Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. 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 am 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-existina non-copyright material, or the publication verbatim of speeches delivered by another. Macmillan v. Suresh Chander Deb, ILR 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 palgrave'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, (1809) 15 Ves 269 ".............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."

1900 AC 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 substantially enough to merit the claim to protection. It may be capable of protection only in a "passing off" actions: See Dicks v. Yates, (1881) 18 Ch D 76 and other authorities listed in Halsbury (Simonds Edn.) Vol. 8, p. 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 8 Halsbury page 375, paragraph 688; Copinger, pages 53 and 154, Russell - Clarks, page 23; 46 Mad LJ 637 ; (AIR 1924 PC 75). See also Gyles v. Wilcox, (1941) 2 Atk. 141.

13. 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. Parsuram (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.