work was described as "not original compilation, but a mer
copy, with colourable variations." Here it is clear that the wo
"original" was not used in the sense which Mr. Schutt would -
ascribe to it as conveyed by the new Act. For, in the sense for
which he contends, a compilation could scarcely be "original"
although compilations often are and have been the subject of
copyright. That Act includes compilations amongst "literary
works," and they may be the subjects of copyright if they are
original as compilations. In Graves' Case (1) it was contended
that a photograph of an engraving was not an original pro-
duction within the meaning of that word in the Artistie Copy-
right Act of 1862. "The distinction between an original painting |
and its copy is well understood," said Blackburn J. (2), " but i
is difficult to say what can be meant by an original photograph.
All photographs are copies of some object, such as a painting ora ;
statue. And it seems to me that a photograph taken from a
picture is an original photograph, in so far that to copy it is an
infringement of this Statute." No doubt a photograph copied
from the original photograph could not claim copyright, but that
stands on a different footing from the original photograph. In _
Dicks y. Yates (3) the defendant had published a novel with the
title of "Splendid Misery." 'The plaintiff had previously pub-
lished a novel with the same title, but long before that there had
been another novel of the same name. The injunction for which
the plaintiff asked was refused by the Court of Appeal, Jessel
M.R. and Lush LJ. pointing out, if not indeed resting their judg-
ments on, the lack of originality in the title for which the
plaintiff claimed copyright. The former asked (4): " How can the
title 'Splendid Misery' be said to be original, when the very
same words for the very same purpose were used nearly eighty
years ago?" 'The Master of the Rolls further said (5) that "no -
authority binding on us has been produced to show that there can
be copyright in such a title as this," and Jumes LJ. concurred in
that view. But it seems to me that the meaning that was there -
attached to the word "original " was that which Webster's Un-
abridged Dictionary gives as a secondary meaning, namely, "not.
(1) LR. 4 QB., 715. (4) 18 Ch, D., at p. 89.