Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The principal emphasis on behalf of the appellants is upon clause 1 of this reprint agreement. It has been urged that the publishers have been granted "the sole and exclusive license to print and .publish." By the use of these words it was urged, the copy-right itself was assigned or at any rate an interest in the copyright. Secondly, it is pointed out that the choice by clause 2 is left to the publishers to select the titles of the books which they are interested in publishing in the territory mentioned in the agreement and if the choice is once exercised the proprietors namely Wileys have no option, to refuse. By clause 3 a uniform rate of 15 per cent. ,on the published price of every copy sold is payable by the publishers to the proprietors excepting on complimentary copies as mentioned in clause 4. In clause 5 provision is made for the accounts of the sales which have to be rendered six monthly and settled within three months thereafter. By clause 7 even the revision of the test of the said works is left to the Publishers and the proprietors have given an undertaking to agree to the revision of the text save and except that the publishers prior to the publication have to submit such revisions to the proprietors. Clause 8, it was urged, is of great importance 'because it provides for the protection of the copyright of the said works in India and the responsibility for the protection of the copyright in India is placed upon the publishers. It was urged that such a responsibility must necessarily be that of the proprietors and yet, since the publishers are saddled with that responsibility, it is a clear indication that the proprietory right in the copyright or some interest therein had been transferred or assigned to the publishers. Clauses 10, 11 and 13 were strongly emphasised by Mr. Sen, particularly clause 10 which uses the words '' The license herein granted is assigned... and shall only be transferred by them (the appellants) with the written consent of the proprietors". Mr. Sen urged that though no doubt the word used is "license", in the conferment of the right the words used are "granted, assigned'' and that can only indicate the assignment or transfer of either the entire copyright or some similar right or interest in the copyright. "Assignment" he urged is incomprehensible in the context of a license and is properly attributable only to the transference of the copyright wholly or in part. As regards clause 11, it was urged that that is the only clause in the entire ; agreement which deals with the subject of termination of the contract. It provides the only contingency upon which the agreement between the parties could be determined or terminated and therefore the parties, are necessarily limited only to that mode of determination and none other. He relied in this respect upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India v. E, N. Kapoor [1939] A.I.R. S.C. 1262, at p. 1270. If that construction which he placed upon clause 11 be the true construction, then it must necessarily follow that the agreement cannot be terminated in any other mode, least of all by a notice as has been given in the present case. If this contention alone were to succeed, urged Mr. Sen, then the award of the arbitrator on the face of it would be patently bad for a gross error of law and should be set aside on that short ground.

and the learned Judge though with some doubt came to the conclusion that there was a partial assignment of the copyright to the defendant in that case.

33. We have already referred to the terms of the agreement between the owners in that case Messrs. Joseph "Williams, Limited and the defendant Glover and pointed out the peculiar terms of that agreement which indicated a partial assignment of the copyright or an interest in the copyright. None of these terms are to be found in the agreement before us. Certainly there is no suggestion that there was any hiring or letting here of any right whatever. On the other hand, there was no clause in the contract in that case such as we have here in clause 2 which as we have said leaves it to the absolute and untrammelled discretion of the proprietors to grant or not to grant permission to publish a book or title. That in our opinion is plenary so far as the contract before us is concerned and clinches the issue whether there was a partial assignment of the copyright or interest therein. We will turn to the question whether there arc any other special considerations for holding that an interest in the copyright was assigned, a little later.

35. Now, no doubt, even in the present case, it has been pointed out, there is a provision in clause 11 that upon the happening of certain events the rights to publish or sell the said works shall revert to the proprietors, but it seems to us that beyond the common words '' shall revert'' there is nothing else which is similar. On the other hand, the expression must necessarily be construed in the context of the other clauses of the agreement and in the totality of the language used in the agreement before us as a whole. There was no clause in the Messager's case like clause 2 before us. We cannot, therefore, hold merely upon the similarity of some words in clause 5 of the agreement in that case with some words in clause 11 of the present agreement, that what was granted by the present agreement must, therefore, be a partial assignment of a copyright. We may also say that there is a considerable difference between the grant of performing rights in a play or a piece of music or a dramatic composition and a mere copyright. The rights necessary to be conferred in the former cases in order to assign the copyright are not the same as the rights necessary to be conferred in making the assignment of a copyright. ,

39. The same remarks apply to the decision in Macdonald v. Eyles [1921] 1 Ch. D. 631. The terms in which the authoress in that case Mrs. Margaret Byles agreed to purchase and publish a novel were of the widest amplitude. She had granted to the publishers upon certain terms as to royalty an option to publish her "next three books" and the publishers were during the legal term of the copyright to have the exclusive right of producing and publishing the book within a defined area together with, the entire control of the publication and terms of sale of the book, and also the right of suing in respect of infringement of, copyright. The agreement further provided that Mrs. Margaret was not without the consent of the plaintiffs to publish or allow to be published, any abridgment, translation or dramatised version of the book and that on the, determination of the agreement in certain events therein specified the right to print and publish the book was to revert to Mrs. Margaret who was. then to be entitled to be registered as the proprietor thereof. Each one of these terms suggests that until a reverter Mrs. Margaret had "during the legal term of the copyright" assigned a right or interest in the copyright. None of these terms are to be found in the contract before us much less was there any term in that contract comparable to clause 2 of the present agreement.