In a landmark Judgement the Delhi High Court has dismissed a
petition filed by a group of international publishers against a bookseller in
the Delhi University's north campus. A plea was filed by a group of international publishers
who argued against the sale of photocopies of their textbooks.
The Delhi High Court's verdict pronounced that-
photocopying portions of academic publications to make course packs for
students does not amount to copyright infringement. This has been considered by many as a victory for the wider community interest .This
will further ensure affordable access to
quality educational material.
The instant
Question of Law held in the suit filed
by the plaintiff (Oxford University
Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis) was whether the making of course packs by the
Delhi University by authorising a photocopying store to make numerous copies of
course material drawn from different books amounts to copyright infringement.
The court says copyright is not a natural or common law
right in India, but is subject to statute. It proceeds to hold that
photocopying for academic purposes is not an infringement as" Section
52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act
permits the making of copies of literary works by a teacher or pupil ‘in the
course of instruction’, a phrase interpreted to cover whole academic sessions,
from the preparation of syllabus onwards."
The above judgement of the High Court clearly reflects
the judiciary's efforts to balance
copyright protection with the public interest -access for all, given that
the law contains provisions barring infringement of copyright and
listing acts that do not constitute infringement. The plaintiff had cited the clauses and articles of the Berne
Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, which provide for domestic
legislation to permit reproductions for specific purposes. However the
judge held this is as "No-infringement'
as these above mentioned clauses clearly mention -'as long as they do not conflict
with normal exploitation of the works or unreasonably prejudice the
rights-holder.'It was thus held by the court that such photocopying doesn't
lead to unreasonble prejudice or exploitation of the publishers.
The publishers had
argued that universities should not
allow unrestricted photocopying, but instead apply for licences through the
Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation, a registered copyright society.
This judgement raises few important questions about good of
the public versus the claims of the publishers regarding unrestricted copyright
protection.
No comments:
Post a comment