South Africa Case Law

Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (00001/2024)

Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (00001/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 209; 2025 (4) SA 523 (GP) (7 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

00001/2024

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Tribunal found that the applicants had established the requirements under section 33(3) of the Copyright Act: they require a licence, the copyright holder refused to grant it, and the circumstances make the refusal unreasonable. The Tribunal held that the refusal by the respondent was an abuse of monopoly rights and that the applicants' claim was well-founded. The ongoing demand from schools, the inability of schools to replace textbooks annually, and the history of collaboration and joint authorship all supported the applicants' entitlement to a compulsory licence. The Tribunal declared…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Licence
• Copyright Act Section 33
• Refusal To Grant Licence
• Unreasonableness
• Joint Authorship
• Declaratory Order

Feldman NO v EMI Music SA (Pty) Ltd/ EMI Music Publishing SA (Pty) Ltd (268/2008)

Feldman NO v EMI Music SA (Pty) Ltd/ EMI Music Publishing SA (Pty) Ltd (268/2008) [2009] ZASCA 75; 2010 (1) SA 1 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 307 (SCA); 2009 BIP 294 (SCA) (1 June 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

268/2008

Judges

Farlam, Brand, Maya, Mhlantla, Hurt

A co-author of joint-authorship copyright works cannot claim all infringement damages without pleading entitlement to the full share or joining the other co-authors.

• Copyright Infringement
• Joint Authorship
• Exceptions To Pleadings
• Reasonable Royalty
• Punitive Damages
• Copyright-infringement

Peter-Ross v Ramesar and Another (2064/06)

Peter-Ross v Ramesar and Another (2064/06) [2008] ZAWCHC 39; 2008 (4) SA 168 (C); 2008 BIP 306 (C) (14 March 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2064/06

Judge

Desai

The court found that the applicant and first respondent collaborated extensively in developing the scientific hypotheses and content that formed the basis of the disputed article. The first draft, prepared by the applicant, bore both parties' names as co-authors and was reproduced almost in its entirety in the article submitted for publication. The evidence, including emails, agreements regarding artwork and editing, and the Invention Disclosure Form, demonstrated a clear intention to produce a co-authored work. The Copyright Act defines joint authorship as a work produced by collaboration wh…

Source excerpt

• Joint Authorship
• Copyright In Literary Works
• Scientific Collaboration
• Declaratory Relief