INTRODUCTION
The relationship between copyright law and education in India has become a hot topic due to two key developments: a ruling by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and an announcement from the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in the Addala Sitamahalakshmi case allowed the copying of mathematics and science textbooks for educational purposes under fair use, aiming to make resources accessible to students from less privileged backgrounds. Conversely, NCERT’s directive on April 7, 2024, called for stricter copyright enforcement to address unauthorized copying of textbooks and protect content integrity.[1] This article examines how copyright applies to factual works, such as those presenting information, data, or facts. It reviews legal precedents and principles to determine the extent of copyright protection for these kinds of materials, including textbooks in mathematics and science, as well as compilations and derivative works. The aim is to shed light on the rights and limitations of creators, publishers, and users in educational and research contexts.
THE ROLE OF ORIGINALITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW
Originality is a key aspect of copyright law, yet its application can be complex. Copyright law is designed to protect the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, “Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something.” Similarly, facts are not eligible for copyright protection. Although individuals cannot claim ownership of factual information, the unique way in which these facts are presented can be protected. This principle ensures that while the underlying ideas and facts remain freely available, the specific manner of their presentation can be legally safeguarded. For instance, in the case of University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd,[2] the dispute revolved around whether mathematics question papers created by the University of London were eligible for copyright protection. University Tutorial Press had been compiling and publishing these question papers, leading the University of London to claim that their copyright was being infringed. Tutorial Press argued that the questions were derived from existing knowledge and thus lacked originality. The Court ruled in favor of the University of London, concluding that despite the questions’ reliance on existing knowledge, the creation of a question paper involved sufficient skill and effort to warrant copyright protection. The Court clarified that originality in copyright does not require novelty but demands a significant degree of skill and labor. This decision established a standard of originality based on the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine, which focuses on the effort involved in creating a work. However, this doctrine was later challenged by the case of Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,[3] which introduced the ‘modicum of creativity’ requirement for copyright protection. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that copyright protection requires a minimal level of creativity in the selection or arrangement of facts. Consequently, a telephone directory, which lacked any creative element, was not eligible for copyright protection. This shift moved away from a mere effort-based standard towards one that necessitates a creative component.
In India, the Supreme Court’s decision in Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D. B. Modak & Anr. set the current standard for determining originality in copyright law.[4] The case involved the publisher of the ‘Supreme Court Cases’ (SCC) journal, who sued respondents for copying SCC’s content into their software. The respondents argued that government documents, including judicial decisions, should not be subject to copyright. The Court disagreed, noting that SCC included additional elements such as headnotes, cross-references, and formatted paragraphs, which required substantial skill and creativity. The Court’s ruling emphasized that copyright protection requires more than mere labor; it also requires skill and creativity. This decision strikes a balance between the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine and the ‘modicum of creativity’ standard, providing a nuanced benchmark for copyright eligibility in India.
FAIR USE AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
The concept of fair use (or fair dealing) plays a crucial role in the context of educational materials. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling that non-literary works, such as mathematical and scientific textbooks, are not protected by copyright and are thus subject to fair use raises several concerns. By excluding these works from copyright protection, the ruling risks undermining the fundamental objectives of copyright law, which include encouraging creativity and ensuring fair access to information. This approach could potentially exacerbate issues related to piracy and limit the ability of creators to protect their unique contributions.
The case of Chancellor Masters of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House provides insight into how fair dealing is applied in Indian copyright law.[5] In this case, the High Court examined whether Section 52 of the Copyright Act, which encompasses fair dealing, was applicable to the defendant’s use of copyrighted material. The Court used the four-factor ‘fair use’ test from U.S. copyright law to evaluate whether the defendant’s guidebooks constituted fair dealing. This test considers: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (4) the effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work. The Court emphasized that all factors should be considered together, with transformative use—adding something new or serving a different purpose—being a key consideration. The Court found that the defendant’s guidebooks, which provided additional reasoning to help students, were transformative and thus qualified as fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act. This case highlights the importance of the fair dealing doctrine in balancing the rights of creators with public interest. The Court’s interpretation suggests that fair dealing should be applied flexibly, allowing for more liberal use of copyrighted materials in educational contexts. This approach aligns with the broader goals of copyright law to promote creativity and dissemination of information while protecting the rights of creators.
The broad application of the educational use exception by the Andhra Pradesh High Court overlooks the nuances of fair use, which typically involves a case-by-case analysis considering the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the use on the market. The court’s decision seems to emphasize that mathematical equations and scientific facts are laws of nature and cannot be copyrighted. While this aligns with the merger doctrine to some extent, the court failed to adequately address whether the specific presentation or arrangement of these concepts in the textbooks could be eligible for copyright protection. Furthermore, the court ruled that the textbooks in question, being non-literary, do not fall within the ambit of copyright protection. This reasoning overlooks the fact that non-literary works can still be protected if they contain original expressions. The court’s blanket exclusion of non-literary works from copyright protection does not consider the possibility that these works might include protectable original content beyond the mere presentation of facts. By excluding these works from copyright protection, the ruling potentially undermines the goals of copyright law, which include fostering creativity and ensuring equitable access to information. This decision could exacerbate issues related to piracy and limit the ability of creators to safeguard their intellectual contributions.
STRATEGIES FOR EDUCATIONAL ENTITIES
To navigate copyright challenges in educational content, institutions can adopt strategies that ensure compliance while fostering creativity. One effective method is the “spiraling” technique, which involves modifying practice questions while preserving core concepts. For example, educators can change numerical values, scenarios, or legal principles to create distinct questions. Another approach is to design original questions inspired by existing materials but introducing new variables or contexts. For instance, a legal reasoning question like “In a jurisdiction with a single-property ownership limit, Raina, who owns one house, buys another. What legal principle applies?” can be adapted to “In a jurisdiction allowing up to two properties, Shaurya, who owns a residential and a commercial property, tries to acquire a third. What legal principle would apply?” Additionally, integrating multiple legal principles into a single question or creating composite scenarios can add originality, challenging students in diverse ways. These strategies help educational entities create relevant, innovative practice materials that comply with copyright regulations.
CONCLUSION
The relationship between copyright law and education highlights the need to balance intellectual property protection with accessible learning. Recent rulings by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and directives from NCERT show the ongoing tension in this area. While fair use and educational exceptions are crucial, they must be applied carefully to avoid undermining the rights of creators. Educational institutions can navigate these challenges by adopting creative strategies that ensure compliance while fostering originality. A balanced approach will support both the protection of intellectual property and the equitable distribution of knowledge, maintaining the quality and accessibility of educational resources.
[1] National Council of Educational Research and Training, Press Release: Copyright Infringement (Apr. 7, 2024), https://ncert.nic.in/pdf/announcement/notices/Press_Release_Copyright_Infringement-NCERT.pdf.
[2] Univ. of London Press Ltd. v. Univ. Tutorial Press Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch. 601 (Eng.).
[3] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Services Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
[4] Eastern Book Co. v. D. B. Modak, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[5] Chancellor Masters & Scholars of the Univ. of Oxford v. Narendra Pub. House, (2008) 38 P.T.C. 385 (Del) (India).
