Talk:University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service

Merger proposal

It seems a stub article was created in full name of the case. After Feb 2017 it did not get much edits beyond categorisation. Full name article is The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case)

1) For one full name of the case too long and defficult to search since it begins with 'The' 2) There can be many other cases where in Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford and Delhi university will be involved but name of Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case likely to remain more unique. 3) The full name article can always be redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Hence I do suggest we do merge The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case) be merged in and redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Please let me know your views at Talk:Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case#Merger proposal

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Brought following old content for merger Mahitgar (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors.,[1] colloquially known as the DU Photocopy Case, is a landmark judgement by the Delhi High Court passed on September 16, 2016, where the court held that the creation and photocopying of course packs by the University of Delhi and its agents is not an infringement of the copyright in the underlying works which are being copied, since the same amounts to Fair use under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The case is notable for its broad interpretation of Fair use in education and cementing fair use as a user right in Indian copyright jurisprudence.

References

Timeline of the case

Article Section drafting work in process :

• amendment with effect from 21st June, 2012 ....Section 52(1)(h) as it existed in the statute book before the Copyright Act was amended by Act No.27 of 2012, which is identical to clause (i) post amendment of the Act, was interpreted by the Division Bench as incorporating fair use. First ref
• Case came before single bench 14th August, 2012 .....a Commissioner appointed to visit the premises of the defendant No.1 without prior notice and to make an inventory of all the infringing and pirated copies of the plaintiffs‘ publication found and to seize and seal the same....
• Local Commissioner who visited the premises on August 18, 2012. report submitted in the suit by a learned Local Commissioner date August 27, 2012
• ad-interim order dated 17th October, 2012
• ...The hearing of the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC commenced on 25th April, 2013 and concluded on 21st November, 2014 ....
• Judgement dated 16 September 2016
• Judgement dated December 9, 2016

Mahitgar (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Out of date references

• Lawrence Liang: The Delhi University photocopy case The MacMillan Report on YouTube

Mahitgar (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)