Educational photocopying and course packs can fall within copyright exceptions when used for instruction and prescribed academic reading.

Photocopying library extracts into university course packs did not amount to copyright infringement where the copies were made for students' instructional use and not for commercial substitution of books. Section 52(1)(i) was held to cover reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, including syllabus preparation, prescribed readings and academic study throughout the session. The court further held that Section 52(1)(h) did not apply because the course packs were not mainly non-copyright material, and Section 52(1)(a) was displaced by the specific educational exception. The arrangement was therefore treated as protected educational use.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether making photocopies of library books and compiling them into course packs for students constituted infringement of copyright. (ii) Whether the impugned acts were protected by Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, and whether Section 52(1)(h) or Section 52(1)(a) applied.

Issue (i): Whether making photocopies of library books and compiling them into course packs for students constituted infringement of copyright.

Analysis: Copyright under the Act is a statutory right and infringement arises only when the acts complained of fall within the exclusive rights conferred by Section 14 and are not saved by Section 52. Reprography and photocopying amount to reproduction of a literary work. However, the Act also recognises exhaustion in respect of copies already sold and limits infringement to acts not permitted by the statute. The Court held that the students' use of photocopied extracts from prescribed readings, through the university arrangement, did not amount to commercial exploitation or substitution of the books in the relevant statutory sense.

Conclusion: The impugned photocopying and preparation of course packs did not constitute infringement of copyright.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned acts were protected by Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as reproduction by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, and whether Section 52(1)(h) or Section 52(1)(a) applied.

Analysis: Section 52 is not to be construed as a narrow proviso or exception; the special educational clauses govern the field of education and are not controlled by the general fair dealing clause. The phrase "in the course of instruction" was held to cover the full instructional process, including syllabus preparation, prescribed readings, and study throughout the academic session, and not merely classroom teaching. Section 52(1)(h) was held inapplicable on its own terms because the course packs were not mainly composed of non-copyrighted matter. Section 52(1)(a) was held inapplicable because the educational clauses were the specific provisions governing the dispute.

Conclusion: The university's course-pack arrangement was covered by Section 52(1)(i), while Section 52(1)(h) and Section 52(1)(a) did not govern the case.

Final Conclusion: The suit failed because the challenged educational photocopying arrangement was held not to infringe copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, and no further trial was required.

Ratio Decidendi: Reproduction of copyrighted material by or for a teacher and pupil as part of the full instructional process, including prescribed reading and academic preparation, is permitted under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and does not amount to infringement unless the statute expressly forbids it.

---