Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Narendra Publishing House and Ors

The case of Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Narendra Publishing House and Ors is a significant judgement by the Delhi High Court concerning copyright law, particularly in the domain of educational materials. It deals with the questions of originality, fair dealing, and the applicability of copyright to mathematical questions contained in textbooks. The case is pivotal in understanding the evolving nature of copyright jurisprudence in India, especially in light of modern education and publishing practices.

Facts of Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Narendra Publishing House and Ors

The plaintiffs, the University of Oxford, published textbooks for Class XI students in accordance with the curriculum prescribed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education. The Board entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs, granting them copyright in these textbooks.

• The textbooks contained exercises with answers but did not provide step-by-step solutions.
• The defendants (Narendra Publishing House and Ors.) published guidebooks that provided detailed, step-by-step solutions to the problems in the plaintiffs’ textbooks.
• The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ guidebooks amounted to substantial copying of the questions from their textbooks.
• The defendants countered that their guidebooks were an independent creation that merely facilitated students in understanding the problems.

The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing the guidebooks. The Delhi High Court was tasked with determining:

• Whether the mathematical questions and exercises in the textbooks are eligible for copyright protection.
• Whether the defendants’ guidebooks constitute fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act.

Issues Before the Court

The key issues before the court in Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Narendra Publishing House and Ors were:

• Can the mathematical questions in the plaintiffs’ textbooks qualify for copyright protection?
• If copyright exists, does the doctrine of “fair dealing” provide a valid defence for the defendants?

Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Narendra Publishing House and Ors Judgement

The Issue of Originality in Copyright Protection

The fundamental principle of copyright law is that it protects expressions but not ideas or facts. The key statutory provision governing originality is Section 13 of the Copyright Act, which grants protection only to “original” literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works.

The concept of originality in Indian copyright law has evolved over time. Earlier cases followed the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which granted copyright protection based on labour and effort. However, after Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (EBC case), Indian courts adopted a higher threshold of originality, known as the “modicum of creativity” standard (drawn from Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service in the United States). This standard requires that an original work must exhibit some degree of creativity beyond mere effort.

• The plaintiffs relied on older “sweat of the brow” cases but failed to show how their arrangement of questions was unique or creative.
• The court held that the plaintiffs’ questions were based on the prescribed syllabus and did not contain a distinct creative expression.
• The court concluded that merely formulating and arranging mathematical questions does not meet the required threshold of originality.

Thus, the plaintiffs’ claim for copyright protection was rejected.

The Doctrine of Merger and Mathematical Questions

The doctrine of merger states that if an idea and its expression are inseparable, then copyright protection cannot be granted to avoid granting a monopoly over the idea itself.

• The court reasoned that mathematical questions express fundamental laws of nature, which can only be expressed in limited ways.
• Extending copyright protection to mathematical questions would effectively restrict access to underlying mathematical principles.
• Consequently, the court held that mathematical questions fall within the scope of the merger doctrine and cannot be copyrighted.

However, the court in Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford vs Narendra Publishing House and Ors made a distinction between different types of mathematical questions:

• Basic mathematical equations → Not copyrightable, as they can only be expressed in a limited manner.
• Fact-based mathematical problems that present a unique scenario → Potentially copyrightable if they demonstrate sufficient originality.

Since the plaintiffs failed to prove any unique creative arrangement, their textbooks did not qualify for copyright protection.

The Defense of Fair Dealing

Even if the plaintiffs’ questions had been copyrightable, the defendants argued fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which allows certain uses of copyrighted material without infringement.

• Two legal approaches to fair use:
  1. US “Fair Use” Doctrine → Broad, flexible exceptions determined case-by-case.
  2. UK and Indian “Fair Dealing” Doctrine → Specific statutory exceptions with limited flexibility.

Though India follows fair dealing, the High Court borrowed principles from US fair use to apply a four-factor test:

1. Purpose and character of use → Was the guidebook transformative or merely a reproduction?
2. Nature of the copyrighted work → Was it factual or highly creative?
3. Amount and substantiality of portion copied → How much was taken from the original work?
4. Effect on the market value of the original work → Would the guidebook harm the commercial viability of the textbook?

Findings on Fair Dealing

• The defendants’ guidebooks provided a step-by-step explanation, which was different in purpose from the plaintiffs’ textbooks.
• The guidebooks did not copy the theoretical content of the textbooks.
• The court ruled that providing step-by-step solutions qualifies as “review” under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act.
• Since the guidebooks were transformative and catered to students struggling with problems, they fell within fair dealing.

Thus, the court in Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Narendra Publishing House and Ors held that the defendants had not infringed the plaintiffs’ copyright.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House and Ors reinforces a strict standard for originality while broadening the scope of fair dealing in education. The decision ensures that copyright law does not stifle educational access, while also preventing the monopolisation of basic academic content. However, the judgement also highlights the need for clear legislative guidelines to address the uncertainty arising from fair dealing provisions.