Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was not disputed that the provisions of the Imperial Copyright Act applied in the present case. The book 'Hisabi Machine' published by the plaintiffs contain charts. It has however to be seen whether it is a 'literary work'. The expression Literary cannot be construed to mean only such works which deal with any particular aspect of literature in prose or poetry. The expression "literary work" as used in the Imperial Copyright Act merely indicates a work which is literature, i.e. anything in writing which could be said to come within the ambit of literary work. Section 35 (1) also mentions dramatic work or artistic work, work of sculpture and architectural work of art. These are expressions which indicate particular types of work but, as the Sub-section itself says, maps, charts, plans, tables and compilation fall within the meaning of literary work. A map or a chart is not a piece of literature in the ordinary sense of the term but it comes within the expression 'literary work'. It is something which has been set out in print or in writing and is thus a reading matter. It appears to be well settled that even, where the source of information used in a book is something common and is such which is, available to all, even then a compilation: which has been brought out as a result of labour and industry put by a person, then in such a case he can claim a copy right in the publication brought out by him. The names of many drugs are common but if a person tabulates them in a particular order and mentions them along with the names of their manufacturers and has diligently worked in collecting such information, then in such a case he can have a copyright in the publication brought out by him. In short, the principle is that no one is permitted to profit from the labours of another person by merely copying his work. Where, however the source of information is common and another person to whom also the common source is available applies his mind to the subject and the results of his labours are published then even if the results of his work may be similar to the results of another person pursuing the same inquiry it cannot be said that there has been any infringement of copyright.
"If the defendant, who undoubtedly is at liberty to draw upon common sources of information, saved himself the trouble and labour requisite for collecting that information by adopting the plaintiff's work with colourable variation, he has been guilty of infringement of plaintiffs copyright even though the plaintiff's work is based on materials which are common property." It, was held that under the circumstances of the case it could not be said that the defendant in using the impugned passages had "brought himself within the mischief of any of these principles which the plaintiff may legitimately invoke in support of his case."

12. In AIR 1931 Cal 233 the plaintiff was the author of a book entitled "Adarshalipi-o-Saral-Barna-

Parichaya which was first published in 1902 and had run into several editions. In 1919, the defendant published two books in which, according to the allegations of the plaintiff, his copyright in the afore said book had been infringed by the defendant. It was observed that the question whether a colourable imitation had been made of the work of another must necessarily be a question of fact.

A mere similarity was not enough as it may be due to chance, both works having been taken from a common source. It was further observed:

13. In V. Govindan v. Gopalakrishna, AIR 1955 Mad 391 the plaintiff had published an English-Tamil dictionary which had been compiled by one K. The defendant had subsequently published another English-Tamil dictionary. The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that the copyright in his work had been infringed by the defendant. It was observed that "Regarding ............... plea of "common source", it is well known that a person relying on it must show that he went to the common source from which he borrowed employing his skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely do the work of the copyist, by copying away from a work" (of another person) "...............a man is not allowed to appropriate for himself the arrangement, sequence, order, idiom etc. employed by another, using his brains, skill and labours. ............... In modern complex society provisions have to be made for protecting every man's copyright, whether big or small whether involving a high degree of originality, as in a new poem or picture, or only originality at the vanishing point as in a law report."