On the legal case between Cambridge University Press and Delhi University following the most recent ruling of the Delhi High Court.

At a hearing of the Delhi High Court on 17 October an interim injunction was passed restraining Rameshwari Photostat and the Delhi University from reproducing substantial parts of the works of three publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis who launched the legal suit.

The Court ruled that the making of course packs by the photocopying outlet was not covered under the defence of fair dealing for purposes of private use or research.

The injunction is expected to set the scene for landmark negotiations between the Delhi University and the recently established Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO). IRRO represents Indian and international authors and publishers, and exists to facilitate access forIndian students and teaching institutions at affordable prices to copyright works.

Mr Manas Saikia, Managing Director of Cambridge University Press India, said: “This injunction should be seen not as a victory for publishers, but as one for Indian teachers and learners… Now we all know what is and is not acceptable copying, and we hope very much that IRRO and the University can conclude an agreement soon that will ensure Delhi University students will be among the first in India to benefit from the convenience and security that an IRRO licence can provide.”

However some have expressed dismay at the ruling. One Delhi local, Amlan Mohanty wrote in a recent blog post: “we can all walk away from this episode with heavy hearts, knowing that the fair dealing exceptions in the Copyright Act inserted to further education and enable access to knowledge, have failed to fulfill the very objectives they were meant to achieve.”

The Delhi ruling is in contrast to a recent ruling in Canada where the Supreme Court ruled that photocopies of short extracts from books – made by teachers for students in secondary or primary schools – should not have to pay an additional fee.

The reason for the uncertainty as to the exact meaning of the law in cases such as these stems from difference in opinion on what should be considered “fair dealing.” The fair dealing defense allows activities that would normally be considered a breach of copyright to take place for educational purposes in necessary circumstances. However this latest suit seems to suggest a move away from the broader definition of fair dealing in favour of a more stringent attitude to copyright law and publishers rights.

Source | http://www.varsity.co.uk/