Week 1

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

Facts: Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in
its own, after Rural had refused to license the information.
Issue: Does the copying of facts constitute a copyright infringement?
Decision: Dismissed
Reasons: Facts alone arent copyrightable, but compilations of facts can be. The
intent of Copyright wasnt to reward the effort of the person collecting the
information, but rather to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts. The
court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all
subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that
no creative expression was involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time
and money collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural's
copyright claim was dismissed.
Ratio: Information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be
protected by copyright

Alexander v. Haley (1978)

Facts: Alexander initiated copyright infringement and unfair competition actions
against Haley when a similarities appeared between a book written by the
plaintiff and one written by the defendant
Issue:
Decision: Dismissed
Reasons:
Ratio: Incidents, characters or settings which are standard in the treatment of a
given topic constitute unprotected ideas (scenes a faire)

Mannion v Coors Brewing Company

Facts: The parties dispute whether a photograph used in billboard
advertisements for Coors Light beer infringes the plaintiff's copyright in a
photograph of a basketball star
Issue:
Decision:
Reasons:
Ratio: The composition of a photograph can be copyrightable.

A.A. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios

Facts: Hoehling was a historian who researched the Hindenberg disaster. He
published a book (based on several other sources) that blamed the disaster on
the work of a saboteur. Later, a fiction writer named Mooney wrote a novel about
the disaster that featured a plot and characters similar to Hoehling's research. It
was later turned into a movie. Mooeny admitted that he used Hoehling's book as
a source for his novel. However, he changed the names of the people and
deviated from historical fact on a number of occasions.
Issue:
Decision: Dismissed

Reasons: The Appellate Court found that Hoehling's allegations encompassed

material that is non-copyrightable (historical facts). The Court found that in
works devoted to historical subjects, a second author may make significant use
of a prior work, so long as they do not bodily appropriate the expression of the
original.

Ratio: History is fact, and the plot of his book was an idea. Neither history nor
fact is copyrightable.

Appleton & another v Harnischfeger Corporation & another 1995 (2)

SA 247 (A)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Week 2
Pivot Point, Intl v. Charlene Products (2004)
Facts: Pivot Point makes educational tools for the hair industry. They created a
mannequin head with slip-ons (facial forms) and hair pieces. They created a
specific hungry look mannequin and Charlene created a mannequin very close
in appearance.
Issue: Is the mannequin head subject to copyright protection?
Decision: Reversed and remanded; cross-appeal dismissed (In favour of Pivot
Point)

Reasons: The mannequin is a useful article. A useful article falls within the
definition of pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works only if and only to the extent
that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can
be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the
utilitarian aspects of the article. The Mara face is subject to copyright
protection. It certainly is not difficult to conceptualize a human face, independent
of all of Mara's specific facial features. Mara can be conceptualized as existing
independent from its use in hair display or make-up training because it is the
product of artistic judgment.

Ratio: Mannequin heads are copyrightable

Oracle v. Google (2014)
Facts: Sun wrote Java APIs. Google developed the Android OS, needing to use
the Java APIs. Sun was bought over by Oracle and sued Google for copyright and
patent infringement. In 2012, the court found for Google.
Issue: Is the structure of the API copyrightable?
Decision: Reversed

Reasons: The court noted that Copyright Act provides protection to "original
works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". Literary works
include "computer programs to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the
programmer's expression of original ideas, as distinguished from the ideas
themselves". The work was original. This led the court to conclude "that the
overall structure of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and resembles a
taxonomy".

Ratio: The "structure, sequence and organization" of an API is copyrightable

Rapid Phase Entertainment CC and others v SABC 1997 JOL 393 (W)
Facts: The cartoon strip Madam and Eve is a well-known daily cartoon. An
advertisement for a small business uses similar characters and similar sequences
or situations. The CC claims that the cartoon is a literary work (disputed) and an
artistic work (accepted) and that the respondent has copied it by reproducing
and adapting it.
Issue:
Decision: Dismissed

Reasons: There is no infringement of the literary work as each strip is a self-

contained story and no specific cartoon storyline has been copied. The cartoons
are artistic works, but no reproduction has taken place and no adaptation has
taken place, as the actual cartoon hasnt been used.

Ratio:

Opinion on the judgment?:

In your view, did reproduction or adaptation take place:
Is there need for character protection in South Africa:
If yes, which test should be applied:
Reservations:
Would it have made a difference in this case?

Bress Designs (Pty) Ltd v G Y Lounge suite Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd

and another 1991 (2) SA 455 (W)
Facts: The applicant and first respondent are furniture designers, manufacturers
and suppliers and the second respondent is a furniture retailer. All conduct their
businesses in greater Johannesburg. Mr Bress began the manufacturing of a sofa
suite similar to one hed seen a picture of (stating his employees put in much
skill and effort in its manufacturing, enumerating many differences) and sold it
under the name Fendi. The applicant claims confirmation of a rule nisi granting
it a temporary interdict (pending the outcome of an action to be instituted for a
final interdict) against the first and second respondents restraining them
from infringing applicant's alleged copyright in a 'Fendi' lounge suite by
reproduction or sale.
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Artistic work/craftsmanship?

Week 3 - Authorship
Lindsay v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel R.M.S. Titanic (1999)

Facts: Lindsay wanted to make a documentary about a sunken ship. He tagged

along with a salvage team, and used them to help film the documentary. Lindsay
created storyboards, specified specific camera angles and shooting sequences,
directed, and produced the film. He remained on the ship while salvage divers in
submarines went down and actually shot the video. The crew of the salvage
vessel later licensed some of the footage they shot to a TV channel. Lindsay sued
for copyright infringement. The crew argued that they were the ones who shot
the video, so it was theirs to license as they willed. Lindsay argued that he was
the actual author of the video, so he owned the copyright.

Issue: Must the author use the instruments that create the work?
Decision: Held

Reasons: The author of a work is the person who actually creates the work,
that is, the person who translates an ideas into a fixed, tangible expression
entitled to copyright protection. An individual claiming to be an author for
copyright purposes must show the existence of those facts of originality, of
intellectual production, of thought, and conception. Even though Lindsay did not
hold the video camera, he was the 'creative force' behind the video, and so was
the author for copyright purposes.

Ratio: It's neither necessary nor sufficient that you have your hands on the
instruments that create the work

Aalmuhammed v. Lee
Facts: Aalmuhammed was an expert on Malcolm X. He was hired by Lee to be a
consultant for a movie about Malcolm X. Aalmuhammed suggested script
revisions, offered direction to some actors, and helped with editing. When the
movie was released, the credits listed Aalmuhammed as a technical consultant.
He wanted to be considered a co-author, so he sued.
Issue: Does the contribution of independently copyrightable material to a work
intended to be an inseparable whole make the work a joint work?
Decision: Dismissed

Reasons: A joint work is one that was intended by both parties to be a joint
work. That determination is fact specific. The courts will look to, among other
things, the apportionment of decision-making authority and the billing accorded
the various parties. Here, none of the parties made any objective manifestations
of intent to be co-authors. Specifically, Plaintiff had no supervisory authority
over the film and signed a work for hire agreement that prevented him from
being a co-author.

Ratio:

King v The South African Weather Service 2009 (3) SA 13 (SCA)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Haupt t/a Softcopy v Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd 2006

(4) SA 458 (SCA)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Peter-Ross v Ramesar 2008 (4) SA 168 (C)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:
Week 4
Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
Facts: Under the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the
duration of copyrights by 20 years in order to, inter alia, harmonize the baseline
United States copyright term with the term adopted by the EU. Petitioners
argued that the CTEA violated the "limited times" prescription of the Copyright
Clause. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contended that the CTEA was a
content-neutral regulation of speech that failed inspection under the heightened
judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations.
Issue: Was the extension of existing copyrights constitutional?
Decision: Held

Reasons: The Court rejected petitioners' arguments that (1) the extension was a
congressional attempt to evade or override the "limited times" constraint, (2)
Congress could not extend an existing copyright absent new consideration from
the author, and (3) the extensions should have been subject to heightened
judicial review. The Court also rejected petitioners' argument that the CTEA
violated the First Amendment.

Ratio: The Court determined that the CTEA was constitutional. The CTEA's
extension of existing copyrights did not exceed Congress' power under the
Copyright Clause.

Stewart v. Abend (1990)

Facts: Cornell Woolrich wrote a story and sold the publication rights to Popular
Publications, Inc., which published the story in its Magazine. Three years later,
Woolrich sold the movie rights to a production company, and agreed by contract
to renew those rights when the 28-year copyright (then in force) expired. In 1953
the movie rights were bought by a production company formed by
actor Stewart and director Alfred Hitchcock. The short story was then made into
an acclaimed movie starring Stewart. Woolrich died before the expiration of his
28-year copyright, and control of the literary rights passed to his executor, Chase
Manhattan Bank. Chase sold the movie rights to literary agent Sheldon Abend
who refused to honour Woolrich's original agreement to renew the copyright and
assign it to the owner of the movie rights, and instead sued Stewart when the
movie was shown on television.

Issue: Does the owner of a legal derivative work infringe the rights of a
successor copyright owner by continued distribution and publication of the
derivative work during the renewal term of the pre-existing work
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio: The successor copyright owner's right to permit the creation of

a derivative work passes to the heirs of the author of the work, who are not
bound by the original author's agreement to permit such use
Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders Valve Co Ltd 1987 (2) SA 1 (A)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Week 5
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Michael Bolton (2000)
Facts: The Isley Brothers recorded a song. Many years later, Bolton recorded a
similar-sounding song. The Isley Brothers sued for copyright infringement. Bolton
argued that he couldn't remember ever hearing the Isley Brothers song and that
he came up with his song all by himself (aka independent creation).
Issue:
Decision: Held

Reasons:

Ratio:

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries (1987)

Facts: Steinberg drew an illustration of New York City that was featured on the
cover of a magazine. Columbia used a very similar-looking illustration of New
York City in a promotional poster for a movie. Steinberg sued for copyright
infringement. Columbia admitted that they had used Steinberg's illustration as a
basis for their poster. However, they argued that they were dissimilar enough
that it wasn't an infringement. Columbia argued that they merely copied
Steinberg's idea, not his expression, and ideas cannot be the basis of copyright
protection.
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Pub Group (1998)

Facts: Castle Rock made a popular TV show called Seinfeld. Carol published a
book of containing trivia questions and answers related to the TV show. The book
referenced specific episodes, characters, and events of the show, and directly
copied lines of dialogue. Castle Rock sued for copyright infringement. Castle
Rock argued that the book was a derivative work, and that only the copyright
holder has the right to authorize a derivative work.
Issue:
Decision: Held

Reasons:

Ratio:

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (2013)

Facts: Academic textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Wiley) owns the
American copyright for textbooks and often assigns its rights to its foreign
subsidiaries to publish, print, and sell its textbooks abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng is a
Thai citizen who came to the US. He asked friends in Thailand to buy the English-
language versions of his textbooks there, where they were cheaper, and mail
them to him. He then sold the textbooks in America, where they were worth
more, reimburse his friends and family, and make a profit.

Issue: Is the first sale doctrine limited by geography?

Decision: Reversed and remanded

Reasons: The language and common-law history of the Copyright Act support a
non-geographic reading of the Act that allows for unrestricted resale of
copyrighted goods regardless of the location of their manufacture. The Court also
held that a geography-based reading of the "first sale" doctrine would drastically
harm the used-book business as it would force book sellers to be subject to the
whim of foreign copyright holders.

Ratio: The first sale doctrine, which allows the owner of a copyrighted work to
sell or otherwise dispose of that copy as he wishes, applies to copies of a
copyrighted work lawfully made abroad

American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo (2014)

Facts: Aereo provides a service that allows its subscribers to watch programs
that are currently airing on network television or record programs that will air in
the future over the Internet. Aereo does not have a license from the copyright
holders of the programs to record or transmit their programs. Two groups of
plaintiffs (NFL and MLB) filed separate copyright infringement suits against Aereo
and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Aereo from transmitting
programs to its subscribers while the programs were still being broadcast. The
federal court and Second Circuit Appeal found for the defendant.
Issue: Does a company "publicly perform" a copyrighted television program
when it transmits the program to paid subscribers over the Internet?
Decision: Reversed and remanded

Reasons: Because Aereo is functionally similar to community antenna television

(CATV), which Congress specifically amended the Copyright Act to cover, the
Copyright Act regulates Aereo's actions in a similar manner. Under the definitions
Congress established in the Copyright Act, Aereo performs work because it shows
images in sequence with the accompanying audio, and it does so publicly
because those images and sounds are received beyond the place from where
they were sent by a large number of unrelated people. Therefore, Aereo, like
CATV, is not just an equipment provider but rather a broadcaster.
Ratio: Aereo's retransmission of television broadcasts was a "public
performance" of the networks' copyrighted work. The Copyright Act of 1976
forbids such performances without the permission of the holder of the copyright.

Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd v Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd 1998 (2)
SA 965 (SCA)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Fax Directories. (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings CC 1990 (2) SA 164 (D)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Southern African Music Rights Organisation Ltd v Svenmill Fabrics

(Pty) Ltd 1983 (1) SA 608 (C)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Laubscher v Vos & others 3 JOC (W)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Week 6 Copyright Exceptions and Limitations

Authors Guild v Google (2013)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music (1994)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Cariou v Prince (2013)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Beecham Group Plc Ltd Liability Co & another v Biotech Laboratories

(Pty) Ltd JOC (T)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Fraser-Woodward Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation & another

[2005] EWHC 472 (ch) 64 IPR 187 (UNITED KINGDOM)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:
Week 7 Copyright Infringement and Cultural Theory
Viacom v. YouTube (2012)
Facts: Viacom International, Inc. (Viacom) and other copyright holders alleged
direct and secondary copyright infringement based on the public performance,
display, and reproduction of audiovisual clips shown on YouTube. The plaintiffs
argued that YouTube was not entitled to safe harbour protection under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for airing the clips because, as plaintiffs
claimed, YouTube was aware or chose a blind eye to the fact that these clips did
indeed infringe on the plaintiffs copyrights.
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster (2005)

Facts: The defendants distributed free software that allowed private individuals to share
copyrighted electronic files without authorization. Some of those files shared are movies and
songs that MGM hold copyrights to.
Issue: Whether a distributor of a product that is capable of lawful and unlawful use is liable
for copyright infringement by a 3rd party using that product.
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Martin v. City of Indianapolis (1999)

Facts: Martin is a sculptor and creator of Symphony #1, a large, outdoor metal
sculpture located on city land. Martin had a contract with the city to preserve the
sculpture and he engineered the sculpture in a manner that it could later be
removed and reassembled. Martins sculpture received several awards and
recognition by local press. The city then demolished the sculpture without
notifying Martin.
Issue: Whether, a sculptor can prove a Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA) claim after
the unauthorized destruction of his sculpture by showing that his work was one
of recognized stature?
Decision:

Reasons: To determine if a work of visual art is one of recognized stature, the

work of art must have: (1) merit or intrinsic worth and (2) public
acknowledgement of the merit. To satisfy the public acknowledgement prong, the
work of visual art must be recognized by art experts or members of the artistic
community and is proven by expert testimony as to stature of the work of art in
the community.
Ratio: Martin entitled to VARA rights but not enhanced damages because the Citys conduct was not
willful.

Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Frank and Hirsch (Pty) Ltd v Roopanand Bros (Pty) Ltd 1993 (4) 279
(A)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Gramophone Co Ltd v Music Machine (Pty) Ltd @ others 1973 (3) SA

188 (W)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Week 8 Remedies
Salinger v. Colting (2010)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

United States v. Moran (1991)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Ara Oy v Pascall and others 364 (JOC) (W)

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Metro Goldwyn-Mayer Inc & other v Ackerman and another 558 JOC
(SEC)
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

South African Music Rights Organisation Ltd v Trust Butchers (Pty)

Ltd 1978 (1) SA 1052
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:

Reasons:

Ratio:

Week 9