Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ton,1 that where there are designs forming portion of a book in which a person has copyright under the act, such copyright extends to the illustrations and designs of the book, as well as to the letter-press. Where the plaintiff had published a book, containing letterpress illustrated by wood-engravings, the engravings being printed on the same paper as the letter-press itself, and defendants published a work with a different title and different letter-press, but containing pirated copies of the wood engravings-which are especially excluded from the English statutes? (the plaintiff having complied with the requisitions of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, but not with those of the act for the protection of engravings, by printing the date of publication and the name of the proprietor on each copy), the vice-chancellor granted an injunction, the plaintiff undertaking to bring an action to try the right at law. "It appears to me," said Sir James Parker, "that a book must include every part of the book, it must include every print, design, or engraving which forms part of the book, as well as the letterpress therein, which is another part of it. Prints published separately do not appear to have been within that act by that express definition. But the case now before the court is not the case of separately published prints, but the case of designs forming part of a book. There is no decision of any court of law, or of this court, either way upon this point."

168. If one, not claiming any originality whatever, reduces to question and answer a certain science or subject-matter, courts, as we have seen, will not

L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 340; L. Rep. 3 Q. B. 223; 18 L. T. N. S. 105.

[blocks in formation]

travel behind it to ascertain whether the questions and answers were framed from the writer's own surmises, opinions, or recollections on the particular subject, or from works consulted by him for the purpose; but will hold his work to be original, for the purposes of copyright and protection.1

169. We have seen that, where the sources from which the material or subject-matter are common, and of general availability and recourse—that is, in medioany novel arrangement of them can be the subject of ownership.2

But though any person may thus acquire a copyright in his own arrangement of common materials; the materials themselves remain, as always, open to the next comer who chooses to have recourse to them, and different copyrights may be acquired in different arrangements of the same common materials. Different arrangements of common materials must, however, be independent. A later arrangement must not be a servile imitation or reproduction of an earlier one.

In Kelly v. Morris, application was made for an injunction to restrain the publication of "The Imperial

'Jarrold v. Houlston, 3 K. & J. 108 ante, 40. See this principle applied in the case of a book of chronology (Trusler v. Murray; cited in note to Cary v. Longman, 1 East, 363); and to the case of an annotated catalogue of books published by a certain publishing house (Hatten v. Arthur, 11 W. R.. 934); to a work on architecture (Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422); maps (Kelly v. Morris, 1 L. Rep. Equity, 697; Vid. also Carnan v. Bowles, 2 Bro. C. C. 80); and as to the protection. accorded (2 Story Eq. Jur. § 941; Eden Inj. ch. 13, 286; Vid. also Gray v. Russel, 1 Story, II; Emerson v. Davies, 3 Id., 768.

2

Alexander v. Mackenzie, 9 Scotch Sess. Cass. 2nd ser 758; Vid. also Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, 781; Blunt v. Patten, 2 Paine, 395.

3

3 L. Rep. 1 Eq. 697; 35 L. J. 423 ch.; 14 L. T. N. S. 222.

[ocr errors]

Directory of London, 1866,” on the ground that it was a mere piracy of a work belonging to the plaintiff, entitled "Post-Office London Directory." The defendant set up, as defense, that from 1862 to 1864, he had published a work called “The Business Directory,' in which appeared the names of about 100,000 persons, in trade or business, which had been obtained by a large number of canvassers whom he had employed for the purpose; that, wishing to extend his operations, and bring out "The Imperial Directory," which should comprise street, conveyance, postal and other sections, he acted on a similar principle to that which had guided him in taking the names of persons in business whom his canvassers were unable to see, and procured his information from any source "where the persons had made it public at their own expense, for their own benefit"; that he considered that the name of a private resident belonged to the public when that resident had "gratuitously given it to the public through some recognized medium of publicity," and that the publisher merely "held it in trust for a purpose, receiving for his trouble any benefit he could make of the information, but that the right of using that information belonged to the public, as soon as the information was made public"; that any person might go round with a list of names already published, and ask permission to render the work of publication more complete by reproducing it, and if any error had been made in the first publication, it rested with the original owners of the names to point out the error when submitted to them for permission to reproduce which opportunity was afforded the residents by means of circulars sent round to them through the defend ant's canvassers, asking the residents to fill up a form with their name and address for publication in "The

Imperial Directory." It was admitted that one of defendant's canvassers, afterwards discharged by him, had not taken the trouble to make the necessary inquiries, from house to house, so that most of the errors in the defendant's directory, identical with those in the plaintiff's, would be thus accounted for. On the other hand, several instances were adduced of corrections and large supplementary additions to the plaintiff's work contained in the defendant's, and the manuscript of the latter work was produced.

In granting an injunction the lord chancellor said: “The defendant has been most completely mistaken in what he assumes to be his right to deal with the labor and property of others. In the case of a dictionary, map, guide-book, or directory, where 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 the case of a road-book he must count the milestones for himself. In the case put 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. So, in the present case, the defendant could not take a single line of the plaintiff's directory for the purpose of saving himself labor and trouble in getting his information. The defendant, from the description of the way in which he had in the first instance compiled his Business

Directory,' seems to have known exactly what he might do. . . . . The defendant goes on in his affidavit to propound a most extraordinary doctrine as to the right of publicity in the names of private residents, who had, as he expressed it, 'given their names for public use.' What he has done has been just to copy the plaintiff's book, and then to send out canvassers to see if the information so copied was correct. If the canvassers did not find the occupier of the house at home, or could get no answer from him, then the information copied from the plaintiff's book was reprinted bodily, as if it was a question for the occupier of the house merely, and not for the compiler of the previous directory. Further than this, the defendant tells us that he had a number of new agents, and that one of them had performed his part of the work carelessly, thus at once showing how easy it would be, on the system adopted by the defendant, for any negligent agent to send back his list all ticked as if correct, without having taken the trouble to make a single inquiry. ... The work of the defendant has clearly not been compiled by the legitimate application of independent personal labor, and there must be an injunction to restrain the publication of any copy of the defendant's work containing the portions called the 'Street' and 'Court' Directories, with liberty for the defendant to apply, when he shall have expunged from such portions all matter copied from the plaintiff's work."1

A compiler may not cut out slips from the former work and go and see whether they are accurate, and if accurate, copy them bodily into his own work, as

1

Vid. also Matthewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves. 275; Cornish v. Upton, 4 L. T. N. S. 862; Morris v. Ashbee, L. Rep. 7 Eq. 34; 19 L. T. N. S. 550.

« AnteriorContinuar »