The court affirmed that copyright protects original artistic works based on expression, and infringement can occur even unintentionally, meriting damages for flagrant violations.

[1] The plaintiffs in this case have sued the defendants for alleged infringements of three artistic works over which they had claimed copyright subsisted and that they were duly protected as these works had been published in Malaysia well before the date of the alleged infringements by the defendants. The alleged infringements had occurred when the defendants had published in their book (P5) entitled 'Pendidikan Islam Tahun 1' (in Jawi), the three artistic works (drawings) in the form of three animals, namely a snake (king cobra), a turtle and a lion without first getting any permission from the plaintiffs. The said drawings of animals in the said book (P5) were to act as illustrations to describe the words that were being used to name the said animals.

[2] The defendants had, in their defence, countered that the plaintiffs had no copyright over those three drawings in that anybody could have drawn such drawings or pictures and that these drawings were similar to other drawings anywhere. In other words, those drawings were not originals and therefore deserved no protection under the copyright law.

[3] The law on copyright protects works, expressed in material form by persons, which were products of their own substantial skill and labour. An infringement of such work occurs when the infringing work is substantially the product of animus furandi where the infringer had spared himself labour and time but instead, had taken a free ride off the fruits of the copyright owner's ingenuity and effort. I think that the words of Justice Peterson in the case of University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601 quite clearly encapsulate what the concept on the requirement of originality really means when he said at p. 620 as follows: "... the word 'original' does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of 'literary work', with the expression of thought in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought. But the Act does not require that the expression must be original or novel in form, but that the work must not be copied from another work - that it should originate from the author". So, a drawing that is simply traced from another is not an original artistic work, as was ruled by Megarry J in the case of British Northrop Ltd v. Texteam (Blackburn) Ltd [1974] RPC 57. With respect, I think that the legal position in Malaysia relating to the meaning of the word 'original' is similar to the one obtaining in England and as understood in the University of London Press Ltd's case (supra ). In Malaysia, s 6 of the Copyright Act 1987 clearly stipulates under s 6 therein that 'subject to this Act, no copyright shall subsist otherwise than by virtue of this Act'. In the context of proving the existence of copyright under this Act of 1987, a claimant may resort to the provisions of s 42 therein.

[4] The plaintiffs had called two witnesses to prove their claim. They both had testified that they had expended effort and skill to produce the three said drawings. They had also used the computer to improve the drawings. They said that they had looked at other pictures of the three animals but only for the purpose of getting imagination or inspiration. They both testified that the said three drawings were entirely products of their own labour, efforts and skills. They had produced the 'originals' of the three drawings. They disagr