Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Do you own the copyright that you have paid for?
By Janine Hollesen and Donvay Wegierski, Directors
The rights of copyright are incredibly powerful once they come into being, the requirements for which are that the work must be original and in a material form. There is no registration process.
It sometimes happens that the copyright which you have paid to create, even at a huge expense, will not be yours to own. The rule of thumb is that the creator of a work is the owner of the work except –
- If created by an employee in the course and scope of employment;
- If created on commission in relation to specific works set out below for which the commissioning party pays –
- the taking of a photograph;
- the painting or drawing of a portrait;
- the making of a gravure;
- a film or sound recording.
With regards to a computer programme, the Copyright Act provides that the person exercising control over the making of the programme will be the owner, which will have to be determined by the facts of each case.
All other works belong to the person who creates the work which would mean that all other artistic works such as logos, drawings and diagrams which form part of packaging, for example, and literary works such as advertising copy will belong to the author of the work, despite the fact that you have paid for the work. The Copyright Act provides that the rights of copyright can only be assigned if in writing and signed by the owner of the work.
It is therefore crucial to ensure that all parties who are appointed to create any work on your behalf are appointed in writing in which the document includes a clause to the effect that all intellectual property created during such commission, including copyright, belongs to you. This document must be physically signed by the owner of the copyright and not by way of email or any other means of electronic communication.
Latest News
The Clock Is Ticking: Labour Disputes and the Perils of Miscalculating Timeframes
The recent Labour Court decision in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v SAMWU obo Bukula and Others (PR174/2023) provides a sobering [...]
Automatic Termination Clauses Do Not Trump the LRA: The Biyana Case
and Isabella Keeves – Candidate Attorney The CCMA’s recent decision in Biyana v National Consumer Commission (2025) 34 CCMA 7.17.2 [...]
FICA: Proposed changes to Public Compliance Communication 50 and Directive 3 previously issued by the Financial Intelligence Centre
by Sandiso Dhlomo, Associate and Nhlonipho Mthembu, Candidate Attorney reviewed by Tracy Lee Janse van Rensburg On 14 March 2025, [...]
Proposed R100 Billion Transformation Fund Will Have Significant Implications For Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (“Bbbee”) Regulation In South Africa
On 19 March 2025, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition ("DTIC") issued a draft Transformation Fund Concept Document for [...]
Sorry Not Sorry
and Mike Searle, Candidate Attorney In the recent Labour Court decision of Standard Bank Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Dlamini [...]
Discrimination – it’s not unfair when its fair
In a notable judgment delivered on 6 November 2024, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) in Passenger Rail Agency of South [...]