Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

67. „Guide' as defined in Oxford English Dictionary is "a manual or book of instruction on a specified subject". Webster Dictionary defines a guidebook as "something that offers basic information or instruction". A true nature of guide book is to help, assist, support the students to understand any problem given in a prescribed publication. A guide book provides explanation, step by step process for reaching the answer, fine points, detailed analysis of any problem, etc. The guide book is a kind of commentary based on the original work to enable students to give effective answers to questions set in examinations. Such a guide book would be the original creation even if it were regarded as part abridgment and part commentary upon the original work. In E.M. Forster & Ors. Vs. Parasuram [AIR 1964 331], it has been laid down that the guide book was a kind of commentary based upon the original work to enable students to give effective answers to questions set in examinations. In Kelly Vs. Morris [1866 LR 1 Eg. 697], which is also referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company (supra), it was laid down that the compiler of a directory or guidebook, containing information derived from sources common to all, which must of necessity be identical in all cases if correctly given, is not entitled to spare himself the labour and expense of original inquiry by adopting and republishing the information contained in previous work on the same subject. In V. Ramaiah Vs. K. Lakshmanaiah [1989 PTC 137], the defendant published ―Sri Vidya Excellent Guide: for the BA, B.Com. and B.Sc. students with respect to Telugu textbooks "Girija Kalyanam". The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows:

"37. In Kelly v. Morris, (1866) LR 1 Eq. 697, School of thought propounded is that, at least in respect of compilations, only time and expenses are necessary which is industrious collection.
The plaintiff was the owner and publisher of the first directory. The defendant came out with another directory. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to restrain the publication of the defendant s directory on the allegations that the defendant was guilty of appropriating the information contained in the plaintiff s directory and obtained the benefit of many years of incessant labour and expense. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that there had been no unfair or improper use of the plaintiff s work. Information which was given in the plaintiff s directory was entitled to be used and adopted as long as he did not servilely copy it. The defendant had bestowed his independent time, labour and expense on the matter and thus had in no way infringed the copyright of the plaintiff. Granting injunction, the Court held that in the case of a directory when there are certain common objects of information which must, if described correctly, be described in the same words, a subsequent compiler is bound to set about doing for himself that which the first compiler has done. In case of a road- book, he must count the milestones for himself. In the case of a map of a newly discovered island he must go through the whole process of triangulation just as if he had never seen any former map, and, generally he is not entitled to take one word of the information previously published without independently working out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from the same common sources of information, and the only use that he can legitimately make of a previous publication is to verify his own calculations and results when obtained. The compiler of a directory or guidebook, containing information derived from sources common to all, which must of necessity be identical in all cases if correctly given, is not entitled to spare himself the labour and expense of original inquiry by adopting and re-publishing the information contained in previous works on the same subject.
39. In Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad and Another, AIR 1938 All. 266, the plaintiffs were the printers and publishers of the books. The book titled Sachitra Bara Kok Shastra was printed for the first time in 1928 and had run into four editions since. The defendants printed and published another book titled Asli Sachitra Kok Shastra in 1930. The plaintiffs case was that the book published by the defendants was a colorable imitation of their book and an infringement of plaintiffs copyright. It was held by the Court that the plaintiffs compiled their book with considerable labour from various sources and digested and arranged the matter taken by them from other authors. The defendant instead of taking the pains of searching into all the common sources and obtaining his subject matter from them, obtained the subject matter from the plaintiffs book and availed himself of the labour of the plaintiffs and adopted their arrangement and subject matter and, thus, such a use of plaintiffs book could not be regarded as legitimate. It was held that a person whose work is protected by copyright, if he has collected the material with considerable labour, compiled from various sources of work in itself not original, but which he has digested and arranged, the defendant could not be permitted to compile his work of like description, instead of taking the pains of searching into all the common sources and obtaining the subject-matter from them and to adopt his arrangement with a slight degree of colourable variation thereby saving pains and labour which the plaintiff has employed. The act of the defendant would be illegitimate use. The Court held that no one is entitled to avail himself of the previous labour of another for the purpose of conveying to the public the same information, although he may append additional information to that already published."