February – April 2015

Welcome

Housekeeping  /  admin    §  Once  off:  Registra0on  /  coffee  &  tea  /  bathrooms    §  A7endance  register  (minimum  a7endance  requirements)  §  Short  round  of  introduc0ons  (name,  background,  why  Copyrightx)  §  Part  of  an  experiment  (MOOC  ini0a0ves  at  UCT);  feedback  welcome  §  H2O  /  access  to  video  lectures  working  ok?  First  impressions?      

Welcome

Syllabus  §  Founda0ons  of  Copyright  /  Fairness  &  Personality  Theories  (12  February  2015)  §  Subject  Ma7er  of  Copyright  (19  February  2015)  §  Authorship  /  Welfare  Theory  (26  February  2015  –  Bram)  §  Mechanics  of  Copyright  (05  March  2015)  §  The  Rights  to  Reproduce  and  Modify  (12  March  2015)  §  The  Rights  to  Distribute,  Perform  and  Display  (19  March  2015)  §  Fair  use  and  fair  dealing  (26  March  2015)  §  Secondary  liability  /  Cultural  Theory  (09  April  2015)  §  Remedies  (16  April  2015)  §  Copyright,  Innova0on  &  Development  (23  April  2015)  

WelcomeOverarching  goals  of  CopyrightX:  UCT  §  Provide  an  overview  about  copyright  law  §  Examine  and  discuss  the  impact  of  copyright  on  crea0vity  §  Create  awareness  about  the  underlying  theories  for  copyright  protec0on  §  Discuss  how  copyright  could  be  improved  §  Analyse  the  impact  of  techology  on  copyright  §  Provide  South  African  context  to  the  US  and  global  perspecHves      

Seminar  1    

FoundaAons  of  Copyright  &      

Fairness  and  Personality  Theories    

12  February  2015  

Overview

Part  I  §  History  of  copyright  in  South  Africa  §  Interna0onal  instruments  relevant  for  South  Africa    §  Key  requirements  for  the  subsistence  of  copyright  in  South  Africa  §  Ideas,  facts,  expression    Part  II  §  Copyright  theories,  overview  §  The  fairness  theory  §  The  personality  theory    §  Case  study:  FiZy  shades  of  Dorian  Gray  

Part 0

Let’s start with this…

Do  you  need  to  know  more  about  the  South  African  legal  system  –  courts,  branches  of  law  etc?  

Let’s start with this…

What  is  copyright?  

“Copyright is the exclusive right in relation to work embodying intellectual content to do or

to authorize to do certain acts in relation to that work.”

Part I

History of copyright law in SA§  Roman-­‐Dutch  ‘common  law’  copyright  (1803  -­‐  1916)  

§  1803  Copyright  Act  of  the  Batavian  Republic  became  common  law  of  the  Cape,  Transvaal,  Orange  Free  state  and  Natal  provinces  

§  Provincial  Copyright  Acts  

§  Patent,  Trade  Marks,  Designs  and  Copyright  Act  9  of  1916  §  Incorpora0on  of  the  United  Kingdom  Copyright  Act  of  1911  plus  varia0ons  

§  Copyright  Act  63  of  1965  §  Based  on  United  Kingdom  Copyright  Act  of  1956  which  had  repealed  the  1911  

Copyright  Act.  

§  Copyright  Act  98  of  1978  §  Departed  from  United  Kingdom  Copyright  Act  of  1956,  but  departs  on  

independent  course  in  the  field  op  copyright  §  Amended  7  0mes  (1980,  1983,  1984,  1986,  1988,  1992,  1997)  

History of copyright law in SA

§  S43:  ApplicaAon  to  works  made  before  the  commencement  of  the  Act  

The  general  principle  is  that  the  Act  applies  to  works  made  before  commencement  of  the  Act  but  it  doesn’t  create  ©  in  works  in  which  ©  couldn’t  exist  prior  to  1965,  and  it  doesn’t  affect  ownership,  dura1on  and  existence  of  copyright  which  already  existed  before.  

Copyright protection is territorial!

(P)?

The Internet

Relevant international copyright treaties, aiming to harmonise copyright laws

§  Berne  ConvenAon  for  the  Protec0on  of  Literary  and  Ar0s0c  Works  [1886]  

§  Agreement  on  Trade  Related  Aspects  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (TRIPS)  [1994]  §  WIPO  Copyright  Treaty  (WCT)  [1996]  §  Marrakesh  Treaty  on  excep0ons  for  the  visually  impaired  [2013]  

Berne Convention

§  Protec0on  for  literary  and  arAsAc  works  §  Focus  on  right  of  reproducAon  (s  9)  §  Protects  moral  rights  §  No  enforcement  mechanisms  (“no  teeth”)  §  In  force,  168  par0es  

South  Africa  §  Subscribed  to  the  1948  Brussels  text  of  the  conven0on  (as  far  as  substan0ve  law)  

§  Not  directly  bound  by  the  full  text  of  the  latest  1971  Paris  text  (so  only  bound  by  previous  texts)  of  the  conven0on;  but  bound  via  TRIPS  

TRIPS

§  Incorporates  protecAon  from  Berne  ConvenAon    §  Broadened  protec0on:  computer  programs,  data  bases  

§  No  protecAon  of  moral  rights  §  Detailed  rules  regarding  enforcement  and  Dispute  Se`lement  mechanisms  (‘teeth’)  

 South  Africa  §  As  a  member  of  the  WTO  bound  by  TRIPS  

WCT

 

§  Introduces  rights  of  distribuAon,  rental  and  communicaAon  to  the  &  addresses  computer  programs  as  literary  works  (art  4)  and  data  bases  (art  5)  

§  AnA-­‐circumvenAon  provisions  

South  Africa  §  Signed  in  1997  but  has  not  yet  raAfied  the  ‘WIPO  Copyright  Treaty’  due  to  

fear  of  nega0ve  impact  on  its  social  and  economic  development  

Marrakesh Treaty

 

§  Addresses  Published  Works  §  Permits  crea0on  of  so-­‐called  accessible  format  copies  and  allow  cross-­‐border  transfer  to  improve  access  for  visually  impaired  persons  

§  For  the  first  0me,  focus  was  on  limitaAons  of  copyright  rather  than  expansion  of  rights  

§  Not  yet  in  force  –  6  par0es;  20  are  needed  

South  Africa  §  not  signed,  not  ra0fied  

Important elements of those international treaties

 

§  Minimum  standards  for  protec0on  §  NaAonal  treatment  principle  §  No  formaliAes  for  copyright  protec0on  §  Three-­‐step  test  

Important elements of those international treaties

Three-­‐step  test  (as  contained  in  s9  of  the  Berne  Conven0on):    “It  shall  be  a  ma9er  for  legisla1on  in  the  countries  of  the  Union  to  permit  the  

reproduc1on  of  such  works  in  certain  special  cases,  provided  that  such  reproduc1on  does  not  conflict  with  a  normal  exploita1on  of  the  work  and  does  not  unreasonably  prejudice  the  legi1mate  interests  of  the  author.”    

   

South Africa is not part of any regional agreements concerning copyright (e.g.,

OAPI) – but be aware of FTAs

Any questions?

Requirements for copyright protection in SA

§  Originality    §  Material  form    §  Qualified  person  (s37  !)  

Material form

§  Work  must  be  reduced  to  material  form  (in  wri0ng  or  other  material  form)  

§  Special  case  for  broadcasts  and  programme-­‐carrying  signals  §  Broadcasts  must  have  been  broadcast  §  Programme-­‐carrying  signals  must  have  been  transmi7ed  via  satellite  

Idea/expression  dichotomy  

Propriety of work?

§  Will  the  law  protect  works  which  are  considered  improper,  indecent  or  lacking  in  propriety?  

§  Common-­‐law  requirement  §  Nothing  in  Copyright  Act  about  propriety  (see    §  Divided  opinions  on  whether  propriety  is  a  condi0on  for  subsistence  of  a  work,  or  

only  affects  the  enforcement  of  copyright  

 

Qualified person

§  Sec0on  3(1)  

“Copyright  shall  be  conferred  by  this  sec0on  on  every  work,  eligible  for  copyright,  of  which  the  author  or,  in  the  case  of  a  work  of  joint  authorship,  any  one  of  the  authors  is  at  the  0me  the  work  or  a  substan0al  part  thereof  is  made,  a  qualified  person,  that  is—    

(a)    in  the  case  of  an  individual,  a  person  who  is  a  South  African  ciAzen  or  is  domiciled  or  resident  in  the  Republic;  or    (b)    in  the  case  of  a  juris0c  person,  a  body  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  the  Republic  […]”    

Is  there  a  problem  with  this?    

Originality

Originality in the U.S.§  Low  standard  §  Not  required:  novelty,  quality,  noncommercial,  

lawful  

§  But:  According  to  Feist,  “some  degree  of  

creaAvity  is  required”;  mere  labour  (or  “sweat  of  the  brow”)  is  not  sufficient.  

 

Originality in the EU

§  Higher  standard  §  Different  standards  in  different  countries  §  But:  EU  DirecAves  &  ECJ  cases  have  resulted  in  

some  harmonisaAon…  [  also:  see  appendix]  

Originality in SA§  Not  defined  in  the  Act  §  Low  originality  standard  §  Does  NOT  mean  work  must  be  unique,  inven0ve  or  

novel  

§  But  must  be  product  of  the  author’s  own  labour  §  Ma7er  of  degree  depending  on  the  amount  of  skill  &  

effort  involved  in  the  making  of  the  work  

§  à  sweat  of  the  brow  

§  Fact  that  a  work  is  copied  (and  possibly  infringes  copyright)  does  NOT  mean  it  cannot  be  original  (sec0on  2(3))  “If  a  work  is  eligible  for  copyright  protec0on,  an  improvement  or  refinement  of  that  work  would  similarly  be  eligible  for  copyright,  even  if  the  improved  work  involved  an  infringement  of  copyright  in  the  original  work,  if  it  sa0sfies  the  requirement  of  originality.  That  will  be  the  case  only  if  the  improvement  or  refinement  is  not  superficial.  The  altera0on  to  the  original  work  must  be  substanAal.”  (Haupt  t/a  SoM  Copy  v  Brewers  MarkeHng  Intelligence  (Pty)  Ltd)  

Originality in SA§  Lower  standard  than  even  in  the  US,  creaAvity  is  not  required  

§  Facts  are  not  protected  –  but  the  

expression  of  such  facts  may  well  be  …  Examples:  

q  List  of  railway  sta0ons  q  Chronological  fixture  of  football  games  q  Directory  of  telefax  users  q  Catalogue  and  price  list  q  Further  reading:  

h7p://www.ajol.info/index.php/pelj/ar0cle/viewFile/101893/91942    

Overview

Part  I  §  History  of  copyright  in  South  Africa  §  Interna0onal  framework  South  Africa  is  bound  by  §  Requirements  for  the  subsistence  of  copyright  in  South  Africa  §  Originality  in  EU  Copyright  Law  (case  study)  Part  II  §  Copyright  theories  §  The  fairness  theory  §  The  personality  theory    §  FiZy  shades  of  Dorian  Gray  (case  study)  

Part II

{Not much to add to the video lecture}

So, what did you think? You think we need those theories?

Some commentators have identified up to seven main theories for copyright protection

Both theories discussed so far are author-centric

The fairness theory

è  ©  to  ensure  everyone  is  fairly  rewarded  (“just  reward”)  

§  Philosophical  underpinning  and  its  main  proponents  explained  in  Prof  Fisher’s  video  

§  A  key  problem  is,  however,  that  tangible  and  intangible  goods  are  substanAally  different  (non-­‐exclusivity  and  non-­‐excludability  of  intangible  goods)  and  that  calls  into  ques0on  whether  theories  developed  for  tangible  goods  should  simply  be  extended  to  intangible  goods.  

The personality theory

è  ©  to  protect  the  emoAonal  band  between  arAst  and  his  art.    

§  Re-­‐inforces  the  need  to  protect  Moral  Rights,  especially  §  right  of  a`ribuAon  (SA)  §  right  of  integrity  (SA)  

Case  study:    Finy  shades  of  Dorian  Gray  

Author:  Martha  Vega-­‐Gonzalez  &  Gloria  Park  -­‐  January  26,  2015    

© 2015, Gloria Park. This case study was originally written by Martha Vega-Gonzalez and was subsequently revised by Gloria Park. The terms on which this case study may be used or modified are available at copyx.org/permission  

Mash-up novels have proliferated in recent years

http://screenrant.com/abraham-lincoln-vampire-hunter-literary-mash-up-list-aco-180542/  

“Reworked” public domain works, often involving Ninjas, Zombies

http://screenrant.com/abraham-lincoln-vampire-hunter-literary-mash-up-list-aco-180542/  

Marketed as joint works by the original and new authors

Trailer  of  The  Meowmorphosis,  a  mashup  of  Franz  Kata’s  The  Metamorphosis:  

Fifty shades of Dorian Gray

Oscar Wilde and Dorian Gray

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oscar_Wilde_by_Napoleon_Sarony_3g07099u.jpg

“It  contains  much  of  me  in  it.  Basil  Hallward  is  what  I  think  I  am:  Lord  Henry  is  what  the  world  thinks  me:  Dorian  is  what  I  would  like  to  be—in  other  ages,  perhaps.”    

Oscar  Wilde,  LeZer  to  Ralph  Payne      “Oscar  Wilde’s  Wildest  and  Oscarest  work.”  

 Punch  

Publishing Wilde without permission

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/oscar/de_profundis_large.html http://www.simonbeattie.kattare.com/

“[Robert  Sherard]  …  comes  to  see  me,  and  …  tells  me  …  you  are  about  to  publish  an  ar0cle  on  me  with  specimens  of  my  le7ers….  I  was  greatly  taken  aback  and  much  annoyed,  and  gave  orders  that  the  thing  was  to  be  stopped  at  once.”      -­‐Oscar  Wilde’s  Le7er  to  Alfred  Douglas  from  Prison,  1897  (De  Profundis)  

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ ftrials/wilde/images.html

Original vs Mash-up

§  Style  and  plot  are  different  

§  Gender  and  traits  of  characteris0cs  are  different:    §  Lord  Henry  Wo7on  replaced  by  Helen  Wo7on  §  Basil  Hallward  replaced  by  Rosemary  Hall    

§  Some  text  taken  from  Wilde.  Overall  plot  and  character  development  bear  similari0es  to  the  original  canon  

§  Spelling  changed  from  UK  to  US  conven0on  

§  No  preface  with  ar0s0c  manifesto  

§  Mashup  has  pornographic  content  with  graphic  details  of  heterosexual  rela0ons  among  the  three  principal  characters  

Discussion

1.  Should  Oscar  Wilde  (or  his  heirs)  have  moral  rights  in  The  Picture  of  Dorian  Gray?  If  so,  how  extensive  should  these  rights  be?  

 2.  Should  anyone  else  be  en0tled  to  object  to  the  prepara0on  

and  distribu0on  of  works  of  this  sort?    3.  Does  the  new  author  deserve  protec0on?  

4.  If  you  answer  “yes  “  to  2  and  3,  how  can  the  compe0ng  interests  be  balanced?  

This concludes our first seminar!

Thank you very much.

Any questions?

Database Directive

§  Direc0ve  96/9/EC  of  11  March  1996  §  A  database  is  original  if  it  is  “the  author's  own  intellectual  crea0on”  (in  the  

selec0on  or  arrangements  of  contents)  §  and  no  other  criteria  such  as  “aesthe0c  or  qualita0ve  criteria”  shall  be  applied  §  But  allows  protec0on  of“investment  in  obtaining,  verifying  or  presen0ng  the  

contents”      Sources:  Recital  15  et  seq.  and  Art.  3(1)  

 

Appendix - originality

Software Directive

§  Direc0ve  91/250/EEC  of  14  May  1991,  now  2009/24/EC  of  23  April  2009  (codified  version)    

§  A  computer  program  is  original  if  it  is  “the  author's  own  intellectual  crea0on”    §  and  “no  other  criteria  such  as  qualita0ve  or  aesthe0c  merits  shall  be  applied”    Sources:  Recital  8  and  Art.  1(3)      

 

Copyright Term Directive

§  Direc0ve  93/98/EEC,  now  by  Direc0ve  2006/116/EC  of  12  December  2006  (codified  version)  

§  A  photograph  is  original  if  it  is  “the  author's  own  intellectual  crea0on”    §  and  “no  other  criteria  such  as  merit  or  purpose”  shall  be  applied  §  But  allows  protec0on  for  “other”  photographs    Sources:  Recital  16  and  Art.  6  

 

European Court of Justice (1)

§  Case  C‑5/08  Infopaq  InternaHonal  [2009]  (Infopaq)  §  Copyright  within  the  meaning  of  Ar0cle  2(a)  of  Direc0ve  2001/29  is  liable  to  apply  

only  in  rela0on  to  a  subject-­‐ma7er  which  is  original  in  the  sense  that  it  is  its  author’s  own  intellectual  crea0on  (par.  37)  

§  It  is  only  through  the  choice,  sequence  and  combina0on  of  those  words  that  the  author  may  express  his  crea0vity  in  an  original  manner  and  achieve  a  result  that  is  an  intellectual  crea0on.  

§  11  consecu0ve  words  (“may  not  be  ruled  out  that  …”)    

European Court of Justice (2)

§  Case  C‑393/09  Bezpečnostní  soMwarová  asociace  [2010]  (BSA);    §  …  the  graphic  user  interface  can,  as  a  work,  be  protected  by  copyright  if  it  is  its  

author’s  own  intellectual  crea0on  (part.  46)  §  Where  the  expression  of  those  components  is  dictated  by  their  technical  func0on  

the  criterion  is  not  met,  since  different  methods  of  implemen0ng  an  idea  are  so  limited  that  the  idea  and  the  expression  become  indissociable  (idea-­‐expression  merger)  (par.  49).    

European Court of Justice (3)

§  Joined  Cases  C‑403/08  and  C‑429/08  Football  AssociaHon  Premier  League  and  Others  [2011]  (FAPL)  

§  Spor0ng  events  cannot  be  regarded  as  intellectual  crea0ons  …  especially  football  matches,  which  are  subject  to  rules  of  the  game,  leaving  no  room  for  crea0ve  freedom  (Par.  98)      

Originality  in  EU  copyright  law  Author:  Thomas  Margoni  –  Last  revised:  18  December  2014  

 Copyright   ©   2014   Thomas   Margoni.     This   case   study   is   licensed   under   the   Crea0ve   Commons   A7ribu0on-­‐NonCommercial-­‐ShareAlike  4.0  License,   the  terms  of  which  are  available  at  h7p://crea0vecommons.org/licenses/by-­‐nc-­‐sa/4.0/.  

 

European Court of Justice (4)

§  Case  C‑145/10  Painer  [2011]  (Painer)  §  An  intellectual  crea0on  is  an  author’s  own  if  it  reflects  the  author’s  personality,  

which  is  the  case  is  the  author  was  able  to  express  his  crea0ve  abili0es  in  teh  produc0on  of  the  work  by  making  free  and  crea0ve  choices  (par.  88)  

§  As  regards  portrait  photographs,  the  photographer  can  make  free  and  crea0ve  choices  in  several  moments:  in  the  prepara0on  phease,  when  taking  the  photograph  and  when  selec0ng  the  snapshot      

European Court of Justice (5)

§  Case  C‑604/10  Football  Dataco  v  Yahoo  [2012]  (Football  Dataco  v  Yahoo)  §  …  the  fact  that  the  sezng  up  of  the  database  required,  irrespec0ve  of  the  crea0on  

of  the  data  which  it  contains,  significant  labour  and  skill  of  its  author  …  cannot  as  such  jus0fy  the  protec0on  of  it  by  copyright  …  if  that  labour  and  that  skill  do  not  express  any  originality  in  the  selec0on  or  arrangement  of  that  data