The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has struck down allegations by business publication Moneyweb that its rival Fin24 is guilty of copyright infringement.<\/p>\n
Acting Judge Daniel Berger on Thursday handed down judgment in the landmark legal battle, which stemmed from complaints lodged by Caxton-owned Moneyweb in September 2013.<\/p>\n
Berger said Moneyweb has to pay 70% of Fin24’s legal costs.<\/p>\n
While Moneyweb alleged that Fin24 had infringed on seven articles, in his judgment, Berger said Fin24 only infringed in one article about Amplats.<\/p>\n
The judgment comes a year after the matter was heard in the South Gauteng High Court in May 2015.<\/p>\n
Moneyweb\u2019s case centred on an allegation that Fin24 aggregated up to eight of its articles unlawfully. Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk accused Fin24 of committing “plagiarism on an industrial scale”.<\/p>\n
Moneyweb\u2019s lawyer Philip Ginsburg SC further argued in court last year that Fin24 must remove the articles in question from its website and pay damages at a later date.<\/p>\n
Fin24, though, rejected the claims as false while Media24\u2019s counsel Cedrick Puckrin SC argued that there is no copyright or exclusivity in news items.<\/p>\n
And on Thursday, Judge Berger found in favour of Fin24.<\/p>\n
The Moneyweb-Fin24 has sparked debate over how journalistic works should be produced in South Africa.<\/p>\n
The case has also shone a spotlight on South Africa\u2019s Copyright Act of 1978, which Media24\u2019s legal counsel last year argued was outdated for the era of online news.<\/p>\n
Section 12(8)a of the Act excludes certain official texts from copyright protection such as laws, speeches of a political nature, or ”in the news of the day that are mere items of press information”.<\/p>\n
News24<\/a><\/p>\n Moneyweb swings back into profit<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Moneyweb Fin24 case heading to court<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Fin24 rejects Moneyweb plagiarism claims<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nMore on Moneyweb and News24<\/h3>\n