Outline of the presentation at the WIPO-WTO Regional Colloquium for Intellectual Property Teachers and Researchers. Comments and suggestions may be send to arul.scaria(at)nludelhi.ac.in

1. Dr Arul George Scaria
Co-Director, CIIPC | Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi
WIPO-WTO Colloquium for Intellectual Property Teachers and Researchers in Asia
February 21, 2017
Delhi University Photocopy Shop Judgments:
An Attempt to Strike a Balance Between the Rights
of Users and Producers of Knowledge Goods?

2. Outline
 Context
 Research Questions
 Compliance with domestic law
 Compliance with the three-step test in copyright law

3. Context
 The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of
Oxford & others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services &
others – (Single Bench, Delhi High Court, September
2016)
 The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of
Oxford & others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services &
others – (Division Bench, Delhi High Court, December
2016)

4. Context
Course packs
Image source: http://www.dynamicbookstore.com/wp-content/uploads/course-packet.jpg

5. Context
 Sec. 52 (1)(i) of Copyright Act 1957:
The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of
copyright, namely:
…
(i) the reproduction of any work –
(i) by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or
(ii) as part of the questions to be answered in an exam; or
(iii) in answers to such questions

6. Context
Key aspects of -
 Single Bench decision
 Division Bench decision

7. Research Questions
 Whether the judgments are in tune with the rights and
exceptions provided under Indian copyright law?
 Whether the judgments have attempted to strike a
balance between the rights of users and producers of
knowledge goods?
 Is India violating the international obligations in this area?

8. Compliance with the domestic law
 Whether the judgments of the Delhi High Court are in
tune with the rights and exceptions provided under Indian
copyright law?
 Yes
 Whether the Courts have attempted to strike a balance
between the rights of users and producers of knowledge
goods through this judgment?
 Yes

9. Compliance with the three-step test
 Berne Convention
 Art. 9(2): It shall be a matter for legislation in the
countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such
works in certain special cases, provided that such
reproduction does not conflict with a normal
exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably
prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

10. Compliance with the three-step test
 TRIPS Agreement
 Art. 13: Members shall confine limitations or exceptions
to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do
not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work
and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
interests of the right holder.

11. Compliance with the three-step test
 Interpretation given by the Panel in WTO DS360

12. Compliance with the three-step test
 Interpretation – Max Planck Declaration
‘A Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in
Copyright Law’

13. Compliance with the three-step test
 Interpretation – Hugenholtz and Okediji
 “Limitations and exceptions that (1) are not overly broad,
(2) do not rob right holders of a real or potential source of
income that is substantive, and (3) do not do
disproportional harm to the right holders, will pass the
test.”

14. Conclusion
 The DU photocopy shop litigation - a landmark in the
access to knowledge movement
 Clarifies that copyright system is not just about copyright
holders’ rights, but also users’ rights
 An attempt to strike a balance between the rights of
users and producers of knowledge goods
 The three-step test in copyright law should enable
balanced application of limitations and exceptions

15. Thank You!
arul.scaria@nludelhi.ac.in