THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 886/2015
In the matter between:
MEDIA 24 BOOKS (PTY) LTD

APPELLANT
and
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS SOUTHERN
AFRICA (PTY) LTD

RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Media 24 Books (Pty) Ltd v Oxford University Press
SA (Pty) Ltd (886/2015) [2016] ZASCA 119 (16
September 2016)
Coram:
NAVSA, THERON, WALLIS, PETSE and WILLIS JJA
Heard:
30 August 2016
Delivered: 16 September 2016
Summary: Copyright – dictionary – proof of copying – correspondence
of example sentences in bilingual dictionary directed at learners aged ten
to sixteen – similarity raising suspicion of copying – evidence by
compilers of methods used to compile example sentences – lack of access
and reference to appellant‟s dictionary – explanation for similarity that
such inevitable in a work of this type – disputes of fact not resolved by
trial – onus of proving copying not discharged on the basis of similarity
alone.

ORDER

On appeal from: Western Cape Division of the High Court (Gamble J
sitting as court of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those
consequent upon the employment of two counsel.

JUDGMENT

Wallis JA (Navsa, Theron, Petse and Willis JJA concurring)
[1] This is a tale of two dictionaries of a type that many South African
schoolchildren, present and past, would recognise. They are bilingual
Afrikaans-English/English-Afrikaans dictionaries, the purpose of which
is to assist learners using one of English or Afrikaans as a base to obtain a
knowledge and understanding of the other language. Both are relatively
small with no more than 4 000 to 5 000 entries in each language. These
reflect a basic vocabulary incorporating the most commonly used words
in each language. Each entry consists of a specific headword1 and
identifies the part of speech (noun, verb, adjective etc), or parts of
speech,2 of the word; gives the equivalent word in the other language; and
provides a short sentence or sentences illustrating its meaning or the
different shades of meaning that it possesses. If the entry is in respect of

1 For example „dog‟, „run‟ or „for‟. In lexicographical usage the technical expression to describe these
words is a lemma.
2 For example a word may be both a noun and a verb, as with „boil‟ denoting both a type of sore (the
noun) and the action of heating some liquid to boiling point (the verb).

an Afrikaans word the sentence illustrating its meaning will be in
Afrikaans and then be translated into English and vice versa.

[2] In point of time the first dictionary to be published was published
by a predecessor of the appellant, Media24 Books (Pty) Ltd (Media24). It
was initially entitled Tweetalige Aanleerderswoordeboek and the first
edition was produced in 1993. It received favourable reviews as being an
advance on what had previously been available. It was republished under
the name Pharos Aanleerderswoordeboek vir Skole in 2006. For
convenience I will refer to it as the Aanleerderswoordeboek.3 The
respondent, Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (OUP)
published its work, the Oxford Afrikaans-Engels/English-Afrikaans Skool
Woordeboek (the Oxford Woordeboek) in 2007. It too received favourable
reviews. The two are competitors in the market place.

[3] In October 2011 Media24 commenced preparations for a new
bilingual
Afrikaans-English
dictionary
to
replace
the
Aanleerderswoordeboek. It is customary when a publisher decides to do
this for it to investigate the market and examine competing and
potentially competing dictionaries in order to decide how to compile its
own work in a manner that will be commercially successful in the target
market. Although we were not told specifically what first provoked
suspicion, Media24‟s employees came to the conclusion, after looking
closely at the Oxford Woordeboek, that to a substantial extent it had been
copied from the Aanleerderswoordeboek. After taking legal advice and

3 Media24 also produces a bilingual dictionary under the name Pharos Skoolwoordeboek, which was
published in 2005 and is referred to in its application papers. However, all the evidence in support of
the complaint of breach of copyright related to the Pharos Aanleerderswoordeboek. Accordingly the
judgment will refer only to that work.

undertaking further investigations, using independent experts, it launched
proceedings in the Western Cape Division of the High Court claiming
that OUP was guilty of a breach of its copyright in the
Aanleerderswoordeboek and sought interdictory and other relief. Gamble
J dismissed the application and refused leave to appeal. The appeal is
with the leave of this court.

Preparing a dictionary
[4] The preparation of a new dictionary is not a simple matter and
involves a substantial amount of planning. Small basic bilingual
dictionaries, such as the two in issue in this case, are divided into two
sections, one each for words drawn from the two languages. So these two
dictionaries have an Afrikaans side and an English side. On each side the
first step is to identify the words constituting the core basic vocabulary in
that language. These words, which are not necessarily common to both
sides,4 are the headwords on which each entry is based. The entry
translates each word into its equivalent or equivalent in the other
language. It identifies the relevant part of speech and frequently used
inflections of the word, such as plurals of nouns, or adverbs derived from
verbs.

[5] Where a word has more than one meaning all relevant meanings
must be identified. If the different meanings arise because the word can
be used as more than one part of speech, for example, as both a noun and
a verb, they are reflected separately and distinguished by the

4 For example the Oxford Woordeboek has the English word „salad‟, but not its Afrikaans equivalent
„slaai‟. Differing views are expressed in the papers on whether this is sound lexicographical practice
but nothing turns on it.

identification of the relevant part of speech.5 Where the word bears
different meanings in different contexts6 these must be identified and
placed in order, with the most significant and widely used meaning first
and the others following in declining order of importance. In a basic
bilingual dictionary aimed at learners of one of the languages, only the
more significant meanings are given and more subtle linguistic usages are
omitted.

[6] Potentially the most significant task in compiling a dictionary is the
preparation of sentences or phrases that explain and illustrate the meaning
of a word. Not all dictionaries have this. Large-scale explanatory
dictionaries of a single language often achieve the same purpose by
means of quotations from publications in which the word has been used.7
In dictionaries of the type under consideration, the compiler formulates
short sentences, referred to as example sentences, illustrating the use of
the word in context. Because the dictionaries are aimed at school children
it is important that these sentences should be consistent with their life
experience so that the meaning may more easily be grasped.8 In practice
this means that the illustrative sentences will be relatively simple both in
structure and theme.

5 For example the English word „desert‟ may be a noun referring to an arid area of the world, as in the
Kalahari Desert, or a verb referring to a person leaving their duty, as in „the soldier deserts the
regiment‟ or „the man deserted his wife‟.
6 For example the word „recognised‟ may mean that a person is seen and known to be a particular
individual as in „I recognised my friend John‟, or may mean allow to speak, as in „The Speaker of
Parliament recognised the Minister of Transport‟. Afrikaans examples are the words „aan‟, „af‟,
„agterkom‟ and „almal‟.
7 The Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1985) contains verbal illustrations to illustrate the
usage of a word in context and quotations using the word. Similarly the 1913 Webster’s Online
Dictionary (available at www.webster-dictionary.org) contains both explanations of the meaning of
words and quotations illustrating their usage. Similar examples of this approach can be found in the
major dictionaries published by the respondent and its competitors.
8 For example there would be little point in illustrating the word „sang‟ with the sentence „The a
cappella group sang a Gregorian chant‟. A more appropriate sentence would be „Nkosi sang in the
school choir‟.

Media24’s case
[7] In the founding affidavit of Dr Wanda Smith, herself a
lexicographer, Media 24 identified three areas where it claimed that the
Oxford Woordeboek had copied its Aanleerderswoordeboek. They were
in the compilation of the headwords or lemmas on both the Afrikaans and
the English sides of the dictionary; in the ordering of senses with words
having more than one sense; and in the example sentences used in both
the Afrikaans and English sections of the dictionary. These latter, it
contended, had either been copied directly or had been loosely adapted
while following the same themes, sometimes by the alteration of a single
word. In support of these contentions it put up an affidavit and report by
Dr Anton Prinsloo (to whom I will refer as Dr Prinsloo to distinguish him
from Professor Prinsloo who features later in the narrative), an academic
from Stellenbosch University, who had examined the entries in the two
dictionaries for four letters (B, D, I and S) on both sides and identified
where they overlapped in all three aspects. The relevant pages containing
those letters extracted from the two dictionaries were attached to Dr
Prinsloo‟s report and highlighted in marker pen. In addition, he compiled
two schedules reflecting the example sentences that he regarded as
problematic.

[8] Dr Prinsloo‟s analysis of the areas in which he found commonality
between example sentences in the two dictionaries fell into three broad
areas. The first instances was where the example sentences were exactly
the same. In relation to the word „baie‟ both dictionaries included as a
sentence illustrating one meaning of the word: „Baie dankie vir jou help‟.
The second involved only a small change was reflected as in the case of
the word „brightly‟ where the two sentences read: „The sun is shining
brightly‟ and „The sun is shining brightly today‟.  Thirdly there were

words where he identified thematic commonality as with „behaal‟
(„achieve‟) where the sentences were: „Christine het baie hard gewerk om
sukses in die eksamen te behaal‟ and „As jy hard werk, kan jy sukses
behaal‟. I will refer collectively to these different incidents of overlap
between the two dictionaries as correspondences. The extent of such
correspondences emerged from a statistical analysis undertaken by
Professor Martin Kidd, a statistician, the thrust of which was that the
degree of overlap between the two works in regard to the example
sentences was of the order of 16 to 24% when the statistical analysis was
conducted on the basis of a random selection of words.

[9] By the time the matter came before the High Court the complaint
in regard to the commonality between the headwords in the dictionaries
had been abandoned in the light of the evidence of Professor Daniel
Prinsloo, an academic from Pretoria University, (referred to as Professor
Prinsloo to distinguish him from Dr Prisloo, who is mentioned above)
concerning the manner in which he compiled the list of headwords used
in the Oxford Woordeboek. Some argument was addressed to the
allegations of similarity in regard to the order of senses in respect of
certain words, but little turned on this, presumably because there were
few examples of this complaint and a substantial rebuttal of the objection.
The focus of the argument, as it was also in this court, was the extent of
the alleged copying of the example sentences. That was always the
decisive issue. If there had been substantial copying then the claim of
breach of copyright had to succeed. If not, it was not suggested that there
was sufficient strength in the alleged commonality of sense orders to
justify a conclusion of copying of an extent that would warrant the grant
of relief.

[10] In making its case in relation to the example sentences Media24
pinned its colours to the mast of the correspondences identified by Dr
Prinsloo. It did not rely, as publishers of works such as directories and
dictionaries sometimes do, on having set a copyright trap in the work and
identifying copying because the Oxford Woordeboek fell into the trap. A
copyright trap involves the insertion of a false word or false information
or a deliberate error in the work, which if it appears in a competing work
is indicative of copying having taken place.9 Media24‟s allegation of
breach of copyright was based squarely on the correspondences between
the example sentences in the two dictionaries. After citing a number of
these in his heads counsel summarised the submission by saying that:
„The appellant could continue in this vein indefinitely. The similarities are simply too
numerous to consider individually. … It is submitted that the overwhelming
impression that remains is that of copying and the explanation proffered by the
respondent of “common phrases” and “saliency” is simply insufficient to disturb the
probabilities in this regard.‟10
So, like counsel, I will focus on the issue of copying in relation to the
example sentences. But first it is necessary to deal with the legal
framework of the enquiry.

The law
[11] There was no real dispute about the law to be applied in this case.
A dictionary is a literary work for the purposes of the Copyright Act 98 of

9 As occurred in Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings CC 1990 (2) SA 164 (D). There is a
famous example of that in the case of the New Oxford American Dictionary (2005) which listed the
non-existent word „esquivalience‟ and gave as its meaning „the wilful avoidance of one‟s official
responsibilities‟. Apparently the word thereafter found its way into a document emanating from the
White House.
10 This echoed his client‟s view in the founding affidavit that „Bogenoemde ooreenkomste is bloot té
veel en té ooglopend om aan blote toevalle toegeskryf te word‟. (The above-mentioned
correspondences are simply too many and too eye-catching to be ascribed simply to coincidence.)

1978 (the Act).11 As such the Aanleerderswoordeboek was, on
publication, a literary work eligible for copyright.12 The holder of
copyright in a literary work is vested with the exclusive right to reproduce
the work in any manner or form.13 Copyright is infringed where any
person, not being the owner of the copyright and without the licence of
such owner, does any act that the owner has the exclusive right to do.14

[12] The application of these provisions was dealt with in this court in
Galago Publishers,15 where Corbett JA summarised the legal position in
the following terms:
„Copyright is infringed by a person, not being the owner of the copyright, who,
without the licence of such owner, does or causes any other person to do, in the
Republic of South Africa, “any act which the owner of the copyright may authorise”
(s 23(1) of the Act). To determine the meaning and effect of the words just quoted in
relation to a literary work it is necessary to refer to s 6, which provides, inter alia, that
copyright in a literary work vests the exclusive right to do or to authorize the
reproduction of the work in any manner or form, the publication of the work or the
making of an adaptation of the work …
In s 1(2A) it is provided that:
“Any reference in this Act to the doing of any act in relation to any work shall, unless
the context otherwise indicates, be construed as a reference also to the doing of any
such act in relation to any substantial part of such work.”
Consequently it is not necessary for a plaintiff in infringement proceedings to prove
the reproduction of the whole work: it is sufficient if a substantial part of the work has
been reproduced. To “reproduce” within the meaning of the Act means to copy and in
order for there to have been an infringement of the copyright in an original work it
must be shown (i) that there is sufficient objective similarity between the alleged

11 See para (d) of the definition of „literary work‟ in s 1(1) of the Act.
12 Section 2(1)(a) of the Act.
13 Section 6(a) of the Act.
14 Section 23(1) of the Act.
15 Galago Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Erasmus [1988] ZASCA 131; 1989 (1) SA 276 (A) at
279G-280C (Galago Publishers).

infringing work and the original work, or a substantial part thereof, for the former to
be properly described, not necessarily as identical with, but as a reproduction or copy
of the latter; and (ii) that the original work was the source from which the alleged
infringing work was derived, ie that there is a causal connection between the original
work and the alleged infringing work, the question to be asked being: has the
defendant copied the plaintiff‟s work, or is it an independent work of his own? (See
Francis Day & Hunter Ltd and Another v Bron and Another [1963] Ch 587 at 618,
623, indirectly referred to with approval by this Court in the unreported case of Topka
v Ehrenberg Engineering (Pty) Ltd 30 May 1983).‟

[13] Sometimes the fact that an alleged infringing work has been copied
from the original work may be readily identifiable. In the case where it
was claimed that the novel The Da Vinci Code had breached the
copyright of an earlier work, broadly intended to be a work of popular,
but possibly serious, historical and religious conjecture, Mummery LJ
said:16
„… it is easier to establish infringement of the copyright in a literary work if the
copying is exactly word for word (verbatim or “slavish” copying), or if there are only
slight changes in the wording, perhaps in some optimistic attempt to disguise
plagiarism.‟
That is precisely what occurred in the only reported case I have
discovered involving a dictionary.17 The dictionary in issue in that case
was an English-Tamil dictionary, similar in type and purpose to the
dictionaries in issue in this case. But the copying relied on was far more
blatant than anything that is alleged in the present case. For example it
emerged in the course of the trial that the compiler of the infringing work
was unable to translate basic English words into Tamil. The conclusion of

16 Baigent & another v The Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247 para 141 (Da Vinci
Code).
17 Govindan v Gopalakrishna Kone 1955 AIR 391 (Mad).

the trial court endorsed by the Madras Court of Appeal was that the
infringing work was a „piratical reproduction‟ of the copyright work with:
„… page after page, word after word, slavishly copied, including the errors and … the
sequence, the meanings the arrangement and everything else practically the same,
except for some “deliberate differences” introduced here and there to cover up the
piracy‟.
It was largely on the same basis that Corbett JA held in Galago
Publishers that the infringing work was an abridged version of the
protected work „with extensive language copying‟.18 He concluded that:
„The similarities are too marked, too many and in too many instances inexplicable
except on the basis of copying.‟19

[14] Sometimes, however, copying may be less obvious. As Mummery
LJ explained in the same paragraph (para 141) of his judgment in the Da
Vinci Code:
„The “text” of a literary work may cover more than the particular words in which it is
expressed and extend to its overall content, including the selection, arrangement and
development of ideas, theories, information, facts, incidents, characters, narrative and
so on.‟
The contentions on behalf of Media24 do not involve slavish copying or
clumsy adaptive plagiarism. It contended that the copying was more
subtle, involving the selection of the subject matter of example sentences
and the formulation and arrangement of those sentences. It submitted that
the extent of the correspondences was such that it could only have
occurred in consequence of repeated reference to their own work.

[15] The reference by Corbettt JA to the need for a causal connection
between the original work and the alleged infringing work requires a brief

18 Galago Publishers supra at 286D.
19 Galago Publishers supra at 293B-C.

explanation. What the Act prohibits, in the interests of the copyright
holder, is the reproduction of a substantial part of the original work.
Where it occurs this will usually be deliberate, but that is not a necessary
requirement for infringement. The point was made in Francis Day &
Hunter Ltd and another v Bron,20 referred to by Corbett JA in the passage
cited from Galago Publishers. In Bron it was alleged that Mr Bron had
used a well-known tune as the basis for his own composition. He gave
evidence that he had never encountered the tune or had cause to play it
and this evidence was accepted. But the argument was that as a musician
he would, in the ordinary course of events, have encountered the tune and
when he came to compose his own retrieved it from his subconscious and
incorporated it in his tune. While it was not established that this had
occurred, the possibility of unconscious copying was accepted. Thus
Upjohn LJ said:21
„There may be cases where, if the circumstances do not justify the conclusion that the
defendant, in denying conscious plagiarism, is not telling the truth, they yet justify the
conclusion that he must have heard the plaintiff‟s tune, and subconsciously
reproduced it.‟

[16] Any claim that depends to a substantial measure on the notion of
unconscious copying must be approached with circumspection. Isolated
fragments of memory will not ordinarily suffice because it is only
copying of a substantial part of the work that constitutes infringement. As
Diplock LJ said in the same case:22
„I think that the law is perfectly clear, and that such difficulties as there are in this
appeal are solely due to the absence of any factual information about the mental
process involved in “subconscious copying”. We know not whether it is rare or

20 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd & another v Bron (trading as Delmar Publishing Co) & another [1963]
Ch 587 ;[1963] 2 All ER 16 (CA) at 22.
21 Ibid at 25C.
22 Ibid at 27D-E.

common, general or idiosyncratic, nor indeed whether it is possible to remember, not
a mere isolated phrase, but a “substantial part of” the remembered work without
remembering that one is remembering.‟

[17] In the present case, involving the compilation of a dictionary, there
can, I think, be no question of unconscious copying. The extent of the
alleged copying is necessarily too great to be explicable on that basis. I
can understand and accept that, when formulating an example sentence, a
compiler might unconsciously make use of a word, phrase or idea that
they had recently seen in a similar context after consulting another
dictionary. But when that is said to have happened several hundred times
it is not explicable on the basis of unconscious copying.23 Even
lexicographers do not bury in their subconscious minds dozens, much less
hundreds, of sentences that they have read in other dictionaries,
illustrating the meaning of particular words only to pluck them
unconsciously from the recesses of memory when they are tasked with
explaining the same word. As the authors of a leading textbook in this
field note, with a work of any complexity it is unlikely that a person who
remembered enough of it to be able to recreate it would be unaware of
what they were doing.24 That is especially so in the present case where
the copying would have had to occur in the middle of otherwise original
work by the compilers. Accordingly, for copying of a substantial part of
the Aanleerderswoordeboek to have occurred in the present case it must
have been deliberate copying.

23 The statistical analysis by Professor Dunne on behalf of OUP showed that the headwords common to
both dictionaries numbered between 50% and 60% of the total number of headwords in each. Of these
Professor Kidd‟s analysis indicated that around 20% contained example sentences that exhibited
correspondences according to Dr Prinsloo. The OUP publication had slightly fewer than 10 000
headwords. On these figures therefore between 1000 and 1200 cases of example sentences exhibiting
correspondences would be present. For reasons that emerged from Professor Dunne‟s evidence that
may be a far smaller proportion of the total number of example sentences.
24 Kevin Garnett, Gillian Davies and Gwilym Harbottle Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 15 ed
(2005) para 7.22, p 380.

[18] Counsel correctly submitted that in the absence of direct evidence
of copying – which is usually hard to come by – establishing substantial
similarity between the original and the alleged infringing work together
with proof of the possibility of access by the alleged infringer to the
original work, suffices to raise a prima facie case of copying.25 It is then
for the alleged infringer to show how its work was produced without
copying. A bare denial of having copied is unlikely to displace the
inference arising from proof of similarity and access to the original. An
explanation of the process adopted in producing the alleged infringing
copy that plausibly explains the reasons for the similarity between them
will usually be called for. But the onus is not thereby shifted to the
alleged infringer. It is always for the claimant to establish copying on the
ordinary standard of proof, namely, a balance of probabilities.

OUP’s case
[19]  Media24‟s case in its founding affidavit was expressed in broad
and general terms. Insofar as the example sentences were concerned the
founding affidavit mentioned no specific examples and merely referred to
Dr Prinsloo‟s report and the schedules derived by him from his
comparative analysis of the letters B, D, I and S in the two dictionaries.
These schedules set out all the correspondences he identified in the
Afrikaans and English sections of the dictionaries in respect of those
letters. They were attached to the founding affidavit as annexures NB 7
(Afrikaans), containing 215 instances, and NB 8 (English), containing
142 instances, respectively. That involved fewer than 300 words, because
in many instances the alleged correspondences related to various

25 Copinger and Skone James supra para 7.17.

meanings of the same word. The Afrikaans list referred to 169 out of 712
words common to both dictionaries and the English list to 127 out of 616
common words. The Oxford Woordeboek contained 1301 headwords in
Afrikaans and 1158 in English in respect of these letters.

[20] The figures in the previous paragraph are taken from the report of
Professor Dunne, of whom more anon. Assuming that these four letters
were representative of the whole alphabet, so that they can be projected
for the entire dictionary, Media24‟s complaints were confined to example
sentences for no more than ten or twelve percent of the words in the
Oxford Woordeboek. Given that for many words there was more than one
example sentence that means that the percentage of example sentences
showing correspondences would be markedly less than ten or twelve
percent, perhaps nearer five or six percent on Professor Dunne‟s figures.
That was not a great deal but it would probably be sufficient, if there was
copying, to say that a substantial part of the Aanleerderswoordeboek had
been copied. However, it also raised questions about the manner in which
that copying had occurred. I will revert to this once I have dealt with the
evidence on behalf of OUP.

[21] The answering affidavit on behalf of OUP was deposed to by Ms
Megan Hall its publishing manager for dictionaries, school literature in
English and general adult books since 2008. She had managed the entire
process leading to the compilation and publication of the Oxford
Woordeboek and therefore was familiar with it in all its aspects. At the
outset she noted that it was difficult to ascertain the precise nature and
extent of the complaint of infringement from Media24‟s papers. She also
made the point that the dispute, involving as it did a careful comparison
between two dictionaries, was not appropriate to be resolved in

application proceedings. OUP‟s attorneys conveyed as much to
Media24‟s attorneys prior to the commencement of proceedings. Ms Hall
indicated that as, notwithstanding this warning, the proceedings had been
pursued by way of application any request that it be referred for the
hearing of oral evidence would be opposed. As it happened no such
application was made and the case was conducted on the footing that it
should be decided on the affidavits without resort to evidence.

[22] Ms Hall‟s affidavit dealt with all the original complaints by
Media24 and traversed some matters that later fell away. She explained
that Professor Prinsloo from Pretoria University had been commissioned
to prepare the lists of headwords, using a corpus derived from OUP‟s
publications. In the light of his affidavit the contention of copying based
on the commonality of many of the headwords was not pursued. Three
lexicographers, working on a freelance basis, undertook the compilation
of the entries in the dictionary. Mrs Aletta Cloete  and Dr Liezl Potgieter
were responsible for the entries, and hence the example sentences, on the
Afrikaans side of the dictionary and Mrs Daphne Paizee prepared all the
entries on the English side of the dictionary. At an early stage Dr
Phillipus Louw was employed to work freelance as the editor of the
dictionary, but after a few months he was employed full-time by OUP as
its Senior Editor: Dictionaries. He was responsible for the editing of the
dictionary at every stage and where editorial assistants were employed to
perform certain distinct tasks he briefed them on the procedures to be
followed.

[23] Each of the compilers deposed to an affidavit. Mrs Cloete and Mrs
Paizee said that they were sent blocks of about fifty words and were
required to compile the entries for those words. This involved

determining the sense divisions of each word and writing example
sentences for that word to illustrate its meaning. Both Mrs Cloete and
Mrs Paizee said that in undertaking this work they did not have copies of
the Aanleerderswoordeboek or the Pharos Tweetalige Skoolwoordeboek,
another of Media24‟s dictionaries mentioned in the founding affidavit.
They said that they did not copy any of their example sentences from
either of these works or any other source. They both mentioned other
dictionaries that were available to them, none of which were published by
Media24. Mrs Cloete explained that her background was as a teacher and
an editor of a major Afrikaans dictionary. She had authored an Afrikaans
home language textbook directed at grades eight to twelve, which broadly
corresponded with the target market for the new dictionary. This
background and experience made it easy for her to write simple Afrikaans
sentences directed at conveying the meaning of a fairly basic vocabulary
to learners aged between ten and sixteen.

[24] Mrs Paizee was equally well qualified to undertake the task of
compiling entries for the dictionary. She had been an English teacher in
South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she had
taught English as a second language. She had also been the co-author and
author of several dictionaries and held senior positions, including
editorial positions, at OUP, culminating in her becoming the Publications
Director. She acknowledged the difficulty of pitching example sentences
at the right level for the target audience. The only other work she
consulted was the Oxford South African School Dictionary, a
monolingual dictionary aimed broadly at a similar group of learners to the
Oxford Woordeboek. As mentioned she had sole responsibility for
formulating the entries and the example sentences on the English side of
the dictionary.

[25] Dr Potgieter was working towards her M Phil in Translation at the
time that she assisted with the compilation of the Oxford Woordeboek.
She therefore had less experience than her co-compilers. Her explanation
of how she went about the work was both more extensive and slightly
different. As Media24‟s counsel placed some reliance on this in support
of his argument it is best to quote what she said. It appears from the
following paragraphs of her affidavit:
„While I did this work as a consultant I had access to and consulted about 12 different
dictionaries including the Aanleerderswoordeboek and the Pharos Tweetalige
Skoolwoordeboek. I compiled my work using Tshwanelex which is a very useful
dictionary compilation programme. Of the 12 Dictionaries I consulted, five were
bilingual dictionaries.
The way I worked was that I would first think about the word I was working on in the
headword list, its use in language and its sense divisions that would be suitable for the
target market of this dictionary. i.e. schoolchildren.
I would then consult the dictionaries I had in my library and check if there were any
cases where the words were used in ways different to what I already had in my
treatment of the word that might also be necessary to include in a learners‟ dictionary.
I would start by consulting the smaller dictionaries intended for school children and
then I would consult the larger ones, like the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die
Afrikaanse Taal (HAT) and other monolingual Afrikaans Dictionaries to conduct the
check as set out in the previous paragraphs.
Every word, if it has more than one meaning or sense, has particular meanings/senses
which are used more often than others. I would think about which meaning or sense I
thought was used most frequently and I would think of example sentences which most
typically use that meaning or sense of the word in a way in which a learner would
understand. Many words collocate with certain other words (i.e. are frequently used
together in phrases or sentences) and I usually included these collocations.
For the purpose of creating my example sentences I would sometimes consult
magazines but I would most often use examples from my own life. So for example, if

the word was “tennis”, I thought of my friend who played tennis and I would create a
sentence using her name and playing tennis.
I would then translate the Afrikaans example sentence. If I recall correctly I translated
all the Afrikaans example sentences I worked on but if I felt unsure doing the
translation of any sentence, the Respondent had a translator who did the translation. I
believe the English translation I did was checked anyway.
It helped me to translate the Afrikaans example sentences because if the sentence did
not work in English then I went back to the Afrikaans sentence to adjust it.
I did not purposefully or consciously copy anything out of another dictionary. It is
possible that a sentence or type of sentence may have stuck in my mind but it is not
unusual that there are sentences which are similar because it is in the very nature of
writing a dictionary that there will be similarities. As I mentioned before many word
collocate with certain other words or phrases and are therefore typical combinations
that are usually/often used together. These high frequency combinations of words will
therefore often be used together in a variety of dictionaries and therefore there will
often be similarities in example sentences.
It was very important to me to keep the sentences as short and as simple as possible
and to use examples which dealt with something that was relevant to learners‟ lives so
that they could recognize and identify themselves with the example sentences. I had to
be mindful to try to only use words which were already headwords in the dictionary
otherwise learners might come across words in the example sentences that they did
not understand and were unable to look up in the dictionary.‟

[26] In sum, the evidence of the three compilers was that they did not
copy from the Aanleerderswoordeboek. The possibility that such copying
occurred in the editorial process was rejected in the affidavit of Dr Louw.
He said that he did not consult either the Aanleerderswoordeboek or the
Pharos Tweetalige Skoolwoordeboek in the process of editing the
untranslated work of the three compilers, nor did he make either of these
dictionaries available to any of the editorial assistants. Given that the
dictionary covered only frequently used words and translations that he
knew well, he said he had little need to consult other sources in the course

of his editorial work. When he did so he used a monolingual dictionary,
the Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaans Taal. In the case of
subject specific terms in the dictionary, such as geography, he would
cross-check translations against an English geography textbook published
by OUP.

[27]   Apart from the evidence of those directly involved in the
compilation and editing of the dictionary, OUP also delivered affidavits
by three expert witnesses. The first was Professor Timothy Dunne, an ad
hominem professor in the Department of Statistics at the University of
Cape Town, where he was previously head of department. Media24‟s
expert, Professor Kidd, acknowledged his expertise in the field of
statistics. Two points in his evidence were important. The first was an
analysis of the correspondences identified by Dr Prinsloo and
incorporated in annexures NB7 and NB 8 to the founding affidavit.
Professor Dunne obtained the contributor labels from OUP that enabled
him to identify which compiler was responsible for each of the
correspondences. He analysed that information against the contents of the
two annexures and this showed that the correspondences were more or
less evenly distributed among the three compilers. Counsel for Media24
attacked this conclusion on the basis that Professor Dunne had not
identified the source of his information, but that attack was misplaced as
the source was clearly stated in Professor Dunne‟s affidavit. Media24 did
not challenge this evidence in reply. It served to exclude the possibility
that the correspondences were all the work of one of the compilers alone
– what counsel referred to as a „rogue compiler‟.

[28] The second important aspect of the evidence of Professor Dunne
was to draw attention to the statistical principle usually summarised in the

maxim that correlation does not imply causation. What this means is that
the mere fact that there is a correlation between two things – in this case
the example sentences – does not necessarily mean that the one is the
cause or source of the other. In other words, the fact that there is
correspondence between different example sentences does not establish
that those that came into existence later in time were copied from the
earlier ones. That is merely one possibility.

[29] Professor Dunne‟s analysis pointed to the absence of an
identifiable single source of copying (which he referred to as plagiarism).
He said that therefore arguably what remained was a requirement that
evidence of a collective conspiracy was necessary. His reason was that if
the correspondences were to constitute evidence of copying, then either
the three compilers colluded to copy from the same sources, while
ostensibly working separately, or they all separately, without reference to
the others, did so of their own volition.

[30] While Professor Dunne was careful not to venture into
lexicographical territory, he drew attention to the need to weigh factors
pointing in the direction of copying against other potential explanations
of the correspondences. Those explanations were dealt with in the
affidavits of Mr Michael Rundell and Professor Taljard, both
lexicographers. Professor Taljard identified the constraints that apply to
the preparation of a basic bilingual dictionary directed at learners of a
language in the context of a school. The headwords in such a dictionary
must be carefully chosen by identifying words in frequent use. The
profile of the users affects the formulation of example sentences. These
must not use language that is more difficult than the word being
explained and the examples must relate to the world in which the users

live. As a result, example sentences will tend to revolve around home and
school and general matters of common knowledge and experience for
learners in the particular age group.

[31] Professor Taljard said that example sentences serve two functions.
They not only illustrate word usage, but they also enable the child to
decode the meaning of the headword. Thus with the word „circle‟ the
reference is to the fact that a circle is round. The example sentences in
relation to a baby will naturally refer to its age so as to identify that it is a
baby and distinguish it from other children. In order to illustrate this point
Professor Taljard prepared a table in which she compared 59 of the
example sentences in the two dictionaries in this case with example
sentences from two other similar bilingual dictionaries aimed broadly at
the same market sector. The similarity they displayed was apparent from
the schedule.

[32] Mr Rundell said that establishing plagiarism or copying in a
reference work is more difficult than in the case of a novel or song or a
textbook. The reason is that a reference work, like a dictionary, is an
assemblage of generally available knowledge and one would expect
correspondence between the contents of different reference works dealing
with the same topic. The problem is more acute when dealing with a
relatively small dictionary aimed at meeting the needs of learners with a
relatively low level of language proficiency. Such a dictionary, by its
very nature, has a limited range of words and meanings and the
necessarily simple illustration of meanings by way of example sentences
will call upon well-known common concepts. His conclusion was that:
„… the resulting texts are likely to show strong similarity: indeed, it would be odd if
they did not.‟

[33] Mr Rundell illustrated the explanatory function of example
sentences26 with a number of examples drawn from Dr Prinsloo‟s
correspondences. He said that:
 The word „bored‟ is best explained and understood by referring to
someone having nothing to do;
 The word „broom‟ is best explained and understood by referring to
someone sweeping;
 The word „second-hand‟ is best explained and understood by
contrasting it with something new;
 The season „spring‟ is best explained and understood by saying that
it is the season between winter and summer;
 The word „dear‟, as a form of address, is best explained and
understood by referring to the salutation at the commencement of a
letter;
 The word „drunk‟ is best explained and understood by reference to
the excessive consumption of alcohol.

[34] Like Professor Taljard, Mr Rundell illustrated his point about the
likelihood of example sentences of an illustrative nature being similar by
way of a short table of 15 words comparing example sentences drawn
from five other dictionaries. However, he was careful to say that in his
examination of the schedule annexure „NB 8‟ there were a few cases
where the similarities could not be entirely explained by the constraints
on compilers to select the most frequent and typical scenarios. He
mentioned five words where he took this view but added that they
constituted a minority of no more than 10 instances out of the total of 142

26 This is what Professor Taljard referred to as decoding the meaning of words.

words in „NB 8‟. He specifically said that he could not agree with the
claim by the deponent to the founding affidavit that the similarities are
„clearly too many and too noticeable to be coincidental‟.

Was copying proved?
[35]   Media24
established
that
OUP
had
access
to
the
Aanleerderswoordeboek and that there were sufficiently substantial
similarities between the example sentences to raise a prima facie case of
copying, calling for an explanation from OUP of how they arose. That
explanation was forthcoming in two parts. First, there were explanations
by the three compilers of the methods they used in formulating the
sentences as well as evidence of their access, or lack of it, to the
Aanleerderswoordeboek. Second, there was the evidence that such
correspondences were likely to occur when creating a dictionary of this
type, given its limited range and purpose and the need to adopt an
approach to the formulation of example sentences that would fit with the
life experience of children.

[36] Media24 chose not to pursue this case by way of trial. Nor did it
ask for the matter to be referred to oral evidence. In asking for it to be
decided on the affidavits alone, it therefore bound itself to the long
established approach described in Plascon Evans.27 That meant that the
case could not be determined simply on a weighing of the probabilities as
they emerged from the affidavits. The facts deposed to by OUP‟s
witnesses had to be accepted, unless they constituted bald or

27 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A)
634D-635D; Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others [2008] ZACC 13;
2009 (1) SA 1 (CC) paras 8-10; National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma [2009] ZASCA 1;
2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA) para 26

uncreditworthy denials or were palpably implausible, far-fetched or so
clearly untenable that they could safely be rejected on the papers. A
finding to that effect occurs infrequently because courts are always alive
to the potential for evidence and cross-examination to alter its view of the
facts and the plausibility of evidence.28

[37] On the issue of copying, Media24 was confronted by the emphatic
evidence of Mrs Cloete and Mrs Phaizee that they did not copy at all. At
best for it there was an acknowledgement by Dr Potgieter of the
possibility that „a sentence or type of sentence may have stuck in my
mind‟ from some other dictionary, not necessarily one of Media24‟s
range. But a random sentence or two is a far cry from the deliberate
copying of which she was effectively, although not expressly, accused.
That she denied. Clearly she could not have been a „rogue compiler‟, as
referred to by counsel, because the evidence of Professor Dunne showed
that the correspondences were relatively evenly distributed among all
three compilers. His evidence reinforced what was already apparent,
namely that the correspondences could not be the work of one compiler
alone, because they appeared on both the Afrikaans and the English sides
of the dictionary. In view of the division of labour among the compilers
that necessarily meant that they were the product of more than one
person.

[38] Media24‟s response to this was a direct challenge to the
truthfulness of this evidence. In its replying affidavit Dr Smith said that
given the degree of correspondence between the two dictionaries she was

28 National Scrap Metal (Cape Town) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Murray & Roberts Ltd and Others
[2012] ZASCA 47; 2012 (5) SA 300 (SCA) para 22.

compelled to deny the contents of their affidavits insofar as they alleged
that in compiling the example sentences they had not copied from the
Aanleerderswoordeboek. Its case was therefore that the denials of
copying were „bald or uncreditworthy denials or were palpably
implausible, far-fetched or so clearly untenable that they could safely be
rejected on the papers.‟ Counsel submitted that this was justified. I do not
agree.

[39] It is apposite to mention that counsel was invited to indicate in
what manner the alleged copying had occurred. No clear answer to that
question emerged in the course of argument. The drumbeat of the
argument was simply that the correspondences were so extensive as to
rebut any evidence or any probability pointing in the opposite direction.
That is not a proper approach. As Harms JA once said:29
„It is manifestly unfair to argue a case on inferences from some facts and ignoring
unchallenged direct evidence to the contrary.‟
The circumstances in which a conclusion can be reached on credibility
without hearing oral evidence are rare.

[40] The argument for Media24 seems to me to fall into the trap of
being misled by what has been referred to as similarity by excision. In
IPC Media,30 a case that in the way it was conducted bears a close
resemblance to this one, the point was made that in order to establish
breach of copyright all the evidence must be examined, not only that
which points in the direction of copying. Laddie J said:

29 Dexion Europe Ltd v Universal Storage Systems (Pty) Ltd [2002] ZASCA 97; 2003 (1) SA 31 (SCA)
para 15.
30 IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd [2004] EWHC 2985 (Ch); [2005] F.S.R. 20 at
para 11 (IPC Media).

„In copyright cases, chipping away and ignoring all the bits which are undoubtedly
not copied may result in the creation of an illusion of copying in what is left. This is a
particular risk during a trial. Inevitably the court will be invited by the claimant to
concentrate on the respects in which his work and the alleged infringement are
similar. But with sufficient concentration one may lose sight of the differences. They
may be just as important in deciding whether copying has taken place.‟
It is important to heed this warning. In order to appreciate this point it is
necessary to examine closely the facts in regard to matters where there
was no allegation of copying. In other words, in order to deal with the
contention that the correspondences alone sufficed to carry the day in
favour of copying, we must look at the evidence on behalf of OUP that its
dictionary was compiled without copying. Only then can the merits of the
argument that we must reject this evidence, based on the correspondences
alone, be assessed.

[41] I start with the extent of the alleged copying. Professor Dunne
demonstrated that no more (and probably less) than sixty percent of the
headwords were common to both dictionaries. Thus the entries in respect
of the words that were not common could not have been copied. It was
suggested that of the common words only around twenty percent showed
correspondences
with
the
example
sentences
in
the
Aanleerderswoordeboek. These figures showed that the bulk of the work
in the Oxford Woordeboek was original.31 That meant that any copying
that occurred was intermittent. An examination of Dr Prinsloo‟s
schedules does not reveal any discernible pattern and none was suggested
to exist, for example, that correspondences occur only in relation to

31 Forty percent of the words were not common to both dictionaries and at most twenty percent of the
words that were common, that is, one fifth of the remaining sixty percent (twelve percent of the whole),
had correspondences in the example sentences. Eighty eight percent of the dictionary must therefore
have been original work.

words having multiple complex meanings. Most are in relation to
relatively commonplace and quite simple words like „box‟, „broom‟,
„distance‟, „invite‟ and „sleep‟ to take a few examples. That implied that
the alleged copying was both random and intermittent with no apparent
common theme, although it was said to be deliberate.

[42] Apart from its reliance on the correspondences Media24 needed to
propose a plausible scenario in which the copying it alleged had taken
place. As noted in paragraph 39 it did not do so. That complicated its
task. If the correspondences, or at least the bulk of them, arose from the
three
compilers
having
copied
example
sentences
from
the
Aanleerderswoordeboek, Professor Dunne identified two possible
scenarios. The one was that the three had collaborated in copying and
agreed to use Media24‟s dictionary to that end. However, there was no
evidence that they were even aware of the identity of their co-compilers,
or knew one another, or were in communication. But that was necessary
if the conspiracy theory, as Professor Dunne referred to it, was true.

[43] It was also necessary that these three women, all highly qualified,
and two with established records in the field of pedagogical publications
aimed at schools and school children, would be willing to risk their
reputations and their future careers by engaging in such dishonest actions
on a limited scale. They would have had to breach their contracts with
OUP in terms of which they warranted that their work was original, and
in doing so they would have had to run the risk that a highly skilled and
experienced editor might pick up the copying in the course of the editorial
process. Given their backgrounds they must all have been acutely aware
of the risks involved in copying another publisher‟s dictionary.

[44] Finally, what advantage did they stand to gain from doing this? As
illustrated by Professor Dunne the correspondences amounted to less than
ten percent of the entire task undertaken by them, so random copying
would not markedly have eased the burdens imposed by that task. Most
of the example sentences were simple and it was unlikely that persons as
well qualified as the three compilers would have found it particularly
difficult to formulate the sentences. Nor would it have resulted in extra
remuneration. It seemed on the surface to be a situation of nothing to gain
and everything to lose.

[45] Turning to the second scenario it involved the three compilers
deciding separately, and without communication with their colleagues, to
copy example sentences from elsewhere and all of them then choosing to
do so from the Aanleerderswoordeboek. The improbabilities outlined in
relation to the conspiracy theory were compounded in the non-conspiracy
situation. The reason is that in a conspiracy there may be one person who
thinks of engaging in it and then persuades the others to join in. Where
there is no conspiracy and they each act separately that requires each of
them to have formed separate reasons for engaging in the dishonest and
forbidden activity. The probability of one of them doing so was already
small for the reasons dealt with in the previous paragraphs. The
probability that two of them would do so and would choose the same
vehicle to cheat was even smaller. The probability of all three doing so,
using the Aanleerderswoordeboek, was likely to be vanishingly small.32

32 If one assumes that each compiler A, B and C was as likely to copy as not to do so, there are eight
possible combinations ranging from none of them copying to all of them copying. The likelihood of all
of them copying would therefore be 1 in 8. If one of them was less likely to fall prey to the temptation
of copying so that given their background and character, the likelihood of that one not copying was
70% and the likelihood of their copying 30%, the likelihood of all three copying falls to 3 in 40. With
two such stronger characters it falls to 9 in 200 and if all three are of that ilk it becomes 27 in 1000.

[46] Had Media24 proceeded by way of trial action it would have had to
address these questions to the compilers and discredit their evidence
through the medium of cross-examination. Instead it argued that the
correspondences alone were inexplicable unless copying had occurred.
This not only required that the compilers be disbelieved, but it needed to
exclude as even possibly credible the explanation for the existence of the
correspondences that excluded copying. That lay in the evidence of
Professor Taljard and Mr Rundell. They both said that some such
correspondences were probable, if not inevitable, when preparing a
dictionary of this sort, where there is a rival in the market. The reason
was that the dictionaries were basic dictionaries aimed at school children,
who were in the process of learning a language. The headwords in the
dictionary represented a basic vocabulary and the meanings that the
dictionary sought to illustrate were those most common in ordinary
usage. The example sentences were therefore directed at being simple and
clear and based on the life experience of the children, which was likely to
be limited. In the result, so they said, it was not surprising to find
correspondences in the example sentences, whether in their formulation
or in their context.

[47] There was support for this in the replying affidavit of Dr Smith.
She accepted that certain example sentences can illustrate a very typical
usage of a word and where there was a correspondence in the two
dictionaries in relation to such instances it was not necessarily due to
copying. This required a comparison of the sentences and an evaluation
of them to see whether their correspondence might be attributable to this.
Her only quibble with the argument was that she said that this did not
apply to all the example sentences. As regards the evidence of Mr
Rundell this was not significantly challenged, although Dr Smith took the

view that his views based on monolingual dictionaries were not entirely
applicable to work on a bilingual dictionary. That in turn was based on a
lexicographical principle about which there was disagreement, namely
whether all the words on the one side of the dictionary should correspond
with all the words on the other side. Dr Smith was a firm believer in this,
but those responsible for the OUP publication and OUP‟s expert
witnesses did not share this view. Of greater importance was that Dr
Smith accepted Mr Rundell‟s illustrations of how words are used in
conjunction with others, and his view that the frequency with which a
word is used in conjunction with another is highly relevant to the
formulation of a simple sentence to illustrate the meaning and use of the
latter were in substance accepted. All that was denied was that this was
the reason for the correspondences in the present case.

[48] Similarly much of the evidence of Professor Taljard was accepted
and only disputed on minor points of emphasis, nuance and approach,
rather than being rebutted on points of substance. In the face of all this
evidence directed at showing that copying had not occurred we were
invited, from a perusal of Dr Prinsloo‟s two schedules, to infer that the
correspondences were so blatant, and the possibility of their having
occurred in the ordinary course of compilation of a dictionary of this type
so far-fetched, that we could reject all of this evidence on the papers.

[49] I am unable to reach that conclusion on the basis of Dr Prinsloo‟s
schedules alone and in the absence of the witnesses having given
evidence and been cross-examined. Counsel for Media24 accepted that
some of his correspondences were inevitable as pointed out by OUP‟s
witnesses. For example, in both dictionaries the sentences in regard to the
word „baba‟ („baby‟) referred to the age of the baby. In both, one of the

sentences in regard to the word „blue‟ refers to the colour of the sky and
another refers to the mixing of blue with another colour to make a third
colour. In both, the words „alfabet‟ and „alphabet‟ are illustrated by
reference to the alphabet having 26 letters. In both, the word „afskop‟
(kick-off‟) is explained by reference to the time of the kick-off.  In both,
the sentence explaining „stomach-ache‟ refers to eating too much.
Whether Mossel Bay or Agulhas is chosen, they are obvious reference
points when illustrating the word „south‟. Describing „spring‟ as coming
between winter and summer is likewise obvious. In each of these cases
(and there are many more) it seems to me that the correspondence
between the sentences is at least as likely, if not more likely, to have
arisen from the adoption of the most obvious ordinary example of the use
of the word in common parlance among schoolchildren. In other words,
the inference that Media24 asked us to draw from the correspondences on
their own was not a permissible one.

[50] If Dr Prinsloo had excluded from his lists instances of the type
discussed in the previous paragraph, a clearer picture would have
emerged of the cases where copying could more properly be advanced as
the explanation for correspondences. That exercise would also have given
a better idea of the potential scale of copying, which as already
mentioned could not on any basis have been extensive. I could understand
evidence showing that in the ordinary course a correspondence of about
five percent was to be expected when compiling similar dictionaries, but
that correspondence of twenty percent was beyond the norm, but no such
evidence was led. Media24 elected to stand or fall by Dr Prinsloo‟s
comparisons without a trial. In my view it must fall for the simple reason
that without the advantages that a trial would have given, it is
impermissible to reject the evidence of the compilers and the explanation

that OUP advanced for the existence of the correspondences. That does
not involve any final conclusion on the issue of copying. It merely
explains why a positive conclusion that copying occurred could not be
made on the basis of the correspondences alone.

[51] Two comments remain to be made. The first is that I have not dealt
in detail with the possibility that the alleged copying occurred during the
editorial phase under Dr Louw. The reason is that the argument centred
around the compilers and it was not suggested that, if they were not guilty
of copying, Dr Louw and his editorial assistants had discarded some of
their work and engaged in copying during the editorial process. The
improbability of that occurring was considerable. Not least of many
points that could be made is that there would have been no purpose in
discarding the work of the compilers for which OUP had paid, in favour
of copying from the Aanleerderswoordeboek. Again, however, the
illumination that cross-examination would have thrown on this issue was
absent because of the manner in which Media24 elected to conduct its
case.

[52] The second is that the task that Media24 set for itself in trying to
discharge the onus of proving copying on the papers without oral
evidence was an onerous one. In the three cases referred to in argument
where a court rejected a denial of copying by the author of the infringing
work33 that occurred only after a full trial. In Bron, Da Vinci Code and
IPC Media the denial of copying was accepted after trial. It seems to me
that it will only be in the most egregious case that a court will reject a

33 Galago Publishers; Govindan v Gopalakrishna Kone supra and Designers Guild Ltd v Russell
Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 700 (HL).

denial of copying merely on the basis of comparing the two works and
without cross-examination of the author or authors of the alleged
infringing work. It suffices to say that this is not such a case.

Result
[53] In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to
include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.

M J D WALLIS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances

For appellant:
A R Sholto-Douglas SC (with him B J Vaughan)
Instructed by:
Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Cape Town,
Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein.
For respondent:
W R E Duminy SC (with him A E Erasmus)

Instructed by:
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Cape Town,
Claude Reid Inc, Bloemfontein.
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

MEDIA SUMMARY– JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF APPEAL
From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
16 September 2016
Status:
Immediate
Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the
media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Appeal.
Media 24 Books (Pty) Ltd v Oxford University Press Southern Africa
(Pty) Ltd

The SCA today dismissed an appeal against the judgment of the
Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissing an application
brought by Media24 against Oxford University Press (OUP), in which
Media24 claimed that OUP’s Oxford Afrikaans-Engels/English-Afrikaans
Skool Woordeboek infringed its copyright in its own Pharos
Aanleerderswoordeboek vir Skole. The court held that Media 24 had
failed to prove copying and for that reason its claim had to fail.

The basis of the claim was said to have arisen when Media24 was
planning a new bilingual dictionary for schools. It claimed that in
perusing the OUP dictionary it found that the headwords, the sense order
of words and sentences used to illustrate the meaning of words were so
similar that this could only be attributed to copying on the part of OUP.
The latter for its part described in detail the manner in which its
dictionary had been compiled and disavowed copying.

At the hearing in the High Court and in the SCA the focus fell on
the similarity between the illustrative sentences as they appeared on both
the Afrikaans and the English sides of the two dictionaries. OUP filed

affidavits by the three compilers of these sentences in which they all
denied copying from Media24’s dictionary. Two of the compilers denied
even having a copy of that work, while the other said that she
occasionally used it along with many other dictionaries in the ordinary
course of her work, but did not copy from it. The editor of the compilers’
work likewise delivered an affidavit in which he denied making use of
Medai 24’s dictionary. In addition OUP filed affidavits by two expert
lexicographers who explained how it was likely that in compiling a
dictionary of this type it was probable that there would be similarities
between the illustrative sentences in each, given that the words being
defined constituted a basic core vocabulary and had to be explained in
terms appropriate for children.

Media24 elected to argue its case without the benefit of oral
evidence where it would have had the opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses for OUP and seek to establish that they were not telling the
truth. Instead it confined itself to contending that the similarities were so
great that they demanded the rejection of the evidence on behalf of OUP.
The court held, after a consideration of the extent of original work in the
OUP publication and a number of factors that counted against copying
having occurred, that Media24 had failed to prove copying and
accordingly its claim had been properly dismissed.