University of Botswana Law Journal - PULP

174 UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA LAW JOURNAL DECEMBER 2010
4. FAIR DEALING FOR REPORTING CURRENT
EVENTS
Fair dealing with copyrighted material for the purpose of reporting current
events in print or broadcast media also accepts the infringer. 35 However,
compilation of addresses or speeches is not a fair dealing. 36 In Civic Chandran
v Ammini Amma, the Court laid down that the reproduction of the whole work
or a substantial portion of it as such will not normally be permitted and only
extracts or quotations from the work. Also, the quantity of extracts permissible
will vary from case-to-case. Fair dealing for reporting current events is
permitted because of the right to know, held to be a part of the right to freedom
of speech and expression. 37 In UK, the scope of this exception came for
consideration recently in Ashdown v Telegraph Group, 38 where a newspaper
had published extracts of a confidential diary minute of a political meeting. The
Court rejected the contention that this fell within the fair dealing exception,
because of the extent of reproduction made for the defendants’ commercial
interests. Having said that, it is submitted that right to privacy 39 and the right
to know must be balanced in such a manner that neither the public is left
unaware, nor is the citizen whose privacy has been impinged upon, is left
without legal recourse.
5. CONCLUSION
While examining the limits of fair dealing exceptions in Indian law, the basic
rule of statutory interpretation that “exceptions must be construed strictly and
strongly against the party trying to take the benefit” must be regarded. As I
have shown above, fair dealing as a defence is nothing but an exception carved
out from the general rule of infringement of a copyrighted work. This
exception is to ensure that giving a monopoly to the author of the work must
be balanced with the public interest of allowing taking on from there and
developing the work through research and study, as also with the right to know
by allowing dealing for the purpose of reporting current events. However, these
exceptions must be limited to the purposes permitted in the Act, and such acts
must be construed giving due regard to the rights bestowed on the copyrightholder
under Section 14, instead of a broad reading leaving room for judicial
creativity as it exists in American Copyright law. Such a strict reading is
evident from Blackwood v Parasuraman, 40 where the Court held that if the
35 Section 52(1) (b), Copyright Act.
36 Explanation to Section 52(1) (b), Copyright Act.
37 Reliance Petrochemicals v Indian Express Newspapers, (1988) 4 SCC 592.
38 [2001] EWCA Civ. 1142.
39 Also held to be a fundamental right within Article 21, Constitution of India. See: Gobind v State of M.P.,
(1975) 2 SCC 148.
40 AIR 1959 Mad 410.