It’s always interesting keeping an eye on courtroom battles, especially when they make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Take for example Yuppiechef versus Yuppie Gadgets (HERE) – spoiler alert, the little guy came out on top.
This time around it’s Media24 Books versus Oxford University Press, the dispute centring on claims by the former that the latter had ‘copied its English-Afrikaans children’s dictionary’.
TimesLive have gone pun heavy, calling the claim a ‘taal’ story, but let’s look at how this one played out:
The case — thought to be only the second dictionary copyright row to have come to court anywhere in the world — had its roots in 2011‚ when Media24 started work on a new Aanleerderswoordeboek.
Examining the rival Oxford Woordeboek‚ [Media24] concluded that to a “substantial extent” it had been copied from its own previous edition‚ said [Judge Malcolm] Wallis. One of the key areas of alleged plagiarism referred to examples of word use.
Explaining “baie”‚ both dictionaries used the sentence: “Baie dankie vir jou help.” Wallis said Media24 failed to prove that the Oxford dictionary’s three compilers had copied the rival dictionary.
They did not know each other; they were highly qualified lexicographers who would not have risked their reputations; and the “plagiarism” was limited to less than 10% of the dictionary.
“It seemed on the surface to be a situation of nothing to gain and everything to lose‚” said Wallis‚ and the possibility that each of them had independently decided to plagiarise the Aanleerderswoordeboek was “vanishingly small”.
Wallis concluded his ruling, made with the help of four other judges, by saying that many of the similarities would be due to common use of the words amongst schoolchildren in South Africa.
The case was dismissed with costs awarded against Media24.
[source:timeslive]
