Previous 2 / 13 Next

The Court confirmed the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the Act, and held that no reading in of section 24 of the Act was required. The respondents also applied in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 for the review of the SABC's decisions not to broadcast the work and not to negotiate the sale of the work to the second respondent. The source and nature of both decisions sought to be reviewed are within the purview of the contractual provisions of the agreement between the parties and the actions of the SABC in respect of both decisions were outside the arena of its exercise of powers and functions as an authority in relation to a subordinate party or the public. The Court therefore held that decisions sought to be reviewed were not administrative actions. The SABC having established a right to both the distribution interdict and the delivery interdict, the Court made an order against the respondents in that regard. Page 625 of [2016] 4 All SA 623 (GJ) Notes For Copyright see: LAWSA Second Edition Replacement Volume (Vol 5(2), paras 198) · Cases referred to in judgment South Africa Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and another v Minister for Safety and Security and others 2009 (10) BCLR 978 (2010 (2) SA 181) (CC) Referred to 635 Bhugwan v JSE Ltd [2009] JOL 23989 (2010 (3) SA 335) (GSJ) Referred to 640 Biotech Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group PLC and another [2002] 3 All SA 652 (SCA) Followed 635 Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services (Western Cape) CC and others 2001 (10) BCLR 1026 (2001 (3) SA 1013) (SCA) Referred to 641 Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (3) BCLR 219 (2012 (1) SA 256) (CC) Followed 643 Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings CC [1990] 1 All SA 107 (1990 (2) SA 164) (D) Referred to 632 Frank & Hirsch (Pty) Ltd v A Roopanand Brothers (Pty) Ltd [1991] 2 All SA 85 (1991 (3) SA 240) (D) Referred to 634 George v Fairmead (Pty) Ltd [1958] 3 All SA 1 (1958 (2) SA 465) (A) Referred to 639 Golden China TV Game Centre and others v Nintendo Co Ltd [1996] 4 All SA 667 (1997 (1) SA 405) (SCA) Referred to 631 Government of the RSA v Thabiso Chemicals [2009] 1 All SA 349 (SCA) Referred to 641 Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and others: In re: Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and others v Smit NO and others [2000] ZACC 12; 2001 (1) SA 545; 2000 (10) BCLR 1079 (CC) Referred to 635 Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and another 2005 (8) BCLR 743 (2006 (1) SA 144) (CC) Distinguished 639 Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd 2016 (6) BCLR 709 (2016 (4) SA 121) (CC) Referred to 633 Nintendo Co Ltd v Golden China TV Game Centre and others [1995] 4 All SA 421 (1995 (1) SA 229) (T) Discussed 631 Premier Free State and others v Firechem Free State (Pty) Ltd [2000] 3 All SA 247 (2000 (4) SA 413) (SCA) Referred to 643 Sokhela and others v MEC, Agriculture & Environmental Affairs (KwaZulu Natal) and others [2009] JOL 23782 (2010 (5) SA 574) (KZP) Referred to 640

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd v Via Vollenhoven & Appollis Independent CC and Others (Freedom of Expression Institute as amicus curiae) [2016] 4 All SA 623 (GJ).

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (linked Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: Sep 2, 2016

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Upheld

Keywords

Intellectual Property

Judicial Body: Administrative Court

Court Name: Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Case Number: 13/23293

Case Summary: The Applicant had commissioned the First Respondent to make two documentary film episodes and purchased the copyright in the films. While one episode was broadcast the other one was not which became the subject of the case. The Applicant sought a final interdict against the respondents from infringing their copyright in the work by screening the work at a literary festival in 2013. The Defendants did not comply with the Applicant's demands not to screen the film and plead with the court that the Applicant had no intention to exploit the film as a defense. The court found that the Applicant had established a right to both the distribution interdict and the delivery interdict thus made an order against the Respondents.

Case Significance: The rights accompanying copyright remained with the holder of the copyright and no reading in of section 24 of the Copyright was necessary as it was already constitutionally valid.

Related Caselaw (self)

Notes: The court denied the contention by the Defendants that the Act was set in place to promote public disclosure and dissemination of works which they had relied on before the court to justify their use of the copyrighted work as a result of its non-exploitation by the Applicant.

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Jul 10, 2024

Primary Documents

South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd v Via Vollenhoven & Appollis Independent CC and other.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd v Via Vollenhoven & Appollis Independent CC and Others (Freedom of Expression Institute as amicus curiae) [2016] 4 All SA 623 (GJ).

Primary Documents

Notifications