- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
V. Ramaiah v. K. Lakshmaiah
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the respondent-defendant pirated his copyright in the textbook "Girija Kalyanam," which was approved by Osmania University as prescribed reading for B.A., B.Com., and B.Sc. students. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the copyright through an assignment deed dated June 15, 1937, from the original author Mocherla Ramakrishnaiah. The respondent authored a guide titled "Sri Vidya Excellent Guide" intended to assist students in understanding the original textbook. The trial court framed multiple issues, held that the plaintiff was the copyright holder, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the respondent's guide constituted a fair use under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff appealed against this dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent's act of writing and publishing the guide "Sri Vidya Excellent Guide" constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the textbook "Girija Kalyanam."
- Whether the respondent's use of the original work qualifies as a "fair dealing" under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, thus exempting it from infringement.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a perpetual injunction and damages for alleged copyright infringement.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant held copyright in the textbook "Girija Kalyanam" assigned by the original author.
- The respondent pirated the appellant’s copyrighted work by using substantial parts of the text without permission in the guide.
- The respondent’s use was unauthorized and amounted to an offence under the Copyright Act.
- The appellant was entitled to a perpetual injunction preventing the respondent from using the copyrighted material and to claim damages.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent contended that the guide was a fair use of the original work for the purpose of assisting students.
- The guide did not infringe copyright as it was consistent with the provisions of Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
- The respondent denied that the appellant held copyright in the work.
- The guide was written bona fide to help students understand and write examinations and did not amount to piracy.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Murari v. M. Ranganayakamma, 1987 2 Andhra Law Times 699 | Substantial use of important features of a copyrighted work without independent effort constitutes piracy and infringement. | The court referred to this precedent to clarify that piracy involves making substantial use of the original work without independent creation. |
| Blackwood and Sons Ltd. v. A.N Parasuraman, AIR 1959 Mad. 410 | Reproduction of a substantial part of a copyrighted work in a guide can amount to infringement; a fair reading must be adopted rather than mere word count. | The court used this precedent to assess whether the guide substantially reproduced the original work and to consider the competitive effect of the publication. |
| E.M Forster v. A.N Parasuram, AIR 1954 Mad. 331 | A students' guide to a prescribed novel was held not to infringe copyright when it clearly identified itself as a guide and did not claim to be the original work. | The court relied on this to support the view that a guide, which acknowledges the original author and is intended to assist students, may not constitute infringement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the nature and content of the respondent's guide, which consisted of three parts: meanings of difficult words, annotations and illustrations, and probable examination questions with answers. The court noted that although the guide used language from the original textbook, this did not necessarily amount to piracy. The guide was intended as an educational aid to help students understand and answer questions on the prescribed text. The court distinguished this from a scenario where the entire textbook was copied and marketed as the respondent's own work, which would clearly infringe copyright. The court applied Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which exempts fair dealing for educational purposes, and relied on precedents to analyze whether the respondent's use was substantial and unauthorized. It concluded that the respondent's work fell within the ambit of fair dealing and did not infringe the plaintiff's copyright. The court further held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant an injunction, as the balance of convenience and the nature of the use did not justify such relief.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed and the decree of the trial court is confirmed.
The court held that the respondent's guide constituted fair use under Section 52 of the Copyright Act and did not infringe the appellant's copyright in "Girija Kalyanam." Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to an injunction or damages. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, and the government was directed to collect court-fee from the appellant. No new precedent was established; the decision affirms that educational guides which assist students and acknowledge original authors may not constitute copyright infringement if they fall within the statutory fair dealing exceptions.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff at the trail had second innings in this appeal. The gravamen of his charge is that the respondent-defendant pirated his “Girija Kalyanam” Text book for profit and thereby infringed his copyright provided under Section 52 of the Copyright Act 14 of 1957 (for short “the Act”). Therefore, he laid the suit for perpetual injunction and for damages. The trial court dismissed the suit. Thus the appeal.
2. The substantial averments made in support of the relief are: One Mocherla Ramakrishnaiah wrote “Girija Kalyanam” which was approved by the Osmania University as one of the five subjects for B.A, B.Com, and B.Sc students for Paper I and II.
3. The respondent wrote a guide under the name “Sri Vidya Excellent Guide” to help the students in original language, Telugu Part I and II under Exs. A.19 to A.23 According to the plaintiff, the book was assigned to him by Mocherlala Ramakrishnaiah under a deed of assignment (Ex. A.1) dated June 15, 1937 and the Respondent-defendant pirated his (plaintiff's) rights as a copyright holder. The respondent pleaded that writing of the guide does not amount to infringement of the copyright of the appellant and he used the words fairly for the purpose of guiding the students to help them to write the examination and a fair reading of the guide prepared by him shows that his act does not amount to any infringement of copyrights and it is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 52 of the Act. The respondent also denied that the appellant is a copyright holder. The trial court framed as many as eight issues and an additional issue and held that the appellant is a copyright holder but denied the relief on the ground that the respondent fairly used the words with a view to assist or guide the students and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
4. Sri M Venkatarama, learned counsel for the appellant argued that once it is admitted that the appellant had got copyright for the book Girija Kalyanam which was prescribed by the Osmania University as a text-book, he is entitled to make use of the text-book and unless the respondent obtains copyrights from him to use it for the purpose of writing the guide, he is not entitled for the user thereof and that he not only pirated his copyright but also committed an offence. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a perpetual injunction interdicting the respondent from using the book contrary to the provisions of the Act and damages.
5. The question, therefore, is whether the act of the respondent in writing the guide is an infringement of the copyright of Girija Kalyanam. The indisputable fact is that Ramakrishnaiah wrote the text-book Girija Kalyanam which along with other subjects was prescribed by the University to be one of the text-books for the purpose of students studying B.A, B.Com and B.Sc Part I and II Telugu. It is also admitted that the respondent wrote the guide under Exs. A-10 to 23. It consists of 346 pages. “Girija Kalyanam” is from pages 300 to 346. It again consists of three parts: (i) Answers to difficult, words used in Girija. Kalyanam; (ii) Annotations; (iii) Probable and likely questions that may be asked in the subject and answers given in simple language in that regard. The contention of Sri Venkata Rao, learned counsel tor the appellant is that in all the questions the essential features used by the author were copied ad nauseam and that the language used by the author were also pirated which amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's right under Section 52(g). The question at issue is whether the act of the defendant would be an infringement. Section 52 postulates thus:—
“The following act shall not constitute an infringement of copy-right namely:
(a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of:
(i) research or private study;
(ii) x x x x x
(b) to (f) x x x x
(c) the publication in a collection, mainly composed of non-copyright matter, bona fide intened for the use of educational institutions, and so described in the title and in any advertisement issued by or on behalf of the publisher, of short passages from published literary—works for the use of educational institutions, in which copyright subsists:
Provided that not more than two such passages from works by the same author are publised by the same publisher during any period of five years.”
6. A reading of the relevant clauses would clearly indicate that a fair dealing with a literary work for purpose of private study bona fide intended for the use of educational institutions is not an infringement of the copyright possessed by an author. In Murari v. M. Ranganayakamma . 1987 2 Andhra Law Times 699. this court considered in the context of Cinematograph Act the infringement of the exclusive copyright work of the author and held that, without any independent effort if another author produces making substantial use of important features of the copyrighted work, he would be committing piracy and it is a tiespass on the private domain of the owner of the copyrighted work and thereby it is an infringement of the copyright of the original author. In Blackwood and Sons Ltd. v. A.N Parasuraman . AIR 1959 Mad. 410., Rajagopala Ayyangar, I. dealt with the case of a copyright in extenso in the contest of a guide and what a person who prepared a guide apparently did was to eliminate all those passages from the original book and keep only those portions which were essential for the narration of the story and the method adopted was to incorporate the language of the original to narrate the story leaving out those portions which constitute what may be termed “purple patches” in the work. In those circumstances, it was held that a substantial part of the work had been reproduced so as to constitute infringement and the test affording by comparing the number of words copied from the original with total number of words in the original work was somewhat mis-leading and a fair reading is to be adopted in that context. It was also held that the effect of the publication as a competitor with the plaintiff's copy-right work is only one of the factors to be taken into account for ascertaining whether the reproduction is substantial and the possibility of competition is ail that is the necessary for determining infringement of a copyright.
7. In E.M Forster v. A.N Parasuram . AIR 1954 Mad. 331., a students' guide to a novel prescribed by a University for B.A Degree was held to be not an infringement of the copyright of the original novel. Anantanarayan. J. (as he then was), speaking for a Division Bench, held:
“that taking the two works together and considering them as a whole, there was no infringement of the copyright. There was no copyright in the title. The purchasers, whether of the original work or of the guide, were most unlikely to be illiterate, or unacquainted with English. It would be perfectly clear to them, from the words enclosed in brackets as a sub-title, that they were acquiring, not the original work, but a “guide for University students”.
8. in this case the court below considered in extenso the question at issue. I have gone through the guide consisting of three portions. The first portion gives meanings to difficult words in the book written by the author Ramakrishnaiah; the second portion consists of annotations, illustrations of the meanings and the circumstances under which the theme has been used. The third part consists of four probable questions and answers that may be likely to be prescribed by the examiner from the topic Girija Kalyanam. Merely because the author of the guide, viz., the respondent used the language couched in the text-book, his conduct does not necessarily mean that he pirated the words. It is only a guide and was written to help the students to understand the meaning, significance and answers that have to be written for the questions therein or the answers to be given to the words used by the author. Suppose, the defendant used the entire text book without making any independent contribution and used it as his work and marketed it for the purpose of the general public. Certainly, his conduct would constitute an infringement of the right of the original author. But respondent acknowledged Ramakrishnaiah to be author of “Girija Kalyanam” and then wrote the guide to help the students. This book is one of five subjects prescribed for the students.
9. Considered from this perspective, I do not find any justification to hold that the respondent-defendant pirated the language used or the subject used ad nauseam so as to come within the meaning “infringement”.
10. Grant of injunction is a matter of discretion. On the facts and circumstances, the trial court did not feel it necessary to issue an injunction as prayed for by the appellant-plaintiff. I have given my anxious consideration to this question. I do not find that the lower court committed any illegality in not granting the injunction. Accordingly, the decree of the trial court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, each party is directed to bear its own costs. The Government is directed to collect the court-fee payable from the appellant.
Alert