COPYRIGHT LAW

(CASE SUMMARY AND PRESENTATION IN LIEU OF THE 4th ASSESSMENT FOR

FULFILMENT OF EVALUATION IN THE SUBJECT)

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS LTD. v. UNIVERSITY PRESS TUTORIAL LTD

[(1916) 2 Ch 601]

SUBMITTED BY:

SUBMITTED TO:

ANIRUDH SINGH

MR. ROHAN THOMAS

ROLL NO. - 973

FACULTY OF LAW

B.A. LL.B. (Hons)

NLU, JODHPUR

VII SEMESTER

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

(SUMMER SESSION, JULY-NOVEMBER, 2015)

Name of the Parties

University of London Press Ltd (Plaintiff), AND

University Tutorial Press Ltd (Defendant)

Brief Facts of the Case

The facts of the present case are prima facie pretty straightforward.
The case dealt with examination papers which were written for the University of London
back in 1915. Under the University of London's senate's decision all examination papers
created by appointed examiners would belong to the University, aside from drawings, and the
University reserved all rights to reproduce those exams without any extra compensation to
the examiners who had written them. Subsequently examiners were appointed for the exam
period held in September of that year, among which were Mr. Jackson and Professor Lodge
who were in charge of creating the exam papers for mathematics. After the exam papers had
been created, the University entered into a contract with University of London Press,
assigning it the copyrights and rights of publication to any specific exams for a fixed period
of 6 years. University of London Press were then issued the rights to publish the exams
written in the previous year, which were then published by University of London Press in
early 1916. In the same month University Tutorial Press published exam from the previous
year as well, containing 16 out of 42 exams from January 1916, which were attained from
students rather than the published copies made by the University Press. Among the 16 exams
were three which were written by Mr. Jackson and Professor Lodge. Along with the published
exams, University Tutorial Press also published the answers to some of the questions in those
exams, including some critique of those particular questions as well. Subsequently University
of London Press sued University Tutorial Press for copyright infringement over the published
exams.

Contentions of the Plaintiff

The plaintiffs, through Mr. Jackson and Professor Lodges statements, argued that:
1. The two concerned teachers had thought out the questions which they set, and that they
made notes or memoranda for future questions and drew on those notes for the purposes of
the questions which they set.
2. The papers which they prepared originated from themselves, although they drew upon the
stock of knowledge common to mathematicians, and that the time spent in producing the
questions was small.
3. These, however, cannot be tests for determining whether copyright exists. If an author, for
purposes of copyright, must not draw on the stock of knowledge which is common to him
and others who are students of the same branch of learning, only those historians who
discovered fresh historical facts could acquire copyright for their works.
4. Some of the questions, it was urged, are questions in book work, that is to say, questions
set for the purpose of seeing whether the student has read and understood the books
prescribed by the syllabus. But the questions set are not copied from the book; they are
questions prepared by the examiner for the purpose of testing the student's acquaintance with
the book, and in any case it was admitted that the papers involved selection, judgment, and
experience.
Contentions of the Defendant
The defendant contended the following:
1. The expression of thought or idea must be original in its form, and should not be copied
from the other books/materials as that would prima facie amount to copyright infringement.

2. The very fact that for copyright infringement to not occur, the work must not be copied
from another work, similarly the mathematics problems were the same old ones as were
present in the maths book which every student is familiar with.
3. They finally argued that there was no creative input or originality of ideas in terms of
creation of the mathematics problems, which would render it not original and hence would
make it an infringement of the copyright held by the book author.
Issue before the Court
The court identified only two issues facing it, with the second being a natural extension of the
first:
1. What is originality?
2. Whether the creation of the mathematics examination paper based on another authors
recommended mathematics book amount to original work within the definition provided
under the then Copyright Act, 1911?
Judgment of the Court
The court held that originality does not mean that the work must be an expression of
individual thought. The simple fact that the authors drew on a body of knowledge common to
mathematicians did not compromise originality. The requirement of originality, it was held,
does not require that expression be in an original or novel form. It does, however, require that
the work not be copied from another work. It must originate from the author. As such, even
though these were the same old maths problems every student is familiar with, and even
though there was no creative input, the skill, labour, and judgement of the authors was
sufficient to make the papers original literary works.

The word ``original' does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression
of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of
ideas, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of literary work, with the
expression of thought in print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the
expression of the thought. But the Act does not require that the expression must be in an
original or novel form, but that the work must not be copied from another work that it
should originate from the author.
Decision of the Court
The court decided in favour of the University of London Press as against Universal Tutorial
Press, holding that the examination papers were original under the then Copyright Act, 1911
and did not amount to copyright infringement.
Concept of the Doctrine of Sweat of the Brow
Sweat of the Brow is an intellectual property law doctrine primarily related to copyright.
According to this doctrine, the author of gains rights through simple diligence during the
creation of a work, such as a database, or a directory. Substantial creativity or "originality" is
not required. Under a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, the creator of a copyrighted work, even if
it is completely unoriginal, is entitled to have his effort and expense protected, and no one
else may use such a work without permission, but must instead recreate the work by
independent research or effort.
The classic example is a telephone directory. In a "sweat of the brow" jurisdiction, such a
directory may not be copied, but instead a competitor must independently collect the
information to issue a competing directory. The same rule generally applies to databases and
lists of facts.

In a traditional English idiom, the sweat of one's brow refers to the effort expended in labour,
and the value created thereby. The phrase is famously used in English translations of Genesis
3:19. The law doctrine takes its name from this idiom.
The sweat of the brow doctrine has been recognized at various times in the United Kingdom,
Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. The 1900 UK case Walter v. Lane ruled that the copyright
of an account of a speech transcribed by a reporter belonged to the newspaper he worked for
because of the effort it took to reproduce his spoken words.
However, post the decisions of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service and Football Dataco Ltd. & Ors v. Yahoo! UK
Ltd & Ors respectively, it is now a steady position of law that despite the significant amount
of effort taken in their preparation, such schedules cannot be protected when their
compilation is dictated by rules or constraints which leave no room for creative freedom.