From the PMG Newsletter:
PMG Monitoring Group Report on Copyright Amendment Bill
Trade and Industry 22 November 2017 - Chairperson :Ms J Fubbs
The Parliamentary Legal Adviser provided a status report on the Copyright Amendment Bill.
The Committee was advised to group policy issues together for consideration. Submissions
received had to be looked at and some people might have to be called back again. The most
contentious matter, which was bound to be time consuming, was that of fair use versus fair
dealing. It had to be ensured that there was no conflict with the intellectual property
laws and the Indigenous Knowledge Bill that was being developed. There had to be agreement
about terms of reference and a panel of experts who would assist with finalising the Bill.
The number of members on the Copyright Amendment Bill Panel of Experts provisionally
agreed on was five. The terms of reference were adopted with amendments.
Status report on Copyright Amendment Bill
Adv Charmaine van der Merwe, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, commented that the policy issues
in the |Bill had to be considered. It was a big Bill that dealt with a lot. She advised
that the Committee group policy issues together. Exceptions could be looked at, including
fair use versus fair dealing; general and specific exceptions; the private copying levy
and freedom of panorama, which could be looked at together. Some were not contentious such
as freedom of panorama, whereas others could take longer.
The Chairperson interrupted to say that she was reminded by guests that one had to be seen
to be applying one’s mind. She was hearing what was being said.
Adv van der Merwe continued that fair use and fair dealing could take longer. Quite a lot
of people proposed for one or for the other. Orphan works could be dealt with separately
or as part of a cluster. The Committee could look at submissions and call people back
again where necessary. There were groups of items that could be lumped together, such as
collecting society regulation and commissioned work; and royalties assignment and the
functions of the Tribunal. The latter might have to be gone through clause by clause.
Another grouping could consist of technology, the Copyright Act and the circumvention
device. It could be done quickly, and the same applied to moral rights. Translation and
reproduction licences would have to be gone through clause by clause, as it was quite new,
to see that there was no conflict with IP laws. Some progress had been made with the
Indigenous Knowledge Bill so at the end of the Bill process it had to be looked at to see
that there was no conflict of laws.
Ms C Theko (ANC) remarked that the process was on track. The advice was taken about what
was needed to finalise the Bill. For the process to unfold, there had to be agreement on
the terms of reference and the panel of experts.
The Chairperson was of the opinion that it was not desirable for the panel to be huge.
Three to five members would be sufficient. If a glitch was hit, the subcommittee could
request someone to be brought on board. It might be necessary in the case of braille, for
instance. Ms Theko had referred to terms of reference. It was not new, and had been
adopted, but there were amendments here and there. She asked if all were agreement in
Ms Theko proposed that the terms of reference be adopted with amendments. Mr DA Macpherson
(DA) seconded that.
The Chairperson asked that names of proposed experts be put forward.
Ms Theko mentioned Prof Sadulla Karjiker, Adv Andre Myburgh, Adv Natasha Pather and Adv
The Chairperson noted that the Professor held the Anton Mostert Chair of Intellectual
Property law at the Stellenbosch law faculty. There was no profile on Adv Natasha Pather
and asked staff to obtain a written profile. Adv Myburgh was recommended by the Motion
Pictures and Music Copyright Alliance. A profile was needed on Adv Zodwe Gumede. Adv
Janice Nicholson represented libraries and education, which were important. She asked for
written profiles by the following Monday.
Mr Williams advised that the Committee move forward to get proposals of names.
The Chairperson noted that it looked like there would be four or five experts. It was not
to exceed five in principle. The principle of application of mind had to be respected. She
agreed that the Committee
See note about freedom of panorama.
Also see case in Italy - Statue of David is in the public domain yet they have legislated
on copyright infringements!!! Quite ridiculous!
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0"
<td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font
face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span
style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the addressee
only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this
communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are
competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus
advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and
may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the
views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements
between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the
University agrees in writing to the contrary. </span></font></td>