Original Literary Work: University of London Press, Limited v. University Tutorial Press, Limited (1916)

 

Introduction:

University of London Press, Limited v. University Tutorial Press, Limited (1916)

 

This case is important for understanding what an "original literary work" is, a definition that still matters today. You don’t need to know the old UK laws to understand this case, but it’s helpful to look at specific sections 13, 17 & 52 of the Copyright Act of 1957. The main idea is that copyright is about the effort and skill put into creating a work, not just about having new ideas. Copyright protects the way something is expressed, not the ideas themselves.

 

This case revolves around the concept of copyright ownership and what constitutes an original literary work. The court had to decide whether the exam papers created by the examiners were indeed original works that could be copyrighted, and whether the University had the right to those copyrights based on the agreements made. This case set important precedents for copyright law in the UK, especially regarding the rights of creators and the ownership of their work.

 

Background of the Case:

 

In 1915, the University of London appointed examiners for its upcoming matriculation exams. Professors Lodge and Jackson were chosen to create the math exam papers. In February 1915, the University decided that any copyright from the exam papers would belong to the University. This meant that the examiners would not keep rights to their own work. This decision was taken by the senate of the University through a resolution.

 

The examiners were not University employees but were hired specifically to prepare exam papers. They worked on these papers in their own time and could choose their questions based on what students needed to know. They received a set payment for their work and were not limited to only working for the University.

 

In July 1915, the University made an agreement with the University of London Press to transfer any copyright they had in the exam papers to the Press. The Press then published these papers for the January 1916 exams.

 

However, the University Tutorial Press, the defendant in this case, published a book that included 16 of the exam papers without permission. They didn’t copy the papers from the University of London Press; instead, they got them from students. They also included answers and comments on the exam papers.

 

Legal Proceedings

 

On February 24, 1916, the University of London Press sued the University Tutorial Press for copyright infringement. They argued that they had the rights to the papers because of the agreement with the University. Initially, there was a question about whether the Press could sue, so Professors Lodge and Jackson were added as co-plaintiffs.

 

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the Press had a valid claim based on the agreement. They believed that the University held the copyright because the examiners were working under a contract that included the copyright condition. Even though the examiners hadn’t signed anything giving their rights to the University, they were aware of the copyright condition when they accepted their roles.

 

The defense, representing the University Tutorial Press, claimed that the University Press didn’t own the copyright. They argued that to sue, the Press needed to be either the author, the owner of the copyright, or someone who had been assigned those rights.

 

Judge Peterson's Analysis

 

After reviewing the facts of the case, Judge Peterson raised the critical question: Are the examination papers eligible for copyright protection? According to Section 1, subsection 1 of the Copyright Act of 1911, copyright applies to "every original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic work." The key issue here is whether the examination papers qualify as "original literary works."

 

Definition of Literary Work

 

Although the Copyright Act 1911 does not explicitly define "literary work," Section 35 provides some guidance. It states that "literary work" includes maps, charts, plans, tables, and compilations. This definition suggests that the term "literary work" is broad and not limited to high-quality or stylistically rich writings, like novels by authors such as George Meredith or Robert Louis Stevenson. There is also inclusive definition of “literary work” given under Section 2(o) in the Copyright Act, 1957 in force in Bharat.

 

Historically, even simple documents, such as lists of bills or trade catalogues, were granted copyright protection under earlier laws. Therefore, Judge Peterson concluded that "literary work" encompasses any written or printed material, including examination papers.

 

The Question of Originality

 

Next, Judge Peterson examined whether the examination papers were original. He clarified that "original" does not mean the work must contain entirely new ideas. Instead, copyright law focuses on the expression of thoughts rather than the originality of the ideas themselves. The requirement for originality is that the work must not be copied from another source but must originate from the author.

 

In this case, Professors Lodge and Jackson created their exam questions independently and did not copy them from any existing papers. They demonstrated that they had thought through the questions and based them on their own notes and ideas. Although it was argued that they relied on common knowledge in mathematics and that they produced the questions quickly, Judge Peterson stated that these factors should not disqualify their work from copyright protection.

 

He emphasized that if authors were not allowed to draw upon common knowledge, only those who discovered entirely new facts could claim copyright. Furthermore, the speed of producing work, as seen with prolific writers like Lord Byron, should not impede copyright claims.

 

Addressing Common Types of Questions

 

The defense also claimed that some questions were merely common types used in textbooks, suggesting that this should negate originality. However, Judge Peterson countered that the questions were not copied; they were crafted by the examiners to assess students' understanding of the material. Even if some questions resembled those of other examiners, that similarity does not infringe on copyright.

 

Judge Peterson found that the examination papers prepared by Professors Lodge and Jackson were indeed "original literary work" and, therefore, qualified for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1911. The judge's ruling reinforced the principle that valuable work, regardless of its nature, deserves protection against unauthorized copying.

 

Ownership of Copyright in Examination Papers

 

In this part of the case, the judges discussed an important question: Who owns the copyright for the examination papers once they are written? To answer this, they looked closely at Section 5 of the Copyright Act of 1911. This section states that the author of a work is usually the first owner of its copyright, but there are some exceptions to this rule.

 

Important Legal Provisions

 

In Bharat to understand the ownership better, the judges referred to other related laws, including Section 17 of the Copyright Act of 1957 in force in Bharat. This section outlines various conditions regarding copyright, particularly those related to works created under specific circumstances. One important clause (c) deals with works produced under the direction and control of public institutions, such as universities.

 

Result of the Case

 

In this case, the judges concluded that the copyright for the examination papers belonged to Professors Lodge and Jackson. This decision was based on the fact that the professors were not formally employed by the University in a “contract of service.” Essentially, being employed in a contract of service would usually mean the employer holds the copyright, but since that wasn’t the case here, the professors retained the rights to their work.

 

Additionally, the judges pointed out that there hadn’t been any formal assignment of copyright from the professors to the University. Just having a condition in a contract doesn’t automatically transfer ownership. According to Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act 1954 in force in Bharat, the University could have sought a formal assignment of copyright from the professors, but this was not done.

 

As a result, the court decided to protect the copyright of those question papers whose authors (the professors) had joined the lawsuit against the University Tutorial Press. This means that the University was not allowed to use those papers without permission.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, the court upheld that the rights to the examination papers stayed with the professors who created them because they were not in standard employment contracts and had not officially transferred those rights to the University. This case emphasizes the importance of understanding copyright ownership, especially in academic settings where the work is produced within public institutions. It also shows how crucial it is for creators to clearly establish who holds the rights to their work.