If we accept this as correct we exclude the case of a revised edition of an old work, the corrections and additions to which forming the new work are not clearly distinguishable from the old. I am inclined to think that the real explanation and meaning of "separately published" is that it does not apply to "volume, part, or division of a volume" at all, but only to "sheet of letterpress, sheet of music, map, chart, or plan" which are to be protected, even although they are "separately published," ie. not bound up into a volume. It was no doubt inserted as declaratory of the case law under the statute of Anne, which laid down that a single printed sheet was a "book" within the meaning of the Act. II. Literary Matter.-No literary merit or great labour is required to be shown. Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Walter v. Lane,1 referring to the verbatim reports of Lord Rosebery's speeches which were the subject-matter of that action, said:: "Although I think in these compositions (i.e. the work of the stenographer) there is literary merit and intellectual labour, yet the statute seems to me to require neither-nor originality either in thought or language. . . the right in my view is given by the statute to the first producer of a book, whether that book be wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, of literary merit, or of no merit whatever." 2 In many of the cases great stress was laid in argument at the bar on the preamble of the Copyright Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. The preamble runs as follows: "Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to copyright, and to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting benefit to the world. . . From this it is argued that the Act intends to protect only those works which are likely to prove a substantial addition to the world's literature. Jessel, M.R., in his judgment in Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores,3 points out the fallacy of this argument: "The Act does not say that it is expedient to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting benefit to the world, and to amend the law of copyright relating thereto, but that it is expedient 1 [1900], A. C., 539. 2 [1900], A. C., p. 548. 3 (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369. to amend the law of copyright generally, merely adding the principal reason for doing so. There is therefore nothing in the preamble to cut down the enacting part, even if the enacting part had not been clear."1 6 Road-books, directories, tradesmen's catalogues, mercantile statistics, telegraph codes, time tables,' verbatim reports of speeches are all books within the meaning of the Act. It is quite immaterial for what purpose the matter was composed or published. Personal correspondence, advertisements,10 and a mining report" are all subjects of copyright if published. 12 There must be some composition or arrangement of words, figures, sentences, or paragraphs which by itself will convey to the mind of the reader some intelligible proposition.1 There cannot be copyright in a single word,13 even although it expresses a man's opinion: there is no composition or arrangement. Neither can there be copyright in a pattern sleeve 14 or the face of a barometer,15 because both are really instruments to be used in conjunction with something else, and although there may be words and sentences on them, by themselves they convey no intelligible proposition to the reader. Probably a drunken scrawl, absolutely unintelligible, would not be protected. A jury having found that such a document was not a literary composition, the Court of Appeal refused to interfere with their verdict.16 The illustrations in a book are protected as part of the book," and a number of drawings bound up together without any letterpress would be protected as a book,18 compliance with the provisions of the artistic Copyright Acts being in such a case unnecessary; but a single drawing or engraving separately issued can only be protected under the artistic Acts. A map, whether bound in a volume or separately issued, is 1 21 Ch. D., at p. 378. ▲ Infra, p. 18. 7 Infra, p. 22. 10 Infra, p. 19. 12 Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., 420. 13 Chilton v. Progress [1895], 2 Ch., 29; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., at p. 318. 14 Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., 420. 15 Davis v. Comitti (1885), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 539. 16 Fourmat v. Pearson (1897), 14 T. L. R., 82. 17 Infra, P. 34. 18 Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369. a book within the meaning of the Literary Copyright Act, and will be protected thereunder.1 III. Originality as an essential element of a book means that the composition in the "book" must not have been copied from some other literary composition in "book" form. Originality does not necessarily imply an original composition on the part of the author.2 Copyright is given not necessarily to the first composer, but to the first producer in "book" form of a literary composition. Thus a book would be an original book if the literary matter contained therein were taken by the author verbatim from the oral utterances of a public speaker, or probably if copied from some ancient monument or mural writing. It would not, however, be original if the author had merely transcribed the literary matter from some public manuscripts, even although difficult of access. Again, originality does not necessarily imply novelty. Another book exactly the same in every respect, word for word, may have been previously published, and yet a later book will be original if derived from common sources, and not copied from the earlier book. Thus two mathematicians may have independently made the same calculations, two travellers may have made a chart of the same island or district, or two reporters may have taken shorthand reports of the same speech. In each case there would be independent copyright, and the later book, even although published ten years after the first, would be original. 5 Composition may consist in composition in the ordinary sense of piecing together words, figures, sentences, and paragraphs, in order to convey certain intellectual ideas, or it may consist in the arrangement of material, as in the case of directories, lists of statistics, &c. Sometimes part may be copied and part may be original, as in the case of new editions,10 translations, abridgments,12 selections from non-copyright 11 1 Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; see infra, p. 148. 2 Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539. 5 Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77. Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Tamlyn, at p. 299 n. 7 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270. 8 Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. • Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539. See Brougham, L., in Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 965. 10 Infra, p. 26. 11 Infra, p. 25. 12 Infra, p. 25. Road Directories. authors,1 precedents of conveyancing, &c.2 The new matter only is the subject of copyright. 3 Examples of what are Books.-Road-books were among the first works in the protection of which by the Courts it was recognised that copyright did not necessarily depend on the evidence of any high mental qualities in the composition. In 1786 an injunction was granted to restrain the piracy of "Paterson's Road-Book." + Lord Chancellor Loughborough in his judgment said that a book in order to acquire copyright did not require to be an operation of the mind like the "Essay on Human Understanding." There might be copyright even although the subject-matter lay in medio, so that every man with eyes could trace it, and the whole merit of the work depended upon the accuracy of the observation. In 1776 the Court of Session in Scotland protected a "Traveller's PocketBook," which contained nothing but a mere list of stages and their distances.5 The compiler of such a work may arrive at the same, or nearly the same, result as some other compiler working over the same country, but if each has made his own compilation, "counting the milestones for himself," he will have copyright and can prevent any one else from infringing such copyright. 7 Directories soon followed road-books in their claim for protection. Lord Chancellor Erskine in 1806 hesitated somewhat, "thinking it dangerous to carry this doctrine of copyright too far," but ultimately decided that an East India calendar or directory containing the names and appointments on the Indian establishment, obtained with considerable labour and expense from the repositories in India House, was the subject of copyright. This decision was followed by Lord 1 Infra, p. 24. 8 2 Infra, p. 23. 3 Taylor v. Bayne (1776), Mor. Dic., 8308; Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; Cary v. Faden (1799), 5 Ves., 24; Cary v. Longman (1801), 1 East., 358; Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., 168. 4 Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; 1 Cox. Ch. Cas., 283. 5 Taylor v. Bayne (1776), Mor. Dic., 8308. 6 Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Page Wood, V.C., at p. 701. 7 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270; Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34; Morris v. Wright (1870), L. R., 5 Ch., 279; Kelly's Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374; Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 S. C. R. (Canada), 321. 8 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves. 270. Chancellor Eldon in 1809 in the case of "A Court Calendar."1 Those work the names in capital letters and the "extra lines," and contended that they were entitled to do so; but it was held that the payment by the several persons whose names were inserted had not the effect of making the names and descriptions when inserted common property, and that as the plaintiff had incurred the labour and expense of getting the necessary information and arranging it, he was entitled to protection. 5 Directory. In Lamb v. Evans the defendants had copied extensively Trade from a trade directory. The directory consisted of a list of tradesmen in various localities. In some cases their names and addresses only were entered, and in others more elaborate advertisements containing descriptions of articles in which the advertiser dealt. The entries in the directory were classified under headings, giving short descriptions of the particular trades; each separate heading was arranged so that the proper catch-words occurred first in alphabetical order, and each 1 Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269. 5 [1893], I Ch., 218. B |