Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal; 16 September 2016. Case No. 886/2015. English-Afrikaans Dictionaries : Media 24 Books (PTY) Ltd v. Oxford University Press Southern Africa (PTY) Ltd.; Copyright Act 98 of 1978, Secs. 6 and 23(1).
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 48(5)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. 1.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 such happens several hundred times it is not explicable on the basis of unconscious copying. 2.Substantial similarities between example sentences in rival dictionaries aimed at school children are probable, if not inevitable, given their 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. 3.A positive conclusion that a copyright infringement related to dictionary wordings occurred cannot be made on the basis of the mere correspondences of words and sentences or the mere weighing of the probabilities emerged from the affidavits alone. An attempt to discharge the onus of proving copying on the papers without a trial that allows the cross-examination of facts deposed by witnesses will be successful only in exceptional cases.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00002175nab a22003134a 4500
*00111657
*00520201106111832.0
*007tu
*008170920s2017\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a24359
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000024359
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aDecision of the Supreme Court of Appeal; 16 September 2016. Case No. 886/2015. English-Afrikaans Dictionaries :$bMedia 24 Books (PTY) Ltd v. Oxford University Press Southern Africa (PTY) Ltd.; Copyright Act 98 of 1978, Secs. 6 and 23(1).
*260 $c2017.
*300 $a599.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48(5)
*520 $a1.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 such happens several hundred times it is not explicable on the basis of unconscious copying. 2.Substantial similarities between example sentences in rival dictionaries aimed at school children are probable, if not inevitable, given their 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. 3.A positive conclusion that a copyright infringement related to dictionary wordings occurred cannot be made on the basis of the mere correspondences of words and sentences or the mere weighing of the probabilities emerged from the affidavits alone. An attempt to discharge the onus of proving copying on the papers without a trial that allows the cross-examination of facts deposed by witnesses will be successful only in exceptional cases.
*653 $aETELÄ-AFRIKKA
*653 $aSANAKIRJAT
*653 $aKIRJEET
*653 $aSAMANLAISUUS
*653 $aOIKEUDENKÄYNTI
*653 $aTAHATON TOIMINTA
*653 $aSUULLINEN TODISTUS
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48(5)
*852 $cDECISION
*979 $a0000024359
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.