Leslie v Young & Sons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1894 |
| Docket Number | No. 10. |
| Date | 07 June 1894 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Ld. Chancellor (Herschell), Lord Watson, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Shand.
Copyright—Infringement—Monthly Railway Time-Table—Interdict.—
The proprietor of a book of local railway time-tables published monthly presented a bill of suspension and interdict against the publishers of another book of time-tables, for the same locality, selling or exposing for sale any time-tables copied or only colourably different from the complainer's time-tables, or containing excerpts therefrom.
Held upon a proof (alt. judgment of the First Division) (1) that in so far as the respondents' publication consisted of ordinary time-tables, there had been no infringement of copyright; but (2) that in so far as the respondents' publication consisted of certain pages of selected and condensed information as to tourist arrangements and Saturday excursions, which were proved to have been copied from the complainer's publication, there had been a breach of copyright, and that the complainer was entitled to interdict against the respondents issuing any publication containing the said copyright matter.
(In the Court of Session, 20th July 1893, 20 R. 1077.)
The complainer appealed.
Lord Chancellor.—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Inner-House recalling an interdict of the Lord Ordinary (Lord Low), and assoilzieing the defenders. The action was brought in respect of an alleged infringement by the defenders of the copyright claimed by the pursuer in certain time-tables which were published by him at Perth. The work alleged to have been pirated contains time-tables, and certain other information to which I will more particularly allude presently. The piracy complained of consisted of an alleged improper use of certain time-tables, published by the pursuer relating to railway trains, and also relating to ferries and steamers and coaches. The Lord Ordinary came to the conclusion that the defenders had pirated a part of the pursuer's work in which he had a copyright, in the matter contained in pages 40 to 53 of the defenders' work, with the exception of a particular time-table, and also in certain other pages which he specified, and in respect of these he granted an interdict. The Inner-House, as I have said, recalled that interlocutor, coming to the conclusion that there had been no piracy at all.
The time-tables, which are to be found on the earlier pages which I have mentioned, namely, 40 to 52 and part of 53, consist of tables in the usual form found in all railway time-tables, taking Perth in the main as the starting-point, this being a periodical published at Perth for the information of persons coming to or going from (more particularly going from) that place. The information in these time-tables was of course derived by the pursuer from sources which were as open to the defenders as to himself, and he does not and cannot claim any right to the information as such; he can only claim copyright in them if they are the result in some respect or other of independent work on his part, and if advantage has been substantially taken by the defenders of that independent labour. The mere publication in any particular order of the time-tables which are to be found in railway guides and the publications of the different railway companies could not be claimed as a subject-matter of copyright. Proceedings could not be taken against a person who merely published that information which it was open to all the world to publish and to obtain from the same source.
As regards some of these tables, there is really nothing more to be said against what the defenders have done than that they have published the same table between the same stations in the same order as the pursuer; but then those tables, with all those stations and all those times of the trains, are to be found in the companies' books, and neither party would have anything more to do than to copy them in order to arrive at the information which is to be found in both books. It is true that in some cases the mileage has been taken, and is admitted by the defenders to have been taken from the pursuer's book. As regards other of these tables, it is said that they were not mere copies of tables to be found in the railway guides, but that there was a certain selection of stations, the smaller stations being omitted, and a selection of trains, some of the trains also being omitted. That applies no doubt to some of the tables. But, my Lords, looking at these tables as a whole, and having regard to the fact that it is admitted that the defenders' work is, as regards these tables, not by any means in all respects a copy of the pursuer's work, that it is not denied that there was a certain amount of original work done by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd
...to copyright and then see whether the part taken is a substantial part. The only apparent exception would seem to be a case such as Leslie v. Young & Sons, [1894], A.C., 335, where a compilation was treated as consisting of severable parts, one of which was held to be original work and cop......
-
IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd
...concerning compilations which preceded the 1911 Act 113 had followed upon the enactment of the Copyright Act 1842 (Imp) 114. In Leslie v Young & Sons115, the House of Lords accepted that information derived from timetables issued to the public by railway companies, and selected, condensed, ......
- Tcn Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Network Ten Pty Ltd (No 2)
- Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd