King v South African Weather Service 2009 (3) SA 13 (SCA)
Facts
Mr. Pieter King was a long-term employee of the South African Weather Service (SAWS). He was a meteorological technical officer in charge of the SAWS's Upington office. During his employment, Mr. King developed a number of computer programs that were used by the SAWB to forecast weather and store meteorological data.
In 2002, Mr. King left the SAWS. He informed the SAWS that he was the author of the computer programs and that they were not subject to the SAWS's copyright. The SAWS demanded that Mr. King hand over the source codes for the computer programs, but he refused.
The SAWS instituted disciplinary action against Mr. King for insubordination and suspended him from his duties. Mr. King challenged the SAWS's disciplinary action in court. He also claimed copyright in the computer programs and sought an interdict to prevent the SAWS from using the programs.
Issues
The main issues in the case were:
- Whether Mr. King was the author of the computer programs;
- Whether the computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright; and
- Whether the SAWB was entitled to discipline Mr. King for refusing to hand over the source codes for the computer programs.
Reasons
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that:
- Mr. King was the author of the computer programs;
- The computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright; and
- The SAWS was entitled to discipline Mr. King for refusing to hand over the source codes for the computer programs.
Authorship
The SCA found that Mr. King was the author of the computer programs because he had created them independently and with his own skill and labor. The court explained that authorship is not determined by the purpose for which a work is created or the amount of skill and labor required to create it.
Copyright
The SCA found that the computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright because they were created by Mr. King in the course of his employment with the SAWS. The court explained that copyright in a work created by an employee in the course of their employment belongs to the employer.
Disciplinary action
The SCA found that the SAWS was entitled to discipline Mr. King for refusing to hand over the source codes for the computer programs. The court explained that Mr. King had a duty to obey the SAWS's lawful instructions and that his refusal to hand over the source codes was insubordination.
Conclusion
The SCA dismissed Mr. King's appeal and upheld the SAWS's disciplinary action.
500-Word Summary
The case of King v South African Weather Service (2009 (3) SA 13 (SCA) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:
- The concept of authorship in copyright law;
- The ownership of copyright in works created by employees; and
- The rights of employers over works created by their employees.
The SCA's decision that Mr. King was the author of the computer programs is significant because it confirms that authorship is not determined by the purpose for which a work is created or the amount of skill and labor required to create it. The SCA's decision that the computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright is also significant because it confirms that employers own copyright in works created by their employees in the course of their employment.
Additional Considerations
The decision in King v South African Weather Service also raises a number of other considerations, such as:
- The impact of the case on innovation: The decision may have a negative impact on innovation. Employees may be less likely to develop new works if they know that the copyright in their creations will belong to their employer.
- The impact of the case on competition: The decision may have a positive impact on competition. Employers will be able to compete more effectively if they own copyright in the works created by their employees.
- The impact of the case on consumers: The decision may have a negative impact on consumers. Consumers may have less choice of products if employers are less likely to allow their employees to develop new works.
