Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma is a landmark case in Indian copyright law decided by Kerala High Court in which the judgment held that even substantial copying of copyrighted work is permissible under the fair dealing exception; if the copying is in public interest.

Thoppil Bhasi was an active member of the Communist Party of India and through his play he aimed to garner support for his party as well as to organize the people belonging to the allegedly lower strata of the society in a struggle against oppression, exploitation and poverty in order to bring about a revolution which would result in the victory of the workers.

All the rights in the play were first vested in Thoppil Bhasi and after his demise, the same were transferred to his legal heirs, who are also the plaintiffs of the present suit.

By the end of the play, Nair is left in a helpless condition as his own blood fell in love with a class he was exploiting and sympathized with them.

The opening scene shows the red flag and deals with the failure of the war waged by Mala and the other members.

This introductory scene ends with the entry to a character playing Thoppil Bhasi who says that he has come to see the real condition of Mala.

The Additional District Judge who was hearing the suit granted the interlocutory injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendants then appealed to the Kerala High Court and beseeched it to set aside the order restraining them from staging the play.

It was contested by the plaintiff that this was done in order to take "undue advantage of the creative talents and labor of Thoppil Bhasi" which was in violation of the Copyright Act.

The defendants argued that since the Additional District Judge did not consider the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury and hence the order passed by him was perverse.

Since there was high probability of the defense of fair dealing being applicable in the case, irreparable injury that could have been caused to the defendants should have been taken into consideration.

Since the Indian Copyright Act does not provide a definition of fair dealing, the Court relied heavily on the decision given in Hubbard v Vosper.

The Court also refused to grant the injunction on the ground that the counter-drama leveled unfounded allegations against Thoppil Bhasi, the CPI and its leaders.

Lastly, the Court also noted that the interim injunction would cause irreparable injury to the defendants as they had spent a large amount of money for staging the play.

Hence, the decision of the Additional District Judge was reversed and it was held that even if the copying was of substantial portions, the same could be excused as it constituted fair dealing.

After carrying out this analysis, it discussed how the purpose of the counter-drama was not to reproduce the drama or to convey the same idea in any substantial manner.

In The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendera Publishing House, this case was discussed and followed.

On the basis of the four factors mentioned in the US copyright statute and the decision in the instant case, the Indian Courts ruled in favor of the Defendants.

It mentions certain situations to which fair use exception would apply but in doing so it uses the words "purposes such as", thereby making it amply clear that the list is merely indicative and not exhaustive.

Furthermore, the US law has evolved and now mandates that the defendant's work should be transformative which means that it should be different in character and should not be meant to be a replacement.

This Directive expressly requires the research or private study for which copyrighted material is used to be of non-commercial nature.