Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case
Rameshwari Photocopy Services is a shop licensed to it within the precincts of the Delhi School of Economics, which came into limelight due to copyright litigation filed by five prominent publishers which included Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, in a case known as the Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case .
Albeit with an initial denial by the University of Delhi, the ultimate picture which
emerged was that the professors imparting teaching in the Delhi School of
Economics had authorized preparation of course packs and Rameshwari
Photocopy Services was entrusted with the task of photocopying the pages
from the books published by the plaintiffs, and after binding the same, to
supply them to the students charging 50 paisa per page.
Rameshwari Photocopy shop background
Rameshwari Photocopy shop was established in 1998 and is owned by Mr. Dharampal.Impleadment
Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge and Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge sought and allowed for impleadment.Case of the plaintiffs
The case of the plaintiffs that the inclusion of specific pages of itspublications by Rameshwari Photocopy Services, under the authority of the
Delhi School of Economics, amounts to institutional sanction for
infringement of its copyright.
It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the
professors of the Delhi School of Economics, through its Library, issued the
books published by the plaintiffs to Rameshwari Photocopy Services for
preparing course packs.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that the course packs,
which contain no additional material apart from photocopies of its
copyrighted publications, were being used like textbooks and therefore, the
compilations prepared were competing with the publications of the plaintiffs.
According to the plaintiffs, Rameshwari Photocopy Services was operating
commercially as was evident from the rate charged by it for selling the course
pack is 40/50 paisa per page, as distinct from the market rate of 20/25 paisa
per page being charged by other photocopiers from the students while
photocopying material given by the students to be photocopied.
Anticipating that the defence would be predicated under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the plaintiffs have pleaded that Section 52 was not applicable since reproduction by Rameshwari Photocopy Services, with the assistance of Delhi School of Economics, could not be classified as reproduction by a
teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction. Additionally/alternatively the reproduction in the manner carried out by Rameshwari Photocopy Services if held falling within the ambit of Section 52 would render Section 52 superfluous was the contention. Meaning thereby, the plaintiffs had required the two sub-Sections to be harmonized. The plaintiffs have further
pleaded that Section 52 only covered reproduction in the course of
instruction‘ and not in the course of preparation for instruction‘ as was
evident from the replacement of the expression in the course of preparation
for instruction‘ in the Bill which was tabled before the Legislature with the
expression in the course of instruction‘ in the Act as finally promulgated
upon the Bill being adopted; with modifications by the Legislature.
According to the plaintiffs, reproduction by Rameshwari Photocopy Services
fell within the ambit of Section 52 and would have to be limited to two
passages from works by the same author published by the same publisher
during any period of five years as provided under the sub-Section.
Defence
Rameshwari Photocopy Services contested the copyright of theplaintiffs in the books from which the course packs were prepared.
Rameshwari Photocopy Services pleaded that the preparation of course packs
by it amounts to fair use within the meaning of Sections 52 and of the Copyright Act, 1957. Rameshwari Photocopy Services pleaded that its activity does not affect the market for the plaintiffs’ books since it charges a nominal rate for its services as fixed by the License Deed executed between the Delhi School of Economics and Rameshwari Photocopy Services. As per it, the students cannot afford to buy all the books, extracts of which were mentioned in the syllabi prepared by the Delhi School of Economics.
Apart from adopting the stand taken by Rameshwari Photocopy
Services, in its written statement, the University of Delhi pleaded that Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 permits students and educational institutions to copy portions from any work for research and educational purpose. The University pleaded that Rameshwari Photocopy Services has been licensed by it to operate a photocopy shop within its premises in order to facilitate photocopying by students for educational and research purpose. Denying issuing books to Rameshwari Photocopy Services for the purposes of preparation of course packs, the University pleaded that no limitation on the quantum of reproduction under Section 52 has been provided under the Copyright Act, 1957 and because Section 52 covers reproduction
for educational purposes, unlimited photocopying would be permitted. For
which argumentative pleadings reference to the limitation of two passages
provided under Section 52 was highlighted. The argument was that
wherever the legislature had deemed fit, it had limited the extent of the
copying which was permissible. It was argued, by way of pleading, that the
term ‘reproduction‘ used in Section 52 was distinct from the term
‘publication‘ used in Section 52, with Section 3 of the Act defining
publication‘ as making a work available to the public‘, with the term
‘public‘ having a wider connotation than the term students‘ and therefore, Section 52 would not be applicable to preparation of course packs to be used by students for an educational purpose. University of Delhi pleaded that the expression "course of instruction" must be interpreted expansively.
Highlights of Delhi Highcourt judgement on 9 December 2016
- 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..."
- 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’...."
- "...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.."
- 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.."
Announcement of withdrawing the suit
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.