A writer, Vayssie George, submitted op-eds to a magazine called Le Journal du Caire and the newspaper published them.

Another newspaper, Le Vertie, reproduced George’s op-eds in their magazine. The publisher of Le Vertie, Horn Lewis, argued that op-ed are a part of the news and are therefore not protected by copyright.

George claimed that his op-ed pieces contributed substantial and unique analysis of current events so he should therefore be able to hold the copyright to his work.

The court ruled that George should receive LE200 for compensation for his op-eds. He appealed this decision.

The appeal was unsuccessful and effectively cancelled his compensation of LE200. This court argued (1) that journalists can copy from one another and (2) that op-eds are considered news. One of the reasons the court did not rule in George’s favor was because he did not explicitly claim the copyright to his work in writing. The court stated that the author must declare copyright protection.

A writer named Mazney published a short fiction story in a magazine about two lovers. In his story there are two lovers, a man and a woman. To their surprise, they find out that they are actually siblings and decide not to marry. Before discovering their relation, the couple planned to get married. The story takes a turn and it is soon revealed that the lovers are not related. In the end, they get married.

A man named Ramzy produced a film based on a similar story that he allegedly wrote. Ramzy is the owner of a film production company. 

Upon viewing Ramzy’s film, Mazney filed a copyright complaint. Mazney then claimed that he created the story and that Ramzy used the story without permission.

The court ruled that Mazney’s story was not original. The ruling says that the idea behind the story is a theme and it is therefore not original. The court also states that it is mere coincidence that the magazine article and the film tell the same story of the two lovers, and that ideas are not protected. Copyright has to extend beyond the mere idea of a creative story.

A man named Khaled Salah Eldeen Mohamed Nour, the defendant, allegedly reproduced the books La Tahzan by A’id al-Qarni, As’ad Imra Fil Alam by A’id al-Qarni, and also some additional books by the author Ibrahim Elfekky and exported unauthorized copies to Sudan. He was charged with “violating the intellectual and financial rights of the authors of the book(s).”

The local police were informed of his activity by two publishing houses (the plaintiffs), The Saudi Altadmuria Publishing House and the Media Protect Publishing House. The two companies told police that they were affected by unauthorized sales of their books. The company then indicated to police that Mr. Nour was located at the Alsary Shipping Company in Badr City.

The police went to Alsary Shipping. Once there, they spoke with the manager about these alleged activities. The concluded that the defendant was currently located at Alsary Shipping and that the packages (with the books) were in his possession. In fact, they were prepared for shipment. The police took a book out of the shipment to use as evidence.

Prior to the trial, another publishing house, Dar Alshrouq, submitted a request for “civil compensation” in the amount of LE 1,001 (approximately USD $130) from the damages caused by Mr. Nour. He paid the fine.

From the evidence the police gathered, the publishing houses confirmed that the books did not have proper serial codes on them and that they were unauthorized copies.

In court, the plaintiffs were represented by one legal representative. The defendant failed to appear in court although he was legally notified of the proceedings.

The ruling indicated that the case (1) lacked enough evidence to convict Mr. Nour, (2) lacked proof that he was violating their intellectual and financial rights. Mr. Nour is not guilty.

A writer named Youssef Auf wrote a proposal for a TV program in Egypt. Egyptian TV had an agreement with Auf to write a series to be broadcast during Ramadan in 1988. There would be one episode for each day of Ramadan. Egyptian TV asked Auf to start immediately without signing a contract. Egyptian TV immediately began production and they then broadcasted the shows conceptualized by Auf.

Auf filed a copyright complaint that they used his ideas without permission. Auf valued the idea for the TV program at LE10,000. Egyptian TV refused to pay him this sum and they said that they worked with Auf to put the idea together. Egyptian TV argued that Auf should not get compensation because they worked together on the idea for the program.

The two sides decided to consult an expert. The expert said that Auf should be compensated LE6,000 in return for “creating the idea.” Further, it is explained that the idea is the result of common meetings between the two parties.

Egyptian TV argued that because Auf did not participate in the production of the TV program, he was not entitled to any rights, payments, or royalties. Egyptian TV further argued that they “brought the idea to life” by producing the program.

The court ruled in Egyptian TV’s favor, stating that the idea for the show was not original. The court ruled that Auf should not have rights to the TV program.

Auf appealed this decision. The court then ruled that he would get a one-time payment of LE 6,000 (≈$750 USD) for coming up with the idea of the TV program. The court ruled that he would not be entitled to royalties, or continuing payments. He would only be entitled to the one-time payment.