MerleGrier1601: put up info

2025-03-18T15:16:00Z

put up info

New page

{{Short description|2016 Indian copyright case}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2018}}
{{Use Indian English|date=September 2018}}
{{Infobox court case
|name =
|court = [[Delhi High Court]]
|image =
|imagesize =
|imagelink =
|imagealt =
|caption =
|full name = The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Ors. Versus Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors.
|date decided = {{start date|df=yes|2016|12|09}}
|citations =
|ECLI =
|transcripts =
|judges = Justice [[Pradeep Nandrajog]], Justice [[Yogesh Khanna]]
|number of judges = 2
|decision by = Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
|concurring =
|dissenting =
|concur/dissent =
|prior actions =
|appealed from = Single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court
|appealed to =
|subsequent actions =
|related actions =
|opinions =
|keywords = 
|italic title =
}}

'''''The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Others''''', colloquially known as the '''DU Photocopy Case''', was an [[Indian copyright law]] court case in the [[Delhi High Court]] filed by academic publishers [[Oxford University Press]], [[Cambridge University Press]] and [[Taylor & Francis]], against Rameshwari Photocopy Services and the [[University of Delhi]], the former being a shop licensed to operate within the precincts of the [[Delhi School of Economics]], University of Delhi.<ref name="DelDivBench2016" /><ref name="Chandha2017">{{cite web|last=Chandha|first=Janhvi|url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bb41f1ab-d0b8-4706-8b7b-87342c645351|title=The Appeal Bench's decision Delhi university photocopying case: fair use re-visited - Lexology (Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP)|work=[[Lexology]]|date=9 January 2017 |publisher=[[Law Business Research]]}}</ref> The plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement and sought a permanent injunction, and the defendants successfully argued that their actions fell within the bounds of [[fair dealing]].

== Background ==
Rameshwari Photocopy Service was established in 1998 and owned by Dharampal Singh.<ref name="Shankar2016">{{cite web|first=Aranya|last=Shankar|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-day-in-the-life-of-rameshwari-photocopy-service-shop-delhi-university-4432772/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-20|archive-date=2020-11-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111164224/https://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-day-in-the-life-of-rameshwari-photocopy-service-shop-delhi-university-4432772/|title=A day in the life of Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop, Delhi University|date=2016-12-17|publisher=|work=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref>

Although initially denied by the [[University of Delhi]], some of the professors teaching the Delhi School of Economics had prepared [[Coursepacks|course packs]] consisting of pages from books published by the plaintiffs, and Rameshwari Photocopy Service was tasked with photocopying and binding these pages, and supplying them to students at {{INRConvert|0.50|year=2016|mode=historical|lk=on}} per page.<ref name="DelDivBench2016"/>

In 2012, [[Oxford University Press]], [[Cambridge University Press]] (UK) and [[Taylor & Francis Group]] (UK), as well as Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. and Taylor & Francis Books India Pvt. Ltd.,<ref name="Oberoi2016">{{cite news|work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]]|title=DU Photocopy Case: What Happened and Why It's Important|last=Oberoi|first=Radhika|date=2016-10-26|url=https://thewire.in/education/du-photocopy-case|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112024123/https://thewire.in/education/du-photocopy-case|archive-date=2020-11-12|publisher=[[Foundation for Independent Journalism]]}}</ref> filed suit against Rameshwari Photocopy Service<ref name="Shankar2016"/> and the University of Delhi alleging copyright infringement.<ref name="Ghosh2016">{{cite journal|journal=[[NUJS Law Review]]|publisher=[[West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences]]|last=Ghosh|first=Eashan|date=2006|volume=9|issue=1|title=Fundamental Errors in Fundamental Places: A Case for Setting Aside the Delhi University Photocopying Judgement|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804035449/http://nujslawreview.org/2016/12/06/fundamental-errors-in-fundamental-places-a-case-for-setting-aside-the-delhi-university-photocopying-judgement/|archive-date=2020-08-04|url=http://nujslawreview.org/2016/12/06/fundamental-errors-in-fundamental-places-a-case-for-setting-aside-the-delhi-university-photocopying-judgement/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-20}}</ref> The Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge (SPEAK) sought to be impleaded into the case as defendants, and this was granted.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/RSE/judgement/16-09-2016/RSE16092016S24392012.pdf | url-status=dead| title=The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & ANR. | publisher=High Court of Delhi | date=2016-09-16|accessdate=2021-03-20|archive-date=2016-10-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012023005/http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/RSE/judgement/16-09-2016/RSE16092016S24392012.pdf}} See Point 11 and Point 12.</ref>

==Case of the plaintiffs==
The plaintiffs argued that in allowing Rameshwari Photocopy Services to reproduce pages from the plaintiffs' publications, and providing those publications to RPS from its library, Delhi School of Economics gave institutional sanction for copyright infringement.

They said that the [[coursepacks|course packs]] consisted entirely of photocopies of pages from their copyrighted publications, that these course packs were being used like textbooks, and therefore competing directly with the plaintiffs' publications.<ref name="DelDivBench2016" />

The plaintiffs said that RPS was operating commercially, as it was selling the course packs at 40-50 paise per page, compared to the 20-25 paise per page market rate charged by other photocopiers where the material to be photocopied was supplied by the students themselves.<ref name="DelDivBench2016" />

The plaintiffs anticipated that the defence would invoke Section 52(1)(i) of the [[Copyright Act, 1957]], and argued that this section should not apply. They said that this section only covered reproduction of copyrighted material "in the course of instruction", noting that when the bill was tabled, Parliament had replaced the original wording "in the course of preparation for instructions"; and that the reproduction of the copyrighted material by RPS, assisted by the Delhi School of Economics, should not be considered such reproduction by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction.<ref name="DelDivBench2016" /> They argued that RPS's actions instead fell under Section 52(1)(h), under which they would be limited to reproducing two passages from works by the same author and publisher within any five-year period.<ref name="DelDivBench2016">{{cite court|litigants=The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Others|court=[[High Court of Delhi]]|date=2016-12-09|url=http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PNJ/judgement/09-12-2016/PNJ09122016RFAOS812016.pdf|url-status=dead|access-date=2021-03-20|archive-date=2019-05-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530065215/http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PNJ/judgement/09-12-2016/PNJ09122016RFAOS812016.pdf}}<br />{{cite web|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114459608/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126052456/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114459608/|archive-date=2020-11-26|title=The Chancellor, Masters & ... vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & ... on 9 December, 2016|website=[[Indian Kanoon]]}}</ref>

==Defence==
Rameshwari Photocopy Services argued that its preparation of the course packs fell within the bounds of fair dealing under Sections 52(1)(a) and (h) of the [[Copyright Act, 1957]]. It said that its actions do not affect the market for the plaintiffs' publications, and that the students cannot afford to buy all of the books mentioned in the course syllabi of the Delhi School of Economics.

The University of Delhi argued that Section 52(1)(i) of the [[Copyright Act, 1957]] allows students and educational institutions to reproduce parts from any work for research and educational purposes. It said that it had licensed RPS to operate within its premises to provide photocopying services to students for educational and research purposes; that under Section 52(1)(i), there is no limit to the amount of copyrighted material that may be reproduced. It argued that Section 52(1)(h) should not apply, "reproduction" as used in Section 52(1)(i) was distinct from the term "publication" used in Section 52(1)(h), with "publication" being defined in Section 3 of the Act as "making a work available to the public"; the University argued that public referred to a wider group of people than its student body. The University of Delhi also argued that the expression "course of instruction" should be broadly construed.

==Judgement==
On 17 October 2012, the Delhi High Court passed an interim stay order to grant a [[temporary injunction]] against Rameshwari Photocopy Service, preventing them from selling compiled course packs to students.<ref name="Mittal2016">{{cite news|url=https://www.livemint.com/Education/RyHIGFZjaktMtGakuAFKuK/Delhi-HC-verdict-on-publishers-appeal-in-DU-photocopy-case.html|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126021317/https://www.livemint.com/Education/RyHIGFZjaktMtGakuAFKuK/Delhi-HC-verdict-on-publishers-appeal-in-DU-photocopy-case.html|archive-date=2021-01-26|title=DU photocopy case: Delhi HC restores copyright suit by publishers|last=Mittal|first=Priyanka|date=2016-12-10|work=[[Livemint]]|publisher=[[HT Media]]}}</ref><ref name="SpicyIPOverview">{{cite web|url=https://spicyip.com/resources-links/du-photocopy-case|website=[[SpicyIP]]|archive-date=2021-01-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126063327/https://spicyip.com/resources-links/du-photocopy-case|url-status=live|access-date=2021-03-20|title=The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors. [DU Photocopying Case]|date=9 October 2016 }}</ref>

On 16 September 2016, a single-judge bench headed by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismissed the lawsuit and lifted the injunction, allowing RPS to resume selling the course packs.<ref name="Mittal2016" />

On 9 December 2016, a two-judge [[division bench]] headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog set aside the earlier judgment and allowed the lawsuit to continue, but did not re-issue the temporary injunction. Instead, it asked RPS to maintain records of course packs it supplied, and to submit periodic statements to the court. The court ruled that expert evidence would be required to determine whether the inclusion of pages from copyrighted works into the course packs is justified.<ref name="Mittal2016" />

=== 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..."<ref name="DelDivBench2016" />
* 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’...."<ref name="DelDivBench2016" />
* "...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).."<ref name="DelDivBench2016" />
* 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.."<ref name="DelDivBench2016" />

==Appeal and withdrawal==
On 9 March 2017, newspapers including ''[[Hindustan Times]]'' reported that, the three publishers announced the withdrawal of the suit against Rameshwari Photocopy service shop and not to pursue photocopy shop case further in the courts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/delhi-university-photocopy-case-three-publishers-withdraw-copyright-suit-against-shop/story-9GuzmW3H4xrq9PqLnLgRBN.html|title=Delhi University photocopy case: Three publishers withdraw copyright suit against shop|date=9 March 2017}}</ref> According to news report of ''[[The Hindu]]'', the publishers had told the division Bench that they had decided to withdraw the suit against Rameshwari Photocopy shop as they did not want to engage in a legal battle with their stakeholders — the educational institutions.<ref name="The Hindu">{{cite news|title=Won't interfere with HC relief to DU photocopy shop, says Supreme Court|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/wont-interfere-with-hc-relief-to-du-photocopy-shop-says-supreme-court/article18416546.ece|access-date=9 June 2017|agency=Press Trust of India |work=The Hindu}}</ref> Despite the main plaintiffs withdrawing the case, the [[Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation]] (IRRO) petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 9 December 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://spicyip.com/2017/04/breaking-news-irro-challenges-del-hcs-du-photocopy-judgment-before-the-supreme-court.html|title=Breaking News: IRRO Challenges Del HC's DU Photocopy Judgment Before the Supreme Court|last=Agarwal|first=Pankhuri|date=29 April 2017 |website=SpicyIP |access-date=9 June 2017}}</ref> Given that the original suit filed before the Delhi high court had been withdrawn by the publisher plaintiffs (OUP etc.) and the IRRO was merely an [[Intervention (law)|intervenor]] in the lower court proceedings, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere in the High Court order.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://spicyip.com/2017/05/breaking-news-supreme-court-refuses-to-admit-irro-appeal.html|title=Breaking News: Supreme Court Refuses IRRO Appeal in DU Photocopy Case|work=SpicyIP|access-date=2017-06-09|language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="The Hindu" />

On 3 June 2017, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' also covered an extensive story on the case illustrating data from Nielsen that despite lack of public numbers, the publishers still made considerable profitable growth in India.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/005a968c-4207-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2|title=International publishers forced to re-write approach in India|work=[[Financial Times]]}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Indian copyright law]]
*[[University of Delhi]]
*[[Delhi High Court]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
{{Wikisource|Indian Copyright Law}}
* {{cite web | url=http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/RSE/judgement/16-09-2016/RSE16092016S24392012.pdf | url-status=dead| title=The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & ANR. | publisher=High Court of Delhi | date=2016-09-16|accessdate=2021-03-20|archive-date=2016-10-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161012023005/http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/RSE/judgement/16-09-2016/RSE16092016S24392012.pdf}} (Single-judge bench judgement dated 16 September 2016)
* {{cite court|litigants=The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Others|court=[[High Court of Delhi]]|date=2016-12-09|url=http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PNJ/judgement/09-12-2016/PNJ09122016RFAOS812016.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530065215/http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PNJ/judgement/09-12-2016/PNJ09122016RFAOS812016.pdf |archive-date=2019-05-30 }} (Division bench judgement dated 9 December 2016, on appeal)
* [https://thewire.in/87821/du-photocopy-case-copyright/?fromNewsdog=1 The Biggest Winner from the DU Photocopy Case Is the University, Not Students]
* [https://spicyip.com/2017/09/a-new-indian-law-review-and-its-scholarship-on-the-du-photocopy-case.html De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law]

[[Category:Fair use case law]]
[[Category:High courts of India cases]]
[[Category:2016 in Indian case law]]
[[Category:Delhi High Court]]
[[Category:Indian intellectual property law]]
[[Category:Photocopiers]]
[[Category:Oxford University Press]]

University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service - Revision history

MerleGrier1601: put up info