Legal updates and opinions
News / News
South African copyright bill vs European Union copyright directive – poles apart
Much has been written of late about the South African Copyright Bill which has attracted a significant amount of criticism from various quarters as being opposed to the interests of creators of copyrighted works and also in respect of the poor technical drafting thereof.
The reason for having intellectual property legislation, including in respect of copyright, is to ensure that creators are properly protected in order to drive innovation and creativity. In the event that there is not sufficient protection for creators there would be no incentive to create.
Copyright legislation should provide a balance between creating monopolies for the benefit of such creators and the access to such works by the public in certain circumstances. Without strong copyright protection, creation of copyright works will be discouraged.
As we move into the world of artificial intelligence and increasing reliance on digital material which lends itself to the pervasiveness of user-uploads, the ability for creators to protect their rights becomes even more difficult than before.
A coalition of content creators from the publishing, music, film, animation, visual arts and other industries have joined together to oppose the Bill and have written an open letter to the President who is to sign the Bill into law as it has passed through the relevant sections of parliament. It is only President Ramaphosa that can stop the Bill from becoming law.
It is however interesting that at the same time as this issue is raging in South Africa, the European Union has passed the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market which can be regarded as creator and author-friendly.
The EU Copyright Directive will bring the outdated copyright rules up to date by dealing with the posting of online content. The larger technology companies have opposed the legislation, especially Article 13, according to which any party providing content must obtain the consent from the owner or have attempted to obtain such consent. This means that platforms that host user-generated content, such as Youtube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, are now responsible for the material that is uploaded and which they host. For this to be done, such platforms will have to create effective content recognition technologies or filters which have the ability of checking that the content uploaded by users does not infringe rights of a third party.
This provision of the EU directive in particular has been criticized by various parties as sounding the death knell to the independence of the internet and will discourage creativity.
What is interesting in these processes is that despite them taking place at more or less the same time, the focus thereof in the different jurisdictions is decidedly different.
We all await to see what Mr Ramaphosa will do and whether he will heed the concerns of the coalition or whether he will sign the Bill into law.
Latest News
Section 12A(3)(e) – Is it really all about promoting HDP or worker ownership?
by Graeme Wickins, Director Section 12A(3)(e) of the Competition Act Much has been written about the hyper-focus the Competition Commission [...]
Bid rigging vs price fixing: Clarification on when you will be deemed to have exited a cartel
Understanding what is exactly required to demonstrate that a company has distanced itself from a cartel is undoubtedly of great [...]
When must your medical scheme pay for treatment?
by Helen Michael, Director and, Raisah Mahomed, Candidate Attorney On 26 August 2022, the High Court in Pretoria handed down [...]
Not every crime is a cybercrime – The dichotomy of cyber-enabled crimes and cybercrimes
The global adoption of digital technology is rapidly increasing, which increase has caused an evolution in criminal behaviour resulting in [...]
Breaking set stone – exceptional circumstances and the variation of Competition orders
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Data Privacy and Cybercrime Practice and member of the Competition Law Practice, and [...]
The Constitutional Court has tightened the noose on the doctrine of common purpose.
by Sandile July, Director, Sandile Tom, Director and, Benedict Ngobeni, Candidate Attorney Doctrine of common purpose The principles underpinning the [...]
