• ..



Continue...
1.      University of London Press v University Tutorial Press (1916) Ch. 601
The question arose as to whether certain mathematics exam papers were original literary works. The exam papers consisted of conventional maths problems in a conventional manner. The court held that the Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought. The simple fact that the authors drew on a body of knowledge which was 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 which every student is familiar with, and even though there was no creative input, however, the skill, labour, and judgement of the authors was sufficient as to make the papers original literary works. The court held on the basis that what is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting.

2.      Pacific Film Laboratories v Fed. Commissioner of Taxation (1970) 121 CLR 154
In this case, the issue arose is whether the reproduction of prints owned by a third party and for that third party was an act of sale which could incur sales tax. Pacific Film argued that as it had no property right in the prints, it was not selling anything to the customer which might be taxed. The High Court rejected this argument saying that when Pacific Film reproduced the customer's negatives, under authorisation from the customer, the copyright was owned by the customer but the chattel produced in the process of reproduction was owned by Pacific Film. The sale of this chattel to the customer incurred the sales tax. Further the court held that he copyright is not a right in an existing physical thing. It is a negative right, as it has been called a power to prevent the making of a physical thing by copying.

3.      Elanco v Mandops (1979) FSR 46
The plaintiffs had copyright in instructions for the use of a weedkiller, drawn from public sources. The defendant produced instructions for its product using the plaintiff’s material. After objections from the plaintiffs, the defendants recast these instructions several times. Despite these revisions, in an interlocutory application, the final version was treated as arguably infringing because the defendants had not returned to public sources but always drew their information from the plaintiff’s instruction. Thus, Elanco effectively secured a monopoly over the information contained in their instruction despite the facts that it was the public domain. Copyright does not prevent others using the same sources but prevents copying of the effort made in creating the secondary work.   
The Court of Appeal accepted that a label of instruction placed on the side of a barrel of herbicide was a copyright literary work. Further, the court took note that a great deal of time and labour had been spent in this compilation, and there could be no doubt that the author was entitled to protection of the fruit of his labour. It is clear that the court placed emphasis on the skill and labour in developing the compilation. The court view that copyright not simply as protecting bare expression itself but also the process by which that expression came into existence. The main emphasis is not to allow someone to take advantage of another’s work and reap something which he has not sown. The skill, labour and judgment involved in the process of copying will not confer originality.

4.      Independent Television Publications Limited v Time Out Ltd (1984) FSR 64
In this case, the plaintiffs published weekly magazine containing advance details of television and radio programmes for the following week. They asserted ownership of the literary copyright in their daily programme schedules, claiming that these constituted compilations under the Copyright Act.  The defendant also published a weekly magazine which included details of forthcoming cinema, sporting and musical event. The said magazine also listed advance details of selected television programme, and it was admitted that these were taken from the plaintiff listing and schedules.
The court granted the injunctions sought and upheld the view that there should not be any short cut by producing works of others. The programme schedules were constituted compilations and they required a great degree of skill and labour in their preparation and were thus protected as literary copyright works inventiveness

5.      Goodyear Tyre @ Rubber v Silverstone Tyre @ Rubber (1994) 1 MLJ 348
This case concerned whether copyright over artistic drawings of the tyres can be used to stop others from manufacturing articles according to the drawing. The plaintiff in this case contended that the defendant tyre products were reproduction either from the plaintiff’s drawing or from the plaintiff’s tyre product by reverse engineering. The court held that the function of copyright is to preserve rights over the artistic expression of the drawing and not as a measure to protect the functionality of the articles drawn. What the plaintiffs are in essence asking to protect is the idea of the function of the tyre and not its artistic value.