University of London Press v University Tutorial Press ([1916] 2 Ch. 601)

The case of University of London Press v University Tutorial Press ([1916] 2 Ch. 601) is a landmark decision in UK copyright law that solidified the concept of what constitutes an “original literary work” and clarified the ownership of copyright in works created under contract. 

The case laid down foundational principles of copyright law, particularly in relation to examination papers, and played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation of copyright in written works that did not fit traditional notions of literature. In this case, the court extended the scope of literary works under copyright to include materials like examination papers, which were previously not considered protectable under the law.

Facts of University of London Press v University Tutorial Press

The dispute in University of London Press v University Tutorial Press arose from the preparation and publication of examination papers for the University of London. The Defendant, University Tutorial Press (hereafter “Defendant University”), had appointed two examiners, Professor Lodge and Mr. Jackson, to prepare the examination papers for the University of London’s matriculation exam.

A critical aspect of the agreement between the Defendant University and the examiners was that the copyright of the examination papers created by the examiners would automatically belong to the Defendant University. Subsequently, the Defendant University entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff, University of London Press (hereafter “Plaintiff University”), to transfer all copyrights in the examination papers to the Plaintiff University.

After the examination papers were set and the exams concluded, Defendant University published a book that included several of the examination papers prepared by the two examiners, along with an answer key and some critique of the questions set in the papers. 

In response, the Plaintiff University brought a lawsuit for copyright infringement, claiming that the Defendant University had used their copyrighted work without permission. Over the course of the litigation, Professor Lodge and Mr. Jackson were brought in as co-plaintiffs, joining the suit to assert their rights to the copyright of the papers.

Issues in Dispute

The main issues at hand in University of London Press v University Tutorial Press were:

1. Whether the examination papers were considered “literary works” under the Copyright Act of 1911.
2. Whether the examination papers were original and, therefore, eligible for copyright protection.
3. Who owned the copyright in the examination papers after they were prepared?
4. Whether the Defendant University had infringed upon the copyright of the two examiners by publishing the papers.

These issues centered on the interpretation of the term “literary works” under UK copyright law, the scope of originality required for copyright protection, and the ownership of copyright under the specific contractual circumstances between the parties involved.

Relevant Laws

The case primarily involved the UK Copyright Act of 1911. The key sections of the Act that were relevant to the case included:

• Section 1(1) – The subject matter of copyright, which enumerates the types of works that can be protected, including “literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.”
• Section 2(1) – This section addresses the infringement of copyright.
• Section 5 – This provision deals with the ownership of copyright, providing that the author of a work is generally the first owner unless the work is created under a “contract of service” (in which case the copyright may belong to the employer).
• Section 35 – This section includes definitions and interpretations of terms used in the Act, which were crucial in determining what constitutes a “literary work.”

University of London Press v University Tutorial Press Judgement

The court’s analysis focused on the interpretation of the term “literary works” under the Copyright Act of 1911 and the concept of originality required for copyright protection. Justice Peterson, in his judgement, made several key observations that clarified these issues.

Are Examination Papers “Literary Works”?

The central issue in University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press was whether examination papers could be considered “literary works” under the Copyright Act of 1911. The court took a broad view of what constitutes a literary work. While the Act did not provide a specific definition for literary works, it did list various examples of written materials that could fall under the category of literary works, including maps, charts, plans, and tables. The court reasoned that, as written works, examination papers could also be classified as literary works. It held that the quality or style of writing is not a determining factor in deciding what qualifies as a literary work under copyright law. Thus, the court concluded that examination papers, being in a printed form, fell within the definition of literary works and were eligible for copyright protection.

Are the Examination Papers “Original”?

The court also addressed the issue of originality. Under UK copyright law, the concept of “originality” does not require the work to be novel or unique in the sense of introducing new ideas. Instead, it requires that the work originates from the author and is not copied from another source. The court stated that “originality” pertains to the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

In the case of the examination papers, although the examiners used knowledge that was common within the academic field, the papers were not copied from any other source. The examiners demonstrated skill, judgement, and experience in selecting and formulating questions that would assess students’ understanding of the syllabus. This mental labour, as well as the unique way the questions were formulated, was sufficient to meet the originality requirement for copyright protection. The court concluded that the examination papers were original works under the Act.

Who Owned the Copyright in the Examination Papers?

Another key issue in the case was the ownership of the copyright in the examination papers after they were created. The court referenced Section 5 of the Copyright Act of 1911, which stipulates that the author of a work is generally the first owner of the copyright, unless the work was created under a “contract of service.” The court distinguished between a “contract of service” (which implies a master-servant relationship) and a “contract for service” (which implies an independent contractor relationship). 

In this case, the two examiners were not employees of the Defendant University but were independent contractors, as they were employed by other educational institutions and had the flexibility to prepare the papers in their own time. Therefore, the court concluded that the examiners were the authors and, thus, the original owners of the copyright. However, the employment contract required them to assign the copyright to the Defendant University, which in turn transferred it to the Plaintiff University.

Did the Defendant University Infringe the Copyright?

Finally, the court addressed the issue of copyright infringement. The Defendant University had republished the examination papers, including the answers and some critique of the questions. The court found that the Defendant’s actions did not constitute “fair dealing,” as the reproduction was not for the purposes of private study but for commercial publication. Defendant had published the papers without the proper permission, thus infringing the copyright held by the Plaintiff University. The court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff University, asserting that the Defendant’s actions were a violation of copyright.

Conclusion

The case of University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press established several important principles in copyright law. It confirmed that examination papers could be classified as “original literary works” and eligible for copyright protection. It also clarified that originality in copyright law is not about the novelty of ideas but about the expression of those ideas in a unique manner. The case further clarified the ownership of copyright in works created under a “contract for service” and reinforced the importance of securing proper copyright assignments.

This case remains a landmark decision in UK copyright law, particularly in its expansion of the definition of “literary works” to include examination papers and its establishment of the “test of originality” that continues to guide copyright jurisprudence today.