This case illustrates that a compilation, a collection or an anthology of literary works are literary works protected by the copyright law.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff is one of the largest book publishers in Malaysia. The defendant is a bookshop located in Selangor. Plaintiff contended that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in two of their books by publishing, distributing, exhibiting and selling their infringed copies of the two books. Plaintiff contended that they had the copyright in the books because the persons who had collected, selected and arranged the short stories and poems in the books had duly assigned their copyright to the plaintiff.
To obtain prima facie evidence to obtained an Anton Piller order, the plaintiff arranged a trap purchase. One of their agents had successfully purchase a copy of the two infringing books at the defendant’s bookshop. On execution of the Anton Piller order, the infringing copies of the books were not found. It was learnt that the defendants kept their stock at an address not known to the plaintiff when the Anton Piller order was sought and obtained.
The defendant then applied to have the Anton Piller order dissolved and claimed for damages. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs had no copyright in two of the books and it is the actual authors of the stories and poems who owns the copyright in them. Defendant also argued that there was no evidence that they had assigned their intellectual property of their work to the plaintiff.
Issue of the Case
Whether the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s copyright?
Judgment of the Court
The Court held that the copyright that the plaintiff is claiming are the copyright to the collection or anthologies of the short stories and poems. It is not the individual written works.
In Macmillan & Anor v Suresh Chunder Deb (1890) 17 ILR (Calcutta Series) 951, the subject is a famous anthology of poems called the Golden Treasury of Songs and Lyrics selected by one Prof Palgrave. It was held that such a selection could be the subject of copyright. By virtue of this case, the Court held that both in principle and on authority, that the person or persons who compiled each of the two books, the subject of this action, could enjoy the copyright in the books which they have assigned to the plaintiffs.
The Court was of the view that in a copyright complaint, suspicion followed by a successful trap purchase supported by prima facie evidence of ownership of the copyright is sufficient to justify in granting an Anton Piller order. Thus, the defendant’s application to set aside the Anton Piller order was dismissed with costs.
Comentários