Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Copyright is thus a statutory claim, and the complaint must be established within the strict provisions of the Act. Questions have come up before Courts whether an abridgment of an original work would constitute an infringement of copyright equally, whether such abridged work could upon its own status, claim the protection of copyright. Questions have arisen whether there could be copyright in a title to a work; and whether there could be copyright in a particular arrangement of a pre-existing non-copyright material, or the publication verbatim of speeches delivered by another. Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Eb I.L.R. 17 Cal. 951 is of particular interest, since the point involved was whether the selection and arrangement of non-copyright poems in such a work as Palgraw's "Golden Treasury" could claim protection. The principle was enunciated that protection could be claimed, for, as Lord Eldon laid down in Longman v. Winchester 16 Vesey 269 " in... a work consisting of a selection from various authors, two men might perhaps make the same selection; but that must be by resorting to the original authors, not by taking advantage of the selection already made by another". Walter v. Lane L.R. (1900) A.C. 539 is also of interest, because it related to the publication of verbatim transcripts of the speeches of another ; it was held that such a person was an ' author' of the report within the meaning of the Copyright Act, and entitled to protection. It has been clearly laid down that there is no copyright in a 'title ' as such, since this is not substantial enough to merit the claim to protection. It may be capable of protection only in a ' passing off action; see Dicks v. Yates L.R. (1881) 18 Ch. D. 76 (C.A.) and other authorities listed in Halsbury (Simonds Edn.), Volume 8, page 377, under paragraph 691. What is of more relevance to the present matter is that an abridgment is not an infringement of copyright, and, in itself, could be a source of copyright. Thus, there could be copyright in Notes, even though the matter contained therein might be found in standard works; see Halsbury, page 375, paragraph 688; Copinger, pages 153 and 154, Russell-Clarks, page 23 Macmillan & Company, Limited v. K. and J. Copper 46 M.L.J. 637 : I.L.R. 48 Bom. 292 (P.C.). See also Cyles v. Wilcox 2 Atk. 141.

12. We have scrutinised this argument with the care which it certainly deserves, but find that it is not tenable, in relation to the established facts of the record. No doubt, such characters as Fielding, Aziz, Adela Quested, Ronny Heaslop or Mr. Turton are creatures wholly of Mr. Forster's imagination as are, equally, the events that occurred to them and their reactions, as described in the novel. Mr. Parasuram (respondent) was not dealing with some other novel, nor did he set forth the events of the story, and give character sketches of the personalities, borrowing from any other source; his material was bodily taken from the original literary work. But the precise point is that it is this material which cannot claim protection, in its own right; the verbal expression of it is protected, and even the material may be protected as such, but only in the special case of a conversion of the novel into' dramatic form. An abridgment does not infringe copyright, and the very idea implies that the incidents and personalities in the two works are identical. Learned Counsel contends that the title " A Passage to India ", is itself symbolic; much, more is meant than the mere ship's passage which enabled Fielding to come and stay in India for some time, and what the author had in mind was the passage to the heart of the people of the vast country, India, and the impossibility of achieving this, so long as the power relationship of the ruler and the ruled subsisted ; see the last chapter. But we very much doubt if any creative writer first formulates an idea, in this form, in his mind, and then proceeds to write a work of fiction round it. Certainly, the literary work does not exist, before its expression. The idea could well be taken up by others, and treated in their own way. But even after the work has found its verbal form, it is the form which is protected, and not the theme, plot and characters. The argument could be sustained if Mr. Parasuram (respondent) had, in effect, reproduced the original work, though deviously. Certainly, he cannot be convicted of this, and his guide-book remains distinctly his creation even if it be regarded as an abridgment of the novel, in part, and, in part, a running-commentary upon it. Our study of the several authorities cited before us, does not reveal any room for this perspective of approach, as valid within the ambit of Copyright law.