Appleton and Another v Harnischfeger Corporation and Another (495/92) [1994] ZASCA 141; 1995 (2) SA 247 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 693 (A) (30 September 1994)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the subsistence of copyright in the engineering drawings in question must be determined by reference to the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 and Notice 125 of 1990, which extended protection to American works without qualification. The repealed subordinate legislation, including Proclamation 118 of 1924, no longer governs the recognition of foreign works. The respondents were not required to prove compliance with United States law or formalities. The Court found that the drawings were original artistic works, as they were created by employees of Harnischfeger Corporation with sufficient skill and were not slavish copies of earlier works. The appellants'...
- Citation
- [1994] ZASCA 141
- Parties
- Appellant: John Appleton; Appellant: Bedford Mechanical and Pump Spares CC; Respondent: Harnischfeger Corporation; Respondent: Harnischfeger (SA) Proprietary Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 1994
- Case Number
- 495/92
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division
- Outcome
- Appeal partially upheld; paragraph 2 of the order of the court a quo deleted; amendment to substitute drawing number 4J84 for 4J139 granted; remainder of the order, including the interdict, confirmed.
- Judges
- Corbett, Van Heerden, Nestadt, Harms, Nicholas
- Legal Topics
- Copyright Infringement, Originality Requirement, Subsistence of Copyright, Foreign Works Protection, Berne Convention, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Appleton
Appellant
Bedford Mechanical and Pump Spares CC
Appellant
Harnischfeger Corporation
Respondent
Harnischfeger (SA) Proprietary Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether copyright subsists in two engineering drawings created in the United States and whether the appellants infringed such copyright.
- 2 Whether the South African recognition of copyright in American works is governed by repealed subordinate legislation or by the current Copyright Act and ministerial notices.
- 3 Whether the drawings in question are original artistic works for the purposes of copyright protection.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the subsistence of copyright in the engineering drawings in question must be determined by reference to the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 and Notice 125 of 1990, which extended protection to American works without qualification. The repealed subordinate legislation, including Proclamation 118 of 1924, no longer governs the recognition of foreign works. The respondents were not required to prove compliance with United States law or formalities. The Court found that the drawings were original artistic works, as they were created by employees of Harnischfeger Corporation with sufficient skill and were not slavish copies of earlier works. The appellants'...
Court Disposition
Appeal partially upheld; paragraph 2 of the order of the court a quo deleted; amendment to substitute drawing number 4J84 for 4J139 granted; remainder of the order, including the interdict, confirmed.
Orders
- The application by respondents to amend the notice of motion by substituting the number '4J84' for '4J139' is granted.
- The appeal against paragraph 2 of the order of the court a quo is allowed and paragraph 2 is deleted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment