MR JUSTICE PARK:[T]he fact that the original story of the Cyclops was written by Homer (whoever he may have
been) and was presumably an original work when it was written does not prevent a reworking of
it by a modern writer from itself being an original work... “Original” in this context does not
imply an examination of a work’s literary quality. The question in essence is whether it originated
from the person who claims to be the author. Mr Christoffer’s script originated from him, and is
not prevented from having done so by the fact that there is another sense in which it can be said
to have originated from Homer. I express no view on whether the originality requirement would
have been met if Mr Christoffer had done nothing more than write a summary of the Homer
story. It may or may not have been, but in any case Mr Christoffer did more than that. In terms
of story, the core of Mr Christoffer’s script is the same as Book IX of the Odyssey, but there are
many variations of detail. In terms of presentation, setting out someone else’s narrative story in
the form of a script suitable for filming manifestly involves original work. It may be done well
or badly, but either way the writer puts his own effort into it and creates a work which did not
exist before.Compare the following decision:Gormley v. EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd [1999] 1 I.L.R.M. 178 (Ireland:
Supreme Court)[A primary school teacher tape-recorded her pupils recounting versions of bible
stories that the teacher had related in class. Many years later, when these tapes
were compiled and marketed as a record, one of the now grown-up children
sued for copyright infringement. She failed, however, because the court found
that her retelling of the story was not “original”.]MR JUSTICE BARRON for the Court:It seems to me unlikely that a six-year-old would be in a position to exercise any original thought
capable of being expressed when her sole purpose was to repeat the story which had been told
to her by her teacher. ... She was reciting the story that she had learned, even though she may
have used a lot of her own words. I do not suggest that a six-year-old can never have independent
thought nor exercise sufficient skill or judgment for the purposes of obtaining a copyright. If the
purpose is to copy, then a six-year-old would never have had sufficient independent originality
to realise or to intend to give a different slant to the particular story which she had been told so
as to make it a different thing. ...There can be no copyright in a well known plot or story, because there is nothing original about
it, even though it may be unconsciously narrated in different words. In the same way there could
be no copyright in the actual story which the plaintiff recited, since that story was not an original
one. The difference between a copy and an original lies in the treatment of the source material.
For example, a biography is the choosing of elements of the life of the person whose history is
being told. Each author would approach the same facts in a different way. If one author
approaches those facts in the manner in which the previous author has already approached them,
then this would amount to plagiarism. The ultimate test where a work is copied is whether the
author of the source material and the author of the impugned work could have their works
published side by side without complaint.It is not the language which creates the copyright, it is the creativity. In general, originality would(^40) relate to the story, rather than to the words in which it is expressed. Yet reducing words to a