picture, a play, or a book, and the owner of the idea has no rights in that
product.”
Similarly in Hollinrake v Truswell [1894] 3 Ch 420 at p. 424, Lord Justice
Lindley said:
“Copyright does not extend to ideas, or schemes, or systems or
methods; it is confined to their expression; and if their
expression
is not copied the copyright is not infringed.”
Ghanaian law, as usual, has been influenced by this English law. Accordingly,
the appellant has endeavoured to construct a case based on this axiom of
English and Ghanaian law. That case is founded on Additional Ground B. In
my view, this ground needs to be considered first. This is because, if it is
successfully established, there will be no need to consider the other grounds.
In the appellant’s Statement of Case, it presents the pith of its argument on
this issue as follows:
“57.
Under these Grounds, the appellant submits that the judgment of
the trial court failed to address the import of the provision in section 2
of Act 690 that copyright does not extend to ideas, and that the Court of
Appeal erred in not setting aside the judgment on that ground. The
plot of a novel, such as Woes, was an idea that had no copyright
protection under Act 690. Therefore the Summary could not constitute
copyright infringement especially when it was neither alleged nor
established that the Summary had plagiarized the plaintiff’s linguistic
style or presentation.
The appellant argues that the Summary,
12