C, William Hill, claimed copyright in their football betting coupons; alleged D, Ladbroke, had infringed this. Question was whether coupons were an ‘original literary work’. D argued there was no copyright in the coupons, on basis that there was distinction between:
i) preliminary work
- i.e. deciding what to sell
- in this case, making a decision of which bets to include
ii) recording this work
- i.e. deciding how to sell it
- in this case,putting those bets on paper.
D claimed only second stage was relevant for purposes of copyright; and that so little skill was involved in recording result of the preliminary work onto paper that no copyright could subsist in it.
· “Originality” relates to the expression of a thought.
· To be original, no requirement for original or inventive form.
Ø Must simply be case that work has originated from the author.
· With regards compilations, originality is a matter of degree depending on amount of skill, judgment or labour involved in making compilation.
· Value of work as a whole is relevant when considering originality.
· Thusnot possible to split constituent parts of work of making coupons.
Ø no need that preliminary work done should have as sole or even main object the preparation of a document.
Ø Suffices that it is an object.
· Case might be different if preliminary work was done with no intention of later writing this down.