Odger's English Common Law

606 INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, &C.
non- dramatic work to convert it into a dramatic work by way
of performance in public or otherwise. 1
The term "literary work" includes lectures, 2
examina-
tion papers, 3 and also "maps, charts, plans, tables and
compilations." 4 But not all printed or written matter
can be the subject of copyright. The composition must
possess some literary value or be the result of literary
skill and labour. Thus a race-card cannot be the subject
of literary copyright, 5 though a railway timer-table can.*
There can be copyright in private letters if they have
any value as literary productions. 7
So there can be copy-
right in the report in a newspaper of an address delivered
at a public meeting transcribed from shorthand notes taken at
the time, 8, or in a newspaper article ; the practice of news-
papers to copy from each other is no justification for such an
infringement. 9
If a man exercises his labour and skill in
compiling a work from materials which are open to the
publicj he may acquire copyright for his compilation. But so
may any one else who exercises labour and skill in compiling
a different work from the same materials, unless he makes an
unfair use of the work of his predecessor. 10
There is no copy-
right in works of a blasphemous, immoral or libellous
character. 11
The author of a work is prima facie the first owner of the
copyright. He may assign the right either wholly or
partially, and either for the whole term or any part of the
copyright, and either generally or subject to limitations,
such, for instance, as the reservation of royalties or a share of
1 1 & 2 Geo. V. o. 46, s. 1 (2).
1 Abernethyv. Hutchinson (1825), 1 H. & T. 28, 39 ; Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 App.
Cas. 326 ; but see 8. 2 (1) (v.).
8 University of London Press, Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press, Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch.
601.
' S.35.
5 Hollinrake v. Truswell, [1894] 3 Cb. 420; Chilton v. Prcgress Printing Co.,
[1895] 2 Ch. 29.
^Leslie t. Young, [1894] A. C. 335.
I Macmillanx. Dent, [1907] 1 Ch. 107. As to the publication of private letters,
which have no literary value, see Earlof Lytton v. Devey (1884), 54 L. J. Ch. 293.
« Walter v. Lane, [1900] A. C. 539.
» Walter v. Steinlopff, [1892] 3 Ch. 489.
io pike v. Meholas (1870), L. K. 5 Ch. 250. Different copyrights can thus be acquired
in different arrangements of common materials. See the cases as to street directories,,
Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. B. 1 Eq. 697 ; Morris v. Wright (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 279.
II Walcot v. Walker (1802), 7 Ves. 1 ; Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer. 435.