National Soccer League t/a Premier Soccer League v Gidani (Pty) Ltd
[2014] 2 All SA 461 (GJ)
Division:
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date:
25 February 2014
Case No:
10/48519
Before:
NF KGOMO J
Sourced by:
L Jantjie and T Nzimande
Summarised by:
DPC Harris
. Editor's Summary . Cases Referred to . Judgment .
[1] Constitutional law Infringement of copyright Annual and/or weekly soccer fixtures or lists Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996 Section 16(1)(b) Section protects, not only the imparting or receiving of the factual
empirical content of expression but also the elements of expression which may be novel, controversial or which involve
creativity Court found the conduct in casu is commercial exploitation by the defendant of the plaintiff's fixture lists.
[2] Intellectual property Copyright Infringement of Annual and/or weekly soccer fixtures or lists Copyright Act 98 of
1978 Issue was whether the item over which copyright is claimed is eligible for copyright Court held that original
literary works, which include tables and compilations, are eligible for copyright protection in terms of section 2(1)(a) of the
Act.
Editor's Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringing its copyright in the annual and/or weekly soccer fixtures or lists as
contemplated in section 23 of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978, by using, without licence or permission or authority from
the plaintiff, its weekly and/or annual fixture lists in its Sport Stake betting game or business.
Held The Act protects certain defined classes or categories of works provided that they meet certain conditions.
The starting point is to establish whether the item over which copyright is claimed is eligible for copyright. The
plaintiff contended that its fixture lists were literary works within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act. Original
literary works, which include tables and compilations, are eligible for copyright protection in terms of section 2(1)(a)
of the Act. Whether an alleged work is a proper subject for copyright protection involves an objective test, both in
respect of originality and the work itself.
The defendant relied on section 16(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom to receive or impart
information or ideas. Although information in general comprises facts, the section also protects, not only the
imparting or receiving of the factual empirical content of expression but also the elements of expression which may
be novel, controversial or which involve creativity. The relevant conduct in the present matter is commercial
exploitation by the defendant of the plaintiff's fixture lists which is not covered by section 16(1)(b).
The Court found that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought.
Notes
For Constitutional law see:
.
LAWSA Second Edition Replacement Volume (Vol 5(3), paras 1334)
Page 462 of [2014] 2 All SA 461 (GJ)
.
Cheadle, MH; Davis, DM and Haysom, NRL South African Constitutional Law: The Bill of Rights (2ed) Durban
LexisNexis 2005 (last updated in April 2012)
For Intellectual property see:
.
LAWSA Second Edition Replacement Volume Vol 29
.
Burrell TD Burrells South African Patent and Design Law 3ed Durban LexisNexis 1999
Cases referred to in judgment
South Africa
Accesso CC v Aliforms (Pty) Ltd and another [1996] 4 All SA 655 (T)
Referred to
478
Appleton and another v Harnischfeger Corporation and another [1995] 2 All SA
693 (1995 (2) SA 247) (AD) Referred to
481
Biotech Laboratories (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group Plc and another [2002] 3 All
SA 652 (2002 (4) SA 249) (SCA) Referred to
484
Board of Healthcare Funders v Discovery Medical Scheme and others [2013]
JOL 30806 (GNP) Referred to
480