Moneyweb (Pty) Ltd v Media 24 Ltd & another
Date | 24 May 2019 |
Author | Shay, R.M. |
Pages | 159-171 |
Citation | (2017) IPLJ 159 |
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)β
ξ΅ξΆξ΅ΌξΆξ΅ΊξΆ ξ΅½ξξ°ξξΆξΆξ΅ΊξΆξ
Lecturer, Depar tment of Mercantile Law, University of S outh Africa
ξξξ ξ¬ξΆξΆξΆξΆξ΅½ξΆξ΅ΌξΆ ξΆξΆξΆ
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
(Moneywebξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξΏξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ
ξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξΏξξξξ
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
ξξξξξ ξξξξξξξ ξξ ξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξ ξξξ ξΏξξ ξξξξξξ ξξξξξ ξξξξξ ξξξ
ξξξξξξξ
ξξξ ξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξΆξ ξξξ
ξξξξξ ξ
ξξξξξξξ ξξξξξ ξξξξξ ξξξξ ξ²ξξξξ
ξξξ ξξξξξξ ξ·ξξξ
ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξΏξξξξξξξξ
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
ξξ
ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξΆξ
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
ξξξξξξξξξξΆξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξΆξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ
protection by s 12(8) of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (the Copyright Act), where
ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ
ξξξξξξξξξ΅ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξΆξξ
ξ°ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξ
ξξξξξξξξξξξξ ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξΆξξ
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:
ξξ ξ§ξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξΆξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξξ
literary works?
β 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.
ξξξ ξ―ξ―ξ₯ξξ―ξ―ξ°ξξξΆξξξξξξξ
1 [2016] 3 All SA 193 (GJ); 2016 (4) SA 591 (GJ).
159
(2017) IPLJ 159
Β© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial