- JUDGMENT SUMMARY: University of London Press Ltd. v. University of Tutorial Press Ltd.
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26 July 1916
- BENCH: Peterson J
SUBJECT:
The present case deals with the scope of literary works under Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act. Examination papers are original literary works within the meaning of Copyright law.
FACTS:
The examiners, Mr Jackson, and Professor Lodge were appointed for the matriculation exam of the University of London as in charge of creating the exam papers for mathematics. Later, the University entered into a contract with the University of London Press Ltd., assigning it the copyrights and rights of publication to any specific exams for a fixed period of 6 years. After the examination, University Tutorial Press Ltd. published an exam from the previous year as well, containing 16 out of 42 exams from January 1916, along with answers to the questions and criticism on the papers. Among the 16 exams, three of them were written by Mr Jackson and Professor Lodge. Subsequently,the University of London Press proceeded against University Tutorial Press for copyright infringement over the published exams.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Sec 2(o) and section 13(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Section 2(o)- definition of literary works
- Section 13- the subject matter of Copyright
ISSUES:
The main issues in question before the court were:
- Whether the question papers set up by examiners comes within the scope of literary works or not?
- Assuming them as literary works, whether they are ‘original’?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
Court's observations:
It was held that the question papers set up by the examiners came within the scope of literary work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1911 (British).
The Court observed that the word ‘original’ did not in that connection meant that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought.The Copyright Acts were not concerned with the original idea, but with the expression of thought. In the case of literary work, it is concerned with the expression of thought in print or writing. It was held that the plaintiffs proved that they had thought out the questions which they set and that they made notes or memoranda for future questions which they set. The papers which the professors prepared originated from themselves and were within the meaning of the Act, original. In response to the arguments that the questions in the elementary papers are of a common type, the Court held that most elementary books of mathematics may be said to be of a common type, but that fact would not give an exception to a predatory infringer. The book and the papers in a similar way originate from the author and are not copied by him from another book or other papers.
Justice Peterson gave a rough test for originality, which has been criticized in modern times: "...what is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting". In the decision, University Tutorial Press was found to have infringed the University of London Press' copyright.
Conclusion:
Thus, it is clear from the judgment that copyright law has nothing to do with the original idea. Moreover, it is concerned with the concept of the original expression of ideas. Where the expression is an original one, the creator will certainly come within the ambit of copyright protection and shall be entitled to get the copyright for his creation. In this case, the British Court held that the literary work, with an original expression of thought in print or writing medium, comes under the subject of the copyright law.
