Two competing maps of the Kruger National Park were the subject of a copyright dispute. The Appellant claimed copyright in the map as an "artistic" work and in the grid and Rules as "literary works" in terms of section 2(1) of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 ("the Act"). The subsection provided that only "original" works were eligible for copyright protection. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent infringed its copyright in the map, grid and Rules and the Respondent's booklet constituted a reproduction of the Appellant's three works. The Respondent opposed the application on two main grounds: firstly that the subsistence of copyright had not been proved because the originality requirement in terms of the Act had not been established and secondly copying, an essential requirement of copyright, had not been proved. The court a quo held that no infringement had been proved. On appeal, the Court was required to examine the various provisions of the Act as well as the facts to establish whether or not the appellant had satisfied the onus of proving infringement. Held ­ Appellant had failed to satisfy the onus of establishing infringement. A study of the details of both maps showed that one map was not a reproduction of the other. In deciding whether there was reproduction in respect of the grid, regard had to be had to both similarities and dissimilarities. The Court held that the Appellant had failed to satisfy the onus that a reproduction of its works had occurred. The appeal was dismissed with costs.