher. The word instruction as commonly understood and defined in dictionaries means something that someone tells you to do or a direction or order or detailed information about how something should be done or operated or the action or process of teaching . Thus the word instruction in the context of a teacher would mean something which a teacher tells the student to do in the course of teaching or detailed information which a teacher gives to a student or pupil to acquire knowledge of what the student or pupil has approached the teacher to learn - the use of the word instruction preceded with the words in the course of would mean in the course of instruction being imparted and received. Though it is held that Section 52(1)(a) to be not applicable to the action of the defendant no. 2 University of making photocopies of copyrighted works but the issuance by the defendant no. 2 University of the books purchased by it and kept in its library to the students and reproduction thereof by the students for the purposes of their private or personal use whether by way of photocopying or by way of copying the same by way of hand would indeed make the action of the student a fair dealing therewith and not constitute infringement of copyright. The counsel for the plaintiffs also on enquiry did not argue so. All that is happening in the present case is that instead of the defendant No. 2 University issuing the book which may be sought after by a large number of students to each one of them individually for limited period or limited hours and enabling each student to photocopy the passages or the contents thereof required by him in the course of instruction and thereby exposing the book to damage the defendant No. 2 University itself is supplying the said photocopies. It cannot be lost sight of that we are a country with a bulging population and where the pressure on all public resources and facilities is far beyond that in any other country or jurisdiction. While it may be possible for a student in a class of say 10 or 20 students to have the book issued from the library for a month and to laboriously take notes therefrom the same is unworkable where the number of students run into hundreds if not thousands. What is permissible for a small number of students cannot be viewed differently merely because the number of students is larger. Merely because instead of say 10 or 20 copies being made by students individually or by the librarian employed by the University 100 or 1000 copies are being made the same would not convert what was not an infringement into an infringement. The engagement by the defendant No. 2 University of defendant No. 1 does not convert the action of defendant No. 2 University to be not amounting to infringement of copyright in books to infringement. Suit dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of Copyright
2. Fair Use Doctrine
3. Role of Educational Institutions and Reproduction Rights
4. International Copyright Conventions
5. Applicability of Sections 52(1)(h), (i), and (j) of the Copyright Act

Detailed Analysis:

1. Infringement of Copyright:
The plaintiffs, publishers of textbooks, alleged that the defendants were infringing their copyright by photocopying and distributing course packs containing substantial extracts from their publications. The court examined whether the actions of the defendants constituted infringement under the Copyright Act, particularly focusing on whether making photocopies amounted to "reproduction" under Section 14(a)(i) of the Act. The court concluded that photocopying is indeed reproduction and thus, an exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, the court also considered whether such reproduction was permissible under Section 52 of the Act, which lists exceptions to copyright infringement.

2. Fair Use Doctrine:
The defendants argued that their actions constituted fair use under Sections 52(1)(a) and (i) of the Copyright Act, which allows reproduction for private use, criticism, or review, and by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction. The court held that Section 52(1)(a) was not applicable as it deals with fair dealing for private use, and the actions in question were related to educational purposes. The court focused on Section 52(1)(i), interpreting "in the course of instruction" broadly to include reproduction necessary for the educational process, thus supporting the defendants' claim of fair use.

3. Role of Educational Institutions and Reproduction Rights:
The court considered whether the actions of the University and its licensee, the photocopy shop, were permissible under the Copyright Act. It was argued that the University's actions were not different from practices in other educational settings where limited reproduction is necessary for educational purposes. The court concluded that the University's actions did not amount to infringement, as they were covered under Section 52(1)(i), allowing reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction.

4. International Copyright Conventions:
The court examined Articles 9 and 10 of the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allow for exceptions to reproduction rights under certain conditions. The court noted that these international covenants permit reproduction that does not conflict with normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the author's legitimate interests. The court found that the Indian Copyright Act's provisions were in line with these international standards, allowing for educational reproduction as justified for the purpose and not unreasonably prejudicial to the authors' interests.

5. Applicability of Sections 52(1)(h), (i), and (j) of the Copyright Act:
The court analyzed the applicability of these sections, concluding that Section 52(1)(h) was not applicable as it pertains to publication in a collection mainly composed of non-copyrighted matter. Section 52(1)(i) was deemed applicable, as it allows reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, which the court interpreted to include the University's actions. Section 52(1)(j), dealing with performance of works by educational institutions, was not relevant to the case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, holding that the actions of the defendants did not constitute infringement of copyright under the Indian Copyright Act. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of copyright owners with the need for access to educational materials, aligning with the principles of fair use and international conventions. The court found no need for a trial, as the legal questions were resolved through statutory interpretation.