Intellectual Property Rights

University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd.

[1916] 2 Ch. 601

Facts

Examiners prepared mathematics examination papers for the University of London.
University of London Press acquired the right to publish those examination papers.
University Tutorial Press reproduced several questions in study material and supplied answers.
It argued that examination questions were not “literary works.”
It further argued that the questions lacked originality because they dealt with existing mathematical knowledge and did not contain new ideas.
The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement.
The dispute required the Chancery Division to interpret “literary work” and “originality” under copyright law.

Whether examination papers and individual questions are literary works.
Whether originality requires novelty or invention.
Whether skill and judgment used in framing and selecting questions are sufficient for copyright protection.

“Literary work” is not limited to works possessing literary style or artistic merit.
It includes material expressed in writing that conveys information or instruction.
Originality means that the work originates from the author and is not copied.
It does not require:
novelty of ideas;
inventive genius;
literary elegance.
The author’s labour, skill and judgment in selecting and expressing material may support protection.
Copyright protects the particular wording and arrangement, not the underlying mathematical principles.

The examination papers were expressed in writing and were intended to test and communicate mathematical problems.
They therefore fell within the broad meaning of literary works.
The examiners did not invent mathematics or claim control over mathematical facts.
Their contribution lay in:
selecting the topics;
deciding the level of difficulty;
framing particular questions;
arranging the paper;
expressing the problems in a chosen form.
These decisions required intellectual judgment rather than mechanical copying.
The questions originated from the examiners even though they were based on established mathematical principles.
The defendant remained free to teach the same mathematics and formulate independent questions.
It was not free to reproduce the plaintiff’s particular wording and combination of questions.
The Court rejected the argument that short or functional writing cannot be literary.
Copyright classification does not depend on artistic quality.
However, protection did not extend to a monopoly over the answers, methods or mathematical ideas embodied in the questions.
The decision reflected the older English “skill, labour and judgment” approach to originality.
Modern cases such as Feist, CCH and Eastern Book Company require closer attention to whether the claimed contribution is sufficiently non-mechanical or minimally creative.
Nevertheless, the case remains foundational for the principle that originality concerns independent expression rather than novelty.

The Court held that the examination papers were original literary works.
The examiners’ selection, arrangement and formulation of questions involved sufficient skill and judgment.
Reproduction of the protected questions amounted to infringement.
Use this case for: a written work may be original without presenting new ideas, provided its particular expression originates from the author and reflects intellectual effort. (vLex)