On the 7th of August
2019 RecreateSA convened a seminar in association with
the South African Guild of Actors,
the University of the Witwatersrand’s Library,
Blind SA,
the University of Cape Town’s IP Unit,
the South
African Democratic Teacher’s Union, Washington College of Law’s
Programme on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
and the University of the Witwatersrand’s Institute for Social and Economic
Research. The seminar was entitled “Decolonising
Copyright: Building our Creative and Information Economy” and took place in the
Senate Room of the Solomon Mahlangu Building.
Tusi Folane outlined
that RecreateSA- who she represents- is constituted of a broad spectrum of
stakeholders including creatives, activists and trade unions who are all
interested in what the Copyright Amendment Bill could mean for them and the
work that they do. At the seminar, she highlighted, the aim is to interrogate
who stands to profit or benefit from copyright reforms. She indicated clearly
that one of the objectives was to accommodate the views of all and for
participants to expose themselves to different narratives. Some have been very
vocal about pending law reform, making the claim that we are “on a knife’s
edge.”
Mandi Vundla then
presented three poems surrounding creativity, ownership and sharing. A short
film was scheduled to be shown at this point on the expressed need for the
Copyright Amendment Bill but due to technical difficulties it was shown later
on in the programme. In the film a spectrum of interested parties’ views were
expressed, among others a university student and a law professor, both of whom
expressed the need for proliferation of information.
Professor Adam Habib
of the University of the Witwatersrand delivered the Welcome and introduced the
speakers. He explained the fundamental nature of decolonisation (it's about contextualisation) and discussed
the tensions within his own university with regard to copyright reforms. He had
the Library, on the one hand which would like to start enabling open access to
journals and knowledge that is collectively produced and Wits Press on the
other hand who feared for their sustainability in the event that this became a
reality. He posed the question as to how these competing priorities ought to be
married. This is, he said, the purpose of these discussions.
The keynote address
was delivered by Professor Ruth Okediji, of Harvard Law School and Co-Director
of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. She
discussed copyright in the context of development. The history of intellectual
property in South Africa is both factually and theoretically complex. Questions
in this regard, she said, will lead South Africa’s process in determining what
the law is supposed to deliver. In terms of norms, constitutions and cultures,
the reality is that much of copyright law remains ill-suited for the
socio-cultural and political landscape in Africa. She then went on to highlight
that access to knowledge goods is crucial for development and that policy-makers
must thus deal with options that offer different outcomes in intellectual
property and copyright law. There is a complicated system of checks and
balances needed, she explained and there is tension between rewarding creativity
and remuneration and in ensuring diversity. It is all very well, she said, to
compose a creative work like a book, but if the book is simply warehoused and
nobody reads it, it doesn’t mean anything. We have to have both creation and
dissemination to promote social welfare. It is not just individual benefits to
creators that is important but also the interests of the public- shaping
debate, educating and having a vibrant public domain.
Subsequent to the
keynote address was a panel discussion consisting of Ben Cashdan, a filmmaker
and television producer representing RecreateSA, Justice Zak Yacoob formerly of
the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Professor Daniel Mashao of the
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment at the University of Johannesburg
and Mugwena Maluluke, of the South African Democratic Teacher’s Union.
Cashdan expressed that
there have been threats by multi-nationals that their support of South African
work would be withdrawn if the Copyright Amendment Bill is passed. He indicated
that this is because although other jurisdictions have principles such as “fair
use,” South Africa adopting this will cause their deals to be less lucrative.
He indicated that we must not allow multi-nationals to threaten us. He further
highlighted that it is through monopoly power that there arises a situation of
exclusionary pricing- something we cannot accept. He pointed out that fair use
only allows work to be copied reasonably, so if, for instance, the work is
priced absolutely excessively. He said that whether use is fair is an enquiry
satisfied by answering questions such as: What is the nature of the original?
How much is used? What are the effects on the profits?\
Yacoob indicated that
on the basis of Constitutional prescripts that fair use is justifiable. We want
to improve upon the quality of life of all people- not only the powerful but
the majority. We have to look at where the majority of South African’s are
situated. They live in terrible conditions, he expressed. Colonial
dispensations were derived overly from freedom and on capital gain while the
Constitution is based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Importantly, he
said, the Constitution contains the right to freedom of expression- that is,
the freedom to receive and impart information. There is a dynamic between the
two. Most important, he illustrated, is that rights can be limited by law of
general application as long as the limitation is based on human dignity,
equality and freedom. Yacoob highlighted that we have a society committed to
improving the human condition- trying to achieve the appropriate balance. The
balance we get, he stated, develops a civilisation as we understand it and fair
use does do this through ensuring that people can access rights such as the
right to education.
Mashao discussed the
Fourth Industrial Revolution (FIR). He indicated that it is a fusion of
technologies producing new business models which produce new value systems. The
FIR has four components- digital, biological, physical and energy and the
environment. It will provide many opportunities for copyright, he stated. It
will enable, for example, the recouping of invested creativity, time, money and
resources. He highlighted that it is important to note that while copyright
supports creativity, it can also stifle innovation and that this is something
that could do with change.
Maluluke shared
experiences of children having one book between five of them at schools,
copying each other’s work because it was too hard for all of them to get a turn
with the textbook. He discussed the exorbitant price of textbooks and how many
of them are cheaper overseas. He stated that a point that has been well-noted
by United Nations Rapporteurs is that education has to be accessible. We need
to make sure that even students in the most remote of areas have proper access
to education. In South Africa, he pointed out, five companies monopolise 71% of
publishing. This drives up prices, making education inaccessible to poor
learners. In an analysis of what we need, he suggested that a number of factors
be taken into account: facet; numbers; experimentation; language; culture and
changing power relations.
In the discussion
subsequent to the panel discussion, questions surrounding collecting societies,
25-year reversion and royalties emerged.
The event was a
fantastic conversation-starter and provided deep insight into different
perspectives surrounding pending copyright reform. It is our hope that such
rigorous debate can continue around these important issues.
Brought to you by Afro-Chic.
