Brief
South African High Court ruling limits defence of ignorance in copyright cases
The court ruled that lack of knowledge of copyright existence cannot excuse infringement, echoing arguments common in image disputes.
By Felo News Desk · Published
The South African High Court dismissed an argument that a defendant’s ignorance of copyright can shield them from damages, interpreting section 24(2) of the Copyright Act as requiring awareness that copyright exists at all, not just who owns it.
What happened
The case, Mokima Music and Publishing (Pty) Ltd v Black Brain Pictures CC, concerned the use of a song as theme music for a TV series. The defendant claimed it had obtained rights from a third party and therefore did not know the plaintiff owned the copyright.
What the reports add
Bizcommunity explained that although the dispute involved music, the court’s reasoning applies to photographic copyright disputes, where infringers often argue they found images online and did not realise permission was needed.
What was said
Bizcommunity reported the court’s judgment that a mistaken belief about ownership is not the same as a belief that no copyright exists.
How it came about
Felo News previously covered South African copyright law reforms in a series on digital rights, linking to broader enforcement trends.
Key facts
- The High Court ruled that ignorance of copyright existence is not a defence under section 24(2). (bizcommunity.com)
- The case involved the use of a song as theme music for a television series. (bizcommunity.com)
- The court rejected the argument that obtaining rights from a third party proved lack of knowledge of the true owner. (bizcommunity.com)
Sources
- [1] bizcommunity.com — originally reported as “Ignorance is not an excuse: What a High Court ruling means for copyright enforcement”
