Back
1923 Supreme(SC) 55
Privy Council
Sir Robert Younger, Carson , Wrenbury, Shaw, Justice Atkinson, JJ.
Macmillan and Company, Limited -Appellant
Versus
K. and J. Cooper -Resopndent
P.C.A. No. 16 of 1923
Decided On : 14-12-1923
Orr Dignams, Sanderson, H. Hardy, E.B. Raikes, W.H. Upjohn, A.T. Macmillan, E.F. Macgillinray, F.D. Mackinnon, T.L. Wilson and Co., John Simon
Copyright in a compilation of public domain materials requires sufficient labour, skill, or judgment. While mere selection of passages may not suffice for originality, original and valuable annotations that impart real value to the work are protectable as original literary works.
Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1911 - Sections 1 and 31 - Originality in literary works - Originality does not mean the expression of original or inventive thought, but that the work must originate from the author and not be copied from another work - Copyright is a statutory right protecting the expression of thought in print or writing. (Paras 15, 24)
(B) Copyright in Compilations - A work consisting of selected passages from a public domain source, arranged to appear as a continuous narrative, is not an abridgment in the legal sense - To constitute a protectable abridgment, the work must preserve the substance in language substantially different from the original, requiring the exercise of mind, labour, skill, and judgment - Mere selection of passages from works accessible to the public is generally insufficient to grant the character of an 'original literary work' unless significant skill is manifested in the arrangement or selection. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(C) Copyright in Annotations - The addition of notes to a public domain text creates a copyright if the notes are not superficial or colourable but impart true and real value to the book - Such annotations involving an exercise of intellect and application of learning place the annotator in the position of an author. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The appellants published a book for students consisting of selected passages from a translation of a classical work, arranged to form a narrative. The respondents published a similar book using the same selection of passages and copied the notes and glossary provided by the appellants. The original translation used by both parties was not subject to copyright. The appellants sought to restrain the respondents from distributing the book and to recover damages for copyright infringement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants were not entitled to copyright in the selected text of the book because the process of selection did not involve sufficient labour, skill, or judgment. However, the notes and glossary were well-chosen, condensed, and required classical knowledge and taste, and were servilely copied by the respondents, constituting an infringement of copyright.
Issues: Whether a compilation consisting of selected passages from a public domain work is entitled to copyright and whether the accompanying notes and glossary constitute an original literary work.
Ratio Decidendi: Originality in copyright law requires that the work originates from the author and is not copied. While the mere selection of passages from a public domain work may not involve enough skill or judgment to merit copyright, the addition of substantial, valuable notes requiring intellect and learning creates a protectable interest in those specific annotations.
Result: Decree of the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction set aside; decree of the first court amended to grant protection only for the notes and glossary.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
intellectual property
-
copyright
-
originality
- compilations and selections
- annotations and notes
- infringement
-
originality
-
copyright
Lord Atkinson :-
The action out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the appellants to restrain the respondents, K. and J. Cooper, a firm carrying on in Bombay the trade and business of publishers of educational books, from printing, distributing or otherwise disposing of copies of a certain book published by them hereinafter described, and to recover damage and other relief. The ground on which this relief was claimed was that the appellants were entitled to the copyright of a certain book entitled "Plutarch's Life of Alexander, Sir Thomas North's Translation. Edited for Schools by H.W.M. Parr, M.A.," and that the respondents by the publication subsequently in the year 1918 of their aforesaid book entitled "Plutarch's Life of Alexander the Great, North's Translation, edited with Introduction, Marginalia, Notes and Summary by A. Darby, M.A.," had infringed the copyright to which the appellants were entitled in the earlier compilation.
The text of the appellants' book consisted of a number of detached passages, selected from Sir Thomas North's translation, words being in some instances introduced to knit the passages together so that the text should as far as possible, present the form of an unbroken narrative. The passages so selected were, in the original translation, by no means contiguous. Considerable printed matter in many instances separated the one from the other. North's translation consisted of 40,000 words; the text of the appellants' book contained half of them, i.e., 20,000 words, while the book published by the respondents contained not only the aforesaid 20,000 words but 7,000 words in addition.
In addition to this text comprising the 20,000 words, the appellants' book contained much printed matter which was omitted from the respondents' book, namely marginal notes, an introduction dealing with North's translation and Alexander's place in history, an analysis of the book's contents, a chronological table setting forth the principal dates in Alexander's life, and a few short notes introduced into the text styled transition notes. The text was divided into six chapters; notes bearing on the text and a glossary were appended.
On the 14th October, 1917, notice had by order of the Syndicate of the Bombay University been published prescribing certain text-books in English which were required to be used for the Matriculation Examination to be held in this University in the year 1919. The appellants' book was included in that list. The title of the appellants' book gives an indication of the purpose for which it was compiled; but it does not clearly appear from the evidence what was the precise purpose or object of the appellants in limiting the text to 20,000 words and compressing it as they did. It may possibly have been that its length was so limited in order that its contents might be mastered in the time available for its study, and it also may have been limited because the appellants desired to exclude everything from it which might be of an indecent or indelicate character, or which it might be thought undesirable for school boys to peruse or study. It did not, it would appear to their Lordships, require great knowledge, sound judgment, literary skill or taste to be brought to bear upon the translation to effect any of these objects as the passages of the translation which had been selected are reprinted in their original form, not condensed, expanded, modified or reshaped to any extent whatever.
In or about the month of November, 1917, the respondents published a handbill headed, "Bombay Matriculation, 1919, Now Ready. Poetical Series, etc.' The last book mentioned in the list was the respondents' book entitled as already set forth, with an announcement that it would soon be ready. The following sentences were then added :-
"In response to .... should bring out reliable annotated editions of English Texts prescribed for the Bombay Matriculation examination, we have this time published such editions, in the c
