Ray Bradbury, owner of the copyrights in his literary works, The Fireman and Fahrenheit 451, brought this action for infringement, seeking damages and in-junctive relief. He appeals from the judgment denying the relief prayed for in his complaint.

The alleged infringing work is a television production entitled A Sound Of Different Drummers televised by Columbia Broadcasting System on October 3, 1957. Columbia together with Robert Alan Aurthur, who wrote the television script, and Martin Manulis, who produced it, were named defendants.

The appellant will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and appellees as defendants.

Bradbury appeals, specifying as error the findings and conclusions that the script entitled A Sound Of Different Drummers was original; that Aurthur did not have access to Bradbury’s copyrighted works prior to the telecast; that Aurthur did not copy from Bradbury’s works; and that there is no similarity in the literary expression.

At the outset of his opinion, 174 F.Supp. 733, 734 , the trial Judge stated:

Access.

Both plaintiff and defendants agree that in the copyright field access means not merely the opportunity to have read or known the contents of a work, it means actual reading or knowledge thereof. Harold Lloyd Corporation v. Witwer, 9 Cir., 65 F.2d 1, 16 .

From the evidence it is apparent that the defendants, Columbia and Aurthur, had knowledge of plaintiff’s copyrighted1 works prior to the writing or telecast of A Sound Of Different Drummers. Bradbury testified that in 1952 he entered into a written agreement with Columbia with respect to the television rights to The Fireman and Exhibit 3 was identified and received as an executed copy of said written contract. This testimony is not contradicted and an inference therefrom cannot be avoided that as early as 1952 defendant Columbia had actual' knowledge of the contents of plaintiff’s, works.

Defendant Aurthur testified that he had been a free-lance writer since 1947 and was employed during the spring of 1955 at the National Broadcasting Company as associate producer of the Philco Television Playhouse, and that his duties-were mainly in the area of working with writers in terms of developing scripts under the supervision of Gordon Duff, producer, and that his relation with Duff was of five or six years’ duration. Aur-thur testified that he gave first consideration to the plaintiff’s work, Fahrenheit 451, when a Mr. Wolfe came into his office in early April of 1955. Wolfe told him that he thought there was materia! in the book, Fahrenheit 451, that perhaps-television was prepared to accept.

After some discussion, Aurthur and Wolfe interviewed Gordon Duff and Aurthur explained to Duff what Wolfe “wanted to do,” to which Duff replied, “Well, let me read the book.” It is apparent that the book referred to in the discussion was Fahrenheit 451.

*480 Following this discussion and under date of April 22, 1955, Aurthur addressed a letter to Don Congdon, Bradbury’s agent. After dispatching this letter to Congdon, Bradbury had telephone conversations with Congdon relative to television rights to Fahrenheit 451. Aur-thur testified that Duff had decided to produce for television Fahrenheit 451.

Bearing on this question of whether Aurthur had read or had knowledge of plaintiff’s works, he testified as follows:

If Aurthur is to be understood as having testified that he had not read or had knowledge of The Fireman or Fahrenheit 451 prior to the production of the teleplay, such testimony, when considered with similarities between Fahrenheit 451 and the teleplay, is unworthy of belief. Here we have not only direct evidence of access but we find similarities from which access and copying may be inferred.

The evidence of access by the defendant Aurthur to plaintiff’s works, considered with noteworthy similarities in defendants’ production, A Sound Of Different Drummers, is strong and persuasive evidence of copying which requires the defendants to counter with *482 strong convincing and persuasive evidence to the contrary. Overman v. Loes-ser, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 521, 523 . Defendants have not countered the effect of the evidence of access and similarities with strong convincing and persuasive evidence. They have merely denied copying.

Similarities, Copying and Infringement.

After testifying that he had viewed the film of A Sound Of Different Drummers, Bradbury narrated, on direct examination, twenty-two claimed similarities, as follows:

No contention is made by defendants that the above recited similarities do not exist and it is apparent that an ordinary person or observer, after reading The Fireman, Fahrenheit 451, and seeing the picture A Sound of Different Drummers, would note similarities as we did which would bring about a belief that A Sound Of Different Drummers is a dramatization or adaptation of Fahrenheit 451.

The incidents and their sequence that make up the action and develop the story in each of the works are too similar to be coincidental.

The similarities here, like those dealt with by Judge Knox in Simonton v. Gordon, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 12 F.2d 116, 123 , could not have occurred without access to plaintiff’s works. It is inexplicable that without access to the plaintiff’s book that Aurthur would have incorporated into his play such a number of similar and parallel incidents, episodes and scenes. As in the Simonton case, the difference existing between the novel and the play are no more than Aurthur believed necessary in order to adapt plaintiff’s story to the limitations of the television screen.

We must keep in mind, in addition to the similarities, that we have uncon-troverted testimony in this record of Aurthur’s interest in plaintiff’s works, of his activities looking to a television adaptation, and the fact of Columbia’s option to take Bradbury’s novel. All this, when considered with the similarities, meets head-on and overwhelms the denial of Aurthur that he had read or knew of the contents of plaintiff’s works before the television production.

In Dam v. Kirk La Shelle Co., 2 Cir., 175 F. 902, 907 , 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 1002, in dealing with a situation such as we have here, the Court said:

A comparison of Bradbury’s story with the play shows in many important and unimportant details as well that Aurthur actually read the story or had knowledge thereof before and during the writing and production of the teleplay.

An ordinary person, after reading plaintiff's works and viewing the teleplay, might well believe that Aurthur had copied plaintiff’s works. The similarities which here exist are novel in Bradbury’s story; they are strange and unusual. Defendants not only copied the theme and ideas of Bradbury’s copyrighted work but also its expression. The copyright of a story covers what is new and novel in it. There are similarities existing between plaintiff’s copyrighted works and defendant Aurthur’s play, which upon an analysis, would be found to be novel in the story and of such a nature as to be within the protection of the copyright statutes. Harold Lloyd Corporation v. Witwer, 9 Cir., 65 F.2d 1, 18, 23 .

Many of the incidents, sequence of events, development and interplay of the characters are the same.

Fair use may permit copying of theme or ideas of copyrighted work but not its expression. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation, 2 Cir., 81 F.2d 49, 54 .

To constitute an invasion of copyright it is not necessary that the whole of a work should be copied, nor even a large portion of it in form or substance, but that, if so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially, to an injurious extent, appropriated by another, that is sufficient to constitute an infringement. The test of infringement is whether the work is recognizable by an ordinary observer as having been taken from the copyrighted source. Slight differences and variations will not serve as a defense. The means of expressing an idea is subject to copyright protection and where one uses his own method or way of expressing his idea, as Bradbury has done, such adornment constitutes a protectible work. Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corporation, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 354, 361, 363 .

It is not established by the evidence that Martin Manulis participated in the writing of the script of Aurthur’s teleplay nor did he have access to either The Fireman or Fahrenheit 451 prior to the broadcast. There is no evidence tending to show that he had knowledge of the plaintiff’s works. He testified that prior to rehearsal, in response to a telephone query from someone at an executive level at Columbia, that he postponed operations awaiting advice from the broadcasting company’s legal department on this question of similarity, and was advised to go ahead with the show by a member of the company’s legal department. No liability on his part is disclosed in the record.

Columbia, in October 1957, broadcast A Sound Of Different Drummers over its facilities on its production Playhouse 90. Being chargeable with notice and knowledge of the facts known to the defendant Robert Alan Aurthur, it is liable to plaintiff for infringement of his copyrighted works. Universal *486 Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corporation, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 354, 371 .

Defendants Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. and Robert Alan Aurthur, in producing A Sound Of Different Drummers, did knowingly and wilfully copy from protectible material contained in plaintiff’s copyrighted works and did so without his • knowledge or consent.

The Court’s findings that the teleplay, A Sound Of Different Drummers, was original; that Robert Alan Aurthur did not have access to either The Fireman or Fahrenheit 451 prior to said broadcast; that defendant Robert Alan Aur-thur did not copy either The Fireman or Fahrenheit 451; and that there is no similarity in the literary expression between plaintiff’s said works and the teleplay A Sound Of Different Drummers, are, and each of them is, clearly erroneous.

The judgment is reversed as to defendants Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. and Robert Alan Aurthur; and affirmed as to Martin Manulis; and the action is remanded to the trial court with directions to determine the issue of damages and to enter judgment as prayed for in plaintiff’s complaint in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. and Robert Alan Aurthur, with costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees.