Fair Use and Acts Not Amounting to Infringement — Intellectual Property Rights II Notes

Fair Use and Acts Not Amounting to Infringement

If every quotation in a book review needed the author’s permission, criticism would die; if a teacher could not read a poem aloud in class, teaching would stall. So the Act carves out a long list of permitted uses in s.52. Almost every “is it infringement?” problem in the paper is really a s.52 question — and the marks lie in naming the exact sub-clause.

Fair dealing and the s.52 exceptions

Section 52 lists acts that are declared NOT to be infringement, even though they use a copyrighted work. The umbrella idea is fair dealing — a use that is fair in purpose and extent. The main heads:

A. Fair dealing with any work — s.52(1)(a)

Fair dealing (except with a computer programme) for the purposes of:

private or personal use, including research;
criticism or review of that or another work;
reporting of current events and current affairs, including a lecture delivered in public.

“Fair” turns on the purpose, the amount taken, and the effect on the market for the original.

B. Educational and examination uses — s.52(1)(i) and (j)

s.52(1)(i) — reproduction of a literary/dramatic/musical/artistic work (i) by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction, (ii) as part of the questions to be answered in an examination, and (iii) in answers to such questions.
s.52(1)(j) — the performance of a work in the course of the activities of an educational institution, before a non-paying audience of students, staff and parents.

C. Other permitted acts

Judicial proceedings and reports of them.
Reproduction for the use of the Legislature.
Making of copies by a public library of a book of which no copy is available for sale in India (limited).
Reading or reciting a reasonable extract in public.
Reproduction in a certified copy supplied under law; making a back-up copy of software (s.52(1)(aa)).

The limits matter: fair dealing does not license wholesale copying, multiple copies, or commercial substitution for the original.

Section 52(1): “The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely — (a) a fair dealing with any work … (i) for the purposes of private or personal use, including research; (ii) criticism or review …; (i) the reproduction … by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or … as part of the questions to be answered in an examination …”

In Simple Terms: s.52 is the “it’s allowed” list. But it protects fair, limited uses only. Multiplying copies to avoid buying the book, or copying a substantial part for commercial gain, falls outside fair dealing and is infringement.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the library’s multiple photocopies

Facts. A public library, finding a foreign book too costly, gets six copies xeroxed for readers.

Rule. Fair dealing (s.52(1)(a)) protects limited private/research copying; s.52(o) allows a library to copy a book only where no copy is available for sale in India. Making multiple copies to substitute for purchase is not fair dealing.

Apply. Making six full copies is systematic, substitutional copying — well beyond a fair, private extract; the book is not shown to be unavailable for sale.

Decoy. “High price” and “library” tempt you toward the exception; but price is not a s.52 ground and multiple full copies defeats fairness.

Conclusion. The library’s act is infringement; had it made a single copy of an unavailable book for genuine research, s.52 might have saved it.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the examiner who extracts from a novel

Facts. A paper-setter picks an extract from a popular novel and frames examination questions on it. The novelist threatens suit.

Rule. s.52(1)(i)(ii) — reproduction of a work as part of the questions to be answered in an examination is not infringement.

Apply. The extract was used to set exam questions, squarely within the sub-clause; it is not a commercial republication of the novel.

Conclusion. The paper-setter is protected by s.52(1)(i); no infringement.

💡 EXAM TIP — always name the exact sub-clause

The trap. Candidates write “this is fair dealing” without the sub-clause, and lose the applied marks.

What to write. Match the facts to the precise clause — library → s.52(1)(a)/(o); exam paper → s.52(1)(i); teaching in class → s.52(1)(j); research → s.52(1)(a)(i) — then apply the fairness/quantity limit.

Why it scores. The examiner plants library/teacher/exam facts precisely to see whether you can pick the right sub-clause; the sub-clause number is the mark.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Use of a copyrighted work"]:::root
    ROOT --> A{"Fair purpose under s.52?"}:::dec
    A -->|"Research/criticism/reporting — 52(1)(a)"| P["Permitted"]:::yes
    A -->|"Teaching/exam — 52(1)(i)/(j)"| P
    A -->|"No listed purpose"| B{"Fair amount, non-substitutional?"}:::dec
    B -->|"No — multiple/whole copies"| I["Infringement"]:::no
    B -->|"Yes"| P
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef dec fill:#FDECC8,stroke:#B7791F,color:#000;
    classDef yes fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef no fill:#FDE2E2,stroke:#C0392B,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Civic Chandran v C. Ammini Amma (1996) — fair-dealing/parody; a counter-drama used extracts for criticism, not to compete.
Chancellor Masters of Oxford v Narendera Publishing House (2008) — educational fair dealing; transformative use of guides.
The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v Rameshwari Photocopy Service (2016) — course-pack photocopying for students held within s.52(1)(i) instruction.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights II topics