Moneyweb (Pty) Ltd v Media 24 Ltd & another

• Citation: (2017) IPLJ 159
• Date: 24 May 2019
• Author: Shay, R.M.
• Pages: 159-171
• Published date: 24 May 2019

CASE NOTE: MONEYWEB (PTY) LTD

V MEDIA 24 LTD & ANOTHER [2016] 3

ALL SA 193 (GJ); 2016 (4) SA 591 (GJ)†

 

Lecturer, Depar tment of Mercantile Law, University of S outh Africa

  

Recently the South Gauteng High Cou rt had the opport unity to consider the

appropriate use of news media content publishe d by commercial competitors

in the online envi ronment. In Moneyweb (Pty) Ltd v Media 24 Ltd & another1

(Moneyweb    

respondent had reproduce d substantial parts of seven of its ar ticles and, as

they were protected by copyr ight as literary works, such act ion constituted

both direct copyr ight infringement a nd unlawful competition. T hey claimed

           

          

      

news publication and its editor, prohibiting the conti nued publication of the

offending content, as well as an award for da mages.

The respondents in t urn alleged that the applicant ha d failed to prove

originality i n any of the seven works in question. Accordingly, the applicant

could not rely on copyright protection. I n addition, even if the applicant was

     

use of these articles did not const itute infring ing reproduction, as simila rity

between the respect ive articles in an objectively substantial par t was not

evident. The respondents f urther contended th at they had not infringed t he



protection by s 12(8) of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (the Copyright Act), where



    

articles and that the re was a substantial reproduct ion of any of these works,

it was contended that this re production was made in accorda nce with fair

dealing and thus fell to be exempted. T he legal questions to be decided were:

 

literary works?

† Thanks to Coenraa d Visser, Sunelle Geyer and Sadull a Karjiker for stimulati ng conversations

about this cas e and to the second reviewe r for the helpful comment s.

 

1 [2016] 3 All SA 193 (GJ); 2016 (4) SA 591 (GJ).

159

(2017) IPLJ 159

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd