The proprietor of a monthly local railway time-table complained that the proprietors of a rival time-table published (1) the same tables of trains between the same selected stations, in the same order, and in some instances the same statements of mileage; (2) four pages of information regarding excursions, which, with slight alterations on one page, he had copied literally from the complainer’s time-table.
Held (1) (aff. the decision of the First Division) that the respondents’ train tables were not in all respects a copy of the complainer’s work, but represented a certain amount of original labour, and therefore, in view of the nature of the complainer’s compilation, there was not such appropriation of his work as to warrant interdict; (2) (rev. the decision of the First Division) that the complainer’s guide to excursions was a compilation resulting from a considerable amount of original trouble in collecting and abridging information useful to the locality, and being independent work was protected by the copyright law; and interdict granted against the four pages complained of.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) and Lords Watson, Ashbourne, and Shand
Citations:
[1894] UKHL 693, 31 SLR 693
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Intellectual Property
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.634087