Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31. In N.T. Raghunathan v. All India Reporter AIR 1971 Bom. 48, the decision in Sweet v. Benning (1855) 139 ER 838, was referred to, to notice that the head note or the side or marginal note of a report is a thing upon which skill and exercise of thought is required, to express in clear and concise language the principle of law to be deduced from the decision to which it is prefixed or the facts and circumstances which bring the case in hand within some principle or rule of law or of practice. Shyam Lal Paharia and Anr. v. Gaya Prasad Gupta 'Rasal' was referred to by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff to urge that a compilation derived from a common source falls within the ambit of literary work. In Govindan v. Gopalakrishna , it was held, while dealing with a case relating to infringement of copyright in relation to dictionaries, that in the case of dictionary, a man is not allowed to appropriate for himself the arrangement, sequence, order, idioms, etc. employed by another, using his brains, skill and labour. While saying so, it was also stated that even in law reports, containing only approved reports of cases decided by Courts, there is copyright. The learned Judge noticed that 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 needs to be protected in the modern complex society.

34. Referring to the decision in S.K. Dutt v. Law Book Co. AIR 1954 A11. 570, the learned Counsel for the appellants urged that an author of a law commentary cannot claim a copyright of any passage which he has quoted since it will defeat the defence of "common source" of all others. But for urging such a legal issue, the appellants do not have a case that they reached at the materials from the common source. Mere selection of passages and abridgement, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, does not constitute a copyright. In support of the said contention, the decision in Macmillan & Co. v. K. and J. Cooper 1924 Privy Council 75 was cited. The said decision does not apply while considering law reports since, as already noticed, a law report has to be treated as a composite document and the application of intellectual labour and skill for presenting the judgment of the court in the form of a report is a crucial incidence that indicates that there is copyright for the reporter and publisher of law reports. The learned Counsel for the appellants also referred to the decision in Feist Publications, INC. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, INC. 499 US 340, wherein, the United States Supreme Court held that there could be no copyright in alphabetical listings of names, etc. published in relation to telephone books. In my view, that decision does not have any bearing on the issues arising for decision in this case. The decision in Kenrick & Co. v. Lawrence & Co. 1890 (XXV) Queen's Bench 991, relating to a case of drawings, cited on behalf of the appellants, also does not help in deciding the case in hand.