Case Study: Macmillan & Company Ltd. v. Cooper

By Anish Sinha 10 Minutes Read

“The unauthorized publication of a dramatized version of a novel constitutes a violation of the author’s copyright. The adaptation too deems as an infringement as it involved a significant transformation of the original work without the copyright holder’s consent.”

Citation: (1924) 26 BOMLR 292

Date of judgment: 14^th December, 1923

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: Atkinson (J), Shaw(J), Wrenbury(J), Carson(J), R. Younger(J)

Facts

• The appellant published an abridged version of “North’s Translation of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander,” specifically tailored for educational use by H.W.M. Parr, M.A. Their version combined selected excerpts from Sir Thomas North’s translation with additional text to create a continuous narrative where the original had significant gaps.
• The respondents, in turn, published their own book titled “Plutarch’s Life of Alexander the Great. North’s Translation,” edited by A. Darby, M.A. This edition included the full 20,000-word text from the appellant’s work but supplemented it with 7,000 words of their own.
• However, they excluded the marginal notes, introductory sections on North’s translation and Alexander’s historical background, content analysis, a chronological table of key dates in Alexander’s life, and some brief transition notes that were part of the appellant’s version.
• As a result, the appellant filed a lawsuit against the respondent, winning in the trial court but losing in the Court of Appeal. The case was then taken to the Privy Council for further review.

Decision of the trial court

The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, Macmillan & Company. The court found that the defendants had infringed on the plaintiffs’ copyright by publishing an abridged version of North’s Translation of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander that closely followed the structure and content of the plaintiffs’ work.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs’ abridged edition, even though based on a public domain work, was a distinct and original version protected by copyright. As a result, the defendants’ publication was deemed to be an unlawful reproduction of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted material.

Decision of the court of appeal

The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s decision that had favoured the plaintiffs, Macmillan & Company. The Court of Appeal held that the defendants’ publication of an abridged version of North’s Translation of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, even though it incorporated significant portions of the plaintiffs’ work, did not constitute copyright infringement.

The court found that since the original translation by North was in the public domain, the defendants were entitled to publish their version, especially as they had added substantial original content.

Decision of the Bombay High Court

The Privy Council of Bombay High Court overturned the appellate court’s judgment and upheld the trial court’s decision.

It was established that the respondent did not possess copyright over the text simply by selecting parts of it and applying effort. The court noted that respondent have copied many of these notes from the appellant’s book and the true definition of “original work” was referred to in the University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press.

The shortened version of the appellant’s book was found to include copyrightable content in the form of notes, which the respondent infringed upon. The distinction between an abridgment and a work made up of selected passages from an author’s original work was also clarified by court. The court concluded that both the appellant’s and respondent’s works were deemed lacking in originality, except for the notes.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Did the Court determine that the Plaintiff was entitled to copyright for the original content in his work and what was court opinion on infringement?

Yes

The court confirmed that the Plaintiff was indeed entitled to copyright protection for the original content in his work. Court noted that copyright law protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and the Plaintiff’s work met these criteria. The originality in the work was enough to warrant copyright protection, even if the work was not of high literary or artistic merit.

It was also recognized that he had sole rights over the notes written by him in his work. Thus, the Court held that he was entitled to a copyright for those parts of the book which stemmed from his own creativity, and the copying of those parts by the Defendant amounted to infringement. The Court amended the order of the Trial Court by specifying the parts of the original work in which copyright subsists. 

Justice Atkinson noted that “I do not deny that some mental labour, skill, and judgment are needed to select passages for the use of schoolboys. But at the same time, it must be remembered that by itself is not necessarily sufficient to constitute what one may call original work. The matter for all practical purposes remains the matter contained in North’s Translation. There is no decided case which can be said to cover a case like the one before us. The cases which Mr. Coltman has referred to and relied upon do not help us in deciding the present case. I fully recognise that the word ‘original’ should be so construed as to give to the person who has used his brain the benefit of that use as far as possible; but unless the word is to be completely divested of its plain and natural meaning, I find it difficult to hold that the matter, which is word for word taken from North’s Translation, though only partially, constitutes an original work.”

Regarding infringement, the court examined whether the Defendant had copied original elements from the Plaintiff’s work. The court considered whether there is “substantial similarity” between the two works, focusing on the protected elements. It was found that the Defendant did infringed on the Plaintiff’s copyright by copying substantial portions of the original content without permission. The ruling emphasized that even if the Defendant did not reproduce the entire work, copying significant and protected elements was sufficient for infringement.

2. Can the abridgment of North’s translation of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander be regarded as an original literary work?

Yes

The Bombay High Court held that the abridgment of North’s translation of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander could indeed be regarded as an original literary work. The court emphasized that while the abridgment used material from an existing work, it was the result of the abridger’s own skill, labor, and judgment. Therefore, it was considered original and eligible for copyright protection.

Court noted that “To constitute a proper abridgment, the arrangement of the book abridged must be preserved, the ideas must also be taken, and expressed in language not copied, but condensed. To copy certain passages and omit others, so as to reduce the volume in bulk, is not such an abridgment as the Court would recognize as sufficiently original to protect the author.”

To clarify the legal definition of “original work” in the context of copyright law, court cited the University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press case[1], which established that for a work to be considered original and thus eligible for copyright protection, it must be the result of the author’s own skill, labor, and judgment, rather than simply copying or reproducing existing material.

By referencing this case, the court reinforced the principle that originality in copyright law does not require the work to be novel or inventive; it simply needs to reflect the author’s intellectual effort.

[1] [1916] 2 Ch. 601

Anish Sinha