Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Copyright, Culture and Contemporary Debates: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Fair Dealing in India


Affiliations
1 National Law University Delhi, Sector14, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 078, India., India
 

As technological developments continue to disrupt creative industries, they put to test our copyright doctrine. The recent litigation initiated against Sci-Hub and LibGen by three publishers raises complex questions permeating the Indian copyright regime. In this context, it is important to determine the values our copyright systemserves and the standards of ‘fairness’ it demands to exempt certain infringements. This paper studies the Indian fair dealing jurisprudence from a theoretical standpoint to argue that it lacks a robust normative foundation. It first maps the prevalent theories of copyright and suggests that the cultural theory notonly exposes gaps in the dominant incentive theory but also offers a more comprehensive understanding of copyright. It then analyses Indian fair dealing cases from this viewpoint. While the jurisprudence is largely inconsistent, analysis of two important cases reveals thatwhile their outcome was desirable from a cultural theory perspective, their doctrine is insufficient to excuse certain socially-valuable infringements. Their emphasis on transformativeness coupled with an implicit bar on verbatim reproductions is critical. It is suggested that the Indian fair dealing jurisprudence is unfit to foster a just and attractive culture; one that strives to attain pluralistic values essentialfor the ‘good life’.

Keywords

Copyright, Fair Dealing, India, Sci-Hub, Cultural Theory, Section 52.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Swartz A, Guerilla Open Acess Manifesto, (Internet Archive, July 2008) https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccess Manifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt (accessed on 17 April 2022).

  • Lessig L, The People own Ideas! MIT Technology Review, 1 June 2005, https://www.technologyreview.com/2005/06/01/ 230913/the-people-own-ideas/ (accessed on 17 April 2022).

  • Menell P S, Envisioning Copyright Law’s digital future, NY L Sch L Rev,46 (2002) 63.

  • The creative commons license, which offers a techno-legal tool enabling authors of literary works to licence their works in a simple and standardized manner. What We Do, Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/about/ (accessed on 15 April 2022).

  • For a detailed examination of these “copyright wars”, Patry W, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, OUP, 2009.

  • A&M Records, Inc v Napster, Inc, 239 F.3d 1004. For a detailed analysis of the decision and its impact, Gartner G2 and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World, 2005, https://cyber.harvard.edu/wg_home/uploads/254/2003-05.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2022).

  • Elsevier Inc et al v Sci-Hub et al., 15 Civ 4282(RWS).

  • Larivière V, Haustein S & Mongeon P, The oligopoly of academic publishers in the Digital Era, PLoS ONE,10 (6) 2015 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (accessed on 16 April 2022).

  • Like-Minded IP Teachers, Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, Social Dimensions of Copyright Infringement and Enforcement: A Quick Reflection in the context of Sci-Hub Litigation’, 2021, https://osf.io/6yph7/ (accessed on 15 April 2022).

  • Aditi, Following piracy suit before Delhi High Court, Sci-Hub agrees to not upload new Elsevier, Wiley, American Chemical Society content, (Bar and Bench, 26 December 2020), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/piracy-suit-delhi-high-court-sci-hub-agrees-to-not-upload-content-elsevier (accessed on 14 April 2022).

  • Agarwal S, Matter of public importance concerning entire scientific community: Delhi HC refuses to restrain LibGen Publications, LiveLaw, 6 January 2021, http://www.livelaw.in.nludelhi.remotexs.in/news-updates/ delhi-high-court-copyright-sci-hub-lib-gen-elsevier-168051 (accessed on 14 April 2022).

  • Julie Cohen et al., Copyright in a Global Information Economy (4 th edn, Aspen 2006).

  • Fisher W, Theories of intellectual property, 1987, https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2022).

  • The amicus brief filed by 17 leading economists (including 5 Nobel laureates) in the Eldred vAshcroft litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States wherein they make important theoretical arguments about the social effects of the Copyright Term Extension Act, 1998. https://cyber.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/supct/ami ci/economists.pdf(accessed on 16 April 2022).

  • Elkin-Koren N & Salzberger E, The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: The Limits of Analysis(1 st edn, Routledge 2012).

  • Benkler Y, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, YUP, 2006, 2-3.

  • LockeL, Two Treatises on Government, Book II, Ch V (1690).

  • Gordon W, A property right in Self-Expression: Equality and individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, Yale L J,102 (1993) 1533, 1545.

  • Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia(New York: Basic Books, 1974) 178-82.

  • Ginsburg J, A tale of two copyrights: Literary property in revolutionary France and America, Tl L Rev,64 (1990) 991, 992.

  • Radin M J, Property and personhood, Stan L Rev, 34 (1982) 957, 971-978.

  • The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women and Utilitarianism, Modern Library, 2002.

  • Besen S M &Raskind L J, An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property, J Econ Perspect,5(1) (1991) 3, 11.

  • Landes W & Posner R, An economic analysis of Copyright Law, J Leg Stud,18 (1989) 325.

  • Benkler Y, The Economics of Information Production’ in Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, YUP, 2006.

  • Sunder M, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice, YUP, 2012, 82-94.

  • Amartya Sen’s critique of liberal conceptions of rationality, objectivity and neutrality, AmartyaSen, The Idea of Justice (Penguin Books 2010).

  • Raustiala K & Sprigman C J, When are IP rights necessary? Evidence from innovation in IP’s negative space in Ben Deporter, Peter Menell & David Schwartz (eds), Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019).

  • Gallaway T & Kinnear D, Open Source Software, the wrongs of copyright, and the rise of technology, J of Econ Issues, 38(2) (2004) 467.

  • Lerner J, 150 years of Patent Protection, 1999, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.179188 (accessed on 14 April 2022).

  • Cohen et al., Copyright in Context in Julie Cohen et al., Copyright in a Global Information Economy (4 th edn, Aspen 2006).

  • Cohen J, Copyright, Creativity and Cultural Progress in Julie Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (2012) https://juliecohen.com/ configuring-the-networked-self/ (accessed on 13 April 2022).

  • Cohen J, Decentering Creativity in Julie Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (2012) https://juliecohen.com/configuring-the-networked-self/ (accessed on 13 April 2022).

  • Cohen J, Copyright, Creativity and Cultural Progress in Julie Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (2012) https://juliecohen.com/ configuring-the-networked-self/ (accessed on 13 April 2022) 82-99.

  • Bartow A, Fair Use and the fairer sex: Gender, feminism, and Copyright Law, Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 14 (3) (2006) 551.

  • Sen A, The Idea of Justice(Penguin Books 2010) 225-235.

  • Nussbaum M, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach(CUP 2000) 86-96.

  • Fisher W, Theories of intellectual property, 1987, https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf, 4-5, (accessed on 6 March 2022).

  • Nussbaum M, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach(CUP 2000) 78-80.

  • Sunder M, IP 3 , Stan L rev,59 (2) (2006) 257, 324.

  • Hart C S, The capability approach and education, Cambridge J of Edu, 2012, 275, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2012. 706393 (accessed on 13 April 2022).

  • Netanel N, Copyright and a democratic civil society, Yale L J, 106 (2) (1996) 283, 341-346.

  • Balkin J M, Digital speech and democratic culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the information society, NYU L Rev, 79 (2004) 1, 43.

  • Shaver L, Copyright and inequality, Wash U L Rev,92 (2014) 117.

  • Tushnet R, Copy this essay: How Fair Use Doctrine harms free speech and how copying serves it,Yale L J, 114 (2004) 535, 565.

  • Goldstein P, Fair use in a changing world, J Copyright Soc'y USA, 50 (2002-03) 133, 139.

  • Chon M, Intellectual property from below: Copyright and capability for education, UC Davis L Rev,40 (2007) 803, 839-40.

  • Talagala C, Copyright Law and Translation: Access to Knowledge in Developing Economies, Routledge, 2021, 8-9.

  • Decision of the Delhi High Court in The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services, MANU/DE/2497/2016.

  • The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services, MANU/DE/2497/2016 [28].

  • The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Services, MANU/DE/3285/2016 [31].

  • Civic Chandran and others v AmminiAmma and others [1996] 16 PTC 329.

  • Priyadarshi G & Chandrashekhar A C, Fair Dealing under Indian Copyright Act: A defense against claim of infringement of literary works, NUALS LJ,5 (2011) 71.

  • Academy of General Edu, Manipal and Ors vB Malini Mallya, MANU/SC/0146/2009 [20].

  • Harper & Row Publishers v Nation Enterprises, 47 U.S. 539 (1985), 588.

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/2008.

  • Civic Chandran vC AmminiAmma, MANU/KE/0675/1996.

  • India T vIndependent News Service Pvt Ltd v Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd, MANU/DE/3928/2012 [39].

  • India T vIndependent News Service Pvt Ltd v Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd, MANU/DE/3928/2012 [42]-[55].

  • Fisher W, Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine, Harv L Rev, 101 (8) (1988) 1659.

  • Rupendra Kashyap v Jiwan Publishing House, MANU/DE/0749/1996 [21].

  • Super Cassettes Industries Ltd v Hamar Television Network Pvt Ltd and Ors, MANU/DE/1128/2010 [9].

  • ICC Development (International) Ltd vNew Delhi Television Ltd, MANU/DE/4483/2012 [11].

  • Tips Industries Ltd v Wynk Ltd [36].

  • Order dated 1 October 2013, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/ 121369009/ (accessed on 16 April 2022).

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/2008.

  • Civic Chandran vC AmminiAmma, MANU/KE/0675/1996.

  • Jacques S, The Parody Exception in Copyright Law (OUP 2019), 138; V Ramaiahv K Lakshmaiah, MANU/AP/0292/1988 [3]-[4].

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford vNarendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/ 1377/2008 [5], [15].

  • Order dated 5 December 2005 in CS(OS) No.1656/2005, http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=307882&yr =2005(accessed on 5 June 2022).

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/ 1377/2008 [37].

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/ 2008 [34].

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/ 2008 [33].

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/ 2008 [29].

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/ 2008 [30].

  • Campbell vAcuff-Rose Music, Inc, 510 US 569.

  • Campbell vAcuff-Rose Music, Inc, 510 US 569 [34].

  • Campbellv Acuff-Rose Music, Inc, 510 US 569 [35].

  • Beebe B, An empirical study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions updated, 1978-2019,NYU J Intell Prop &Ent L,10 (1) (2020) 27.

  • The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House, MANU/DE/1377/ 2008 [23], [32].

  • Civic Chandran v C AmminiAmma, MANU/KE/0675/1996 [16]-[19].

  • Civic Chandran v C AmminiAmma, MANU/KE/0675/1996 [20].

  • Civic Chandran vC AmminiAmma, MANU/KE/0675/1996 [8].

  • Fisher W, Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine, Harv L Rev, 101(8) (1988) 1659, 1687-88.

  • Tushnet R, Copy this essay: How Fair Use Doctrine harms free speech and how copying serves it, Yale L J,2004, 114, 535, 559.

  • Tushnet R, Copy this essay: How Fair Use Doctrine harms free speech and how copying serves it, Yale L J,2004, 114, 562-80.

  • Tushnet R, Copy this essay: How Fair Use Doctrine harms free speech and how copying serves it, Yale L J,2004, 114 586.

  • Beebe B, An empirical study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions updated, 1978-2019,NYU J Intell Prop &Ent L,10 (1) (2020) 27, 30.

  • Dworkin R, Hard cases, Harv L Rev,88 (6) (1975) 1057.


Abstract Views: 117

PDF Views: 93




  • Copyright, Culture and Contemporary Debates: A Jurisprudential Analysis of Fair Dealing in India

Abstract Views: 117  |  PDF Views: 93

Authors

Chelsea Sawlani
National Law University Delhi, Sector14, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 078, India., India

Abstract


As technological developments continue to disrupt creative industries, they put to test our copyright doctrine. The recent litigation initiated against Sci-Hub and LibGen by three publishers raises complex questions permeating the Indian copyright regime. In this context, it is important to determine the values our copyright systemserves and the standards of ‘fairness’ it demands to exempt certain infringements. This paper studies the Indian fair dealing jurisprudence from a theoretical standpoint to argue that it lacks a robust normative foundation. It first maps the prevalent theories of copyright and suggests that the cultural theory notonly exposes gaps in the dominant incentive theory but also offers a more comprehensive understanding of copyright. It then analyses Indian fair dealing cases from this viewpoint. While the jurisprudence is largely inconsistent, analysis of two important cases reveals thatwhile their outcome was desirable from a cultural theory perspective, their doctrine is insufficient to excuse certain socially-valuable infringements. Their emphasis on transformativeness coupled with an implicit bar on verbatim reproductions is critical. It is suggested that the Indian fair dealing jurisprudence is unfit to foster a just and attractive culture; one that strives to attain pluralistic values essentialfor the ‘good life’.

Keywords


Copyright, Fair Dealing, India, Sci-Hub, Cultural Theory, Section 52.

References