Page 314 of [2016] 4 All SA 311 (SCA)
the two in issue in this case, are divided into two sections, one each for words drawn from the two
languages. So these two dictionaries have an Afrikaans side and an English side. On each side the first step is
to identify the words constituting the core basic vocabulary in that language. These words, which are not
necessarily common to both sides,4 are the headwords on which each entry is based. The entry translates
each word into its equivalent or equivalent in the other language. It identifies the relevant part of speech and
frequently used inflections of the word, such as plurals of nouns, or adverbs derived from verbs.
[5] Where a word has more than one meaning all relevant meanings must be identified. If the different meanings
arise because the word can be used as more than one part of speech, for example, as both a noun and a
verb, they are reflected separately and distinguished by the identification of the relevant part of speech.5
Where the word bears different meanings in different contexts6 these must be identified and placed in order,
with the most significant and widely used meaning first and the others following in declining order of
importance. In a basic bilingual dictionary aimed at learners of one of the languages, only the more significant
meanings are given and more subtle linguistic usages are omitted.
[6] Potentially the most significant task in compiling a dictionary is the preparation of sentences or phrases that
explain and illustrate the meaning of a word. Not all dictionaries have this. Largescale explanatory
dictionaries of a single language often achieve the same purpose by means of quotations from publications in
which the word has been used.7 In dictionaries of the type under consideration, the compiler formulates
short sentences, referred to as example sentences, illustrating the use of the word in context. Because the
dictionaries are aimed at school children it is important that these sentences should be consistent with their
life experience so that the meaning may more easily be grasped.8 In practice, this means that the illustrative
sentences will be relatively simple both in structure and theme.
Page 315 of [2016] 4 All SA 311 (SCA)
Media24's case
[7] In the founding affidavit of Dr Wanda Smith, herself a lexicographer, Media24 identified three areas where it
claimed that the Oxford Woordeboek had copied its Aanleerderswoordeboek. They were in the compilation of the
headwords or lemmas on both the Afrikaans and the English sides of the dictionary; in the ordering of senses
with words having more than one sense; and in the example sentences used in both the Afrikaans and
English sections of the dictionary. These latter, it contended, had either been copied directly or had been
loosely adapted while following the same themes, sometimes by the alteration of a single word. In support of
these contentions it put up an affidavit and report by Dr Anton Prinsloo (to whom I will refer as "Dr Prinsloo"
to distinguish him from Professor Prinsloo who features later in the narrative), an academic from Stellenbosch
University, who had examined the entries in the two dictionaries for four letters (B, D, I and S) on both sides
and identified where they overlapped in all three aspects. The relevant pages containing those letters
extracted from the two dictionaries were attached to Dr Prinsloo's report and highlighted in marker pen. In
addition, he compiled two schedules reflecting the example sentences that he regarded as problematic.
[8] Dr Prinsloo's analysis of the areas in which he found commonality between example sentences in the two
dictionaries fell into three broad areas. The first instances was where the example sentences were exactly
the same. In relation to the word "baie" both dictionaries included as a sentence illustrating one meaning of
the word: "Baie dankie vir jou help". The second involved only a small change was reflected as in the case of
the word "brightly" where the two sentences read: "The sun is shining brightly" and "The sun is shining
brightly today". Thirdly there were words where he identified thematic commonality as with "behaal"
("achieve") where the sentences were: "Christine het baie hard gewerk om sukses in die eksamen te behaal"
and "As jy hard werk, kan jy sukses behaal". I will refer collectively to these different incidents of overlap
between the two dictionaries as correspondences. The extent of such correspondences emerged from a
statistical analysis undertaken by Professor Martin Kidd, a statistician, the thrust of which was that the
degree of overlap between the two works in regard to the example sentences was of the order of 16 to 24%
when the statistical analysis was conducted on the basis of a random selection of words.
[9] By the time the matter came before the High Court, the complaint in regard to the commonality between the
headwords in the dictionaries had been abandoned in the light of the evidence of Professor Daniel Prinsloo,
an academic from Pretoria University, (referred to as "Professor Prinsloo" to distinguish him from Dr Prinsloo,
who is mentioned above) concerning the manner in which he compiled the list of headwords used in the
Oxford Woordeboek. Some argument was addressed to the allegations of similarity in regard to the order of
senses in respect of certain words, but little turned on this, presumably because there were few examples of
this complaint and a substantial rebuttal of the objection. The focus of the argument, as it was also in this
Court, was the extent of the alleged copying of the example sentences. That was always the decisive issue. If
there had
Page 316 of [2016] 4 All SA 311 (SCA)
been substantial copying then the claim of breach of copyright had to succeed. If not, it was not suggested
that there was sufficient strength in the alleged commonality of sense orders to justify a conclusion of copying
of an extent that would warrant the grant of relief.
[10] In making its case in relation to the example sentences, Media24 pinned its colours to the mast of the
correspondences identified by Dr Prinsloo. It did not rely, as publishers of works such as directories and
dictionaries sometimes do, on having set a copyright trap in the work and identifying copying because the
Oxford Woordeboek fell into the trap. A copyright trap involves the insertion of a false word or false information
or a deliberate error in the work, which if it appears in a competing work is indicative of copying having taken