Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd 1995 (1) SA 645 (A)

 Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd 1995 (1) SA 645 (A)

Facts

Waylite Diary CC (Waylite) designed and produced a customized diary for First National Bank Ltd (FNB) in 1987. The diary was a success, and FNB commissioned Waylite to produce similar diaries for 1989, 1990, and 1991. In 1992, FNB invited tenders for the supply of diaries for 1992. Waylite submitted a tender, but FNB awarded the tender to another company.

Waylite claimed that FNB had infringed its copyright in the layout of the appointment pages of the diary. Waylite argued that the layout of the appointment pages was an original artistic work and that it was protected by copyright.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was an original artistic work protected by copyright.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was not an original artistic work protected by copyright. The court reasoned that the layout of the appointment pages was too functional to be considered artistic.

The court explained that copyright protects original artistic works, such as paintings, sculptures, and drawings. However, copyright does not protect functional works, such as engineering drawings and computer programs.

The court found that the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was a functional work. The court reasoned that the layout was designed to be used to record appointments and that it was not intended to be enjoyed for its aesthetic value.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed Waylite's appeal.

Summary

The case of Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd (1995 (1) SA 645 (A)) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the distinction between artistic works and functional works.

The SCA's decision that the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was not an original artistic work protected by copyright is significant. The decision means that copyright does not protect functional works, even if they are original.

The decision in Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd has had a lasting impact on the law of copyright in South Africa. The decision is cited in subsequent cases, and it is likely to be cited in many more cases in the future.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on creativity: The decision may have a negative impact on creativity. Creators of functional works may be less likely to create new works if they know that their copyright is not protected.
• The impact of the case on competition: The decision may have a positive impact on competition. Businesses that compete to sell functional works will be able to compete more freely if they do not have to worry about copyright infringement.
• The impact of the case on consumers: The decision may have a negative impact on consumers. Consumers may have less choice of functional products if businesses are less likely to create new functional works.

Overall, the decision in Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd is a complex case with a number of implications. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the law of copyright in South Africa and on other areas of law.