This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'EEAS letter to the Office of the South African President on the South African Draft Copyright Bill'.



Ref. Ares(2020)3170450 - 18/06/2020
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)

Bill published by the Stellenbosch University is an excellent source – I must say that I 
agree with most of the comments therein). 
-
As South Africa is not a Contracting Party to the WPPT or the Rome Convention, their
obligations in terms of neighbouring rights are limited to those stemming from the TRIPS
Agreement. We will focus our comments in those articles more related to South Africa's
obligations in the context of the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WCT.
-
In the chapter related to definitions, the main inconsistencies are related to the
following:

"digital rights system": the purpose of this definition is unknown, since it is not used
later in the text. Its meaning or its possible relation with TPMs are also obscure.
Further clarification from the South African authorities would be needed.

"orphan work": apart from possible inconsistencies (reference to the creator of the
work), the definition seems rather broad, and it does not reflect the conditions for a
work to be declared orphan if the right holder is not located (for instance, a diligent
search – something similar to the diligent search is mentioned later in the text, but
further clarification in the definition itself would be advisable).

"reproduction". The modification of the definition of reproduction raises major
concerns. It is too restrictive, since it replaces the existing definition (which is
broader) and only refers to "a copy made of a fixation or audio-visual fixation of a
performance".

"TPMs". The definition of TPM is linked to "measures […] designed to prevent or
restrict infringement of copyright work". Apart from pure infringements, right
holders may apply TPMs to avoid unauthorised access (for instance, from another
territory), which is not strictly an infringement if carried out by an individual user.
These TPMs should also be granted protection.
-
Section 3 establishes the perpetual protection of copyright when is vested in the state,
concerning orphan works. Once the term of protection of an orphan work expires, it
should become part of the public domain. The perpetual exploitation of an orphan work
by the state is unjustified, in our opinion (for instance, it may affect works whose rights
belonged to EU right holders – once in the public domain, why would the Republic of
South Africa still exploit it as their copyright holder?).
-
Section 7A establishes the resale right in South Africa, which we should welcome.
However, there is a major concern in this regard. Subsection 3 sets out that only South
African citizens or residents are entitled to claim this right. This would not comply with
South Africa's obligation pursuant to Articles 5 and 14 ter of the Berne Convention
(national treatment). We understand this is a very sensitive issue, since the South African
authorities may reconsider their decision to grant this right if foreigners from the EU may
be the main beneficiaries of this right.
-
Section 9A lays down a very complicated system for the licensing of rights and for the
payment of royalties for the broadcasting of phonograms. It is difficult to understand
what this section intends to do, since it seems to establish an exclusive right to authorise
the broadcasting of phonograms, in a way that would oblige broadcasters to license the
rights of every single phonogram they intend to broadcast. This protective measure may

be counterproductive for the dissemination of phonograms, particularly of foreign right 
holders. We understand that the references to the "owner of the copyright" in this 
Section refer to the phonogram producer, but further clarification would be needed.  
-
Section 9 is related to collecting societies. We welcome any initiative related to ensuring
clear rules on the governance, transparency and equal treatment in the context of
collecting societies. In Section 9B(1), we believe clarification is needed about the reasons
why there should be one collecting society per copyright and per set of rights with
regard to all music rights. This may make the system inefficient and prejudice particularly
foreign right holders.
-
In Section 10A(1) we find aggressive provisions related to the minimum percentage of
local content that should be broadcast in the South African public and private radios and
televisions (more than 60% or 80% of the content needs to be local). This is very
prejudicial for the interests of the EU, even though it is not strictly related to copyright
law.
-
Section 12 introduces fair use provisions in South Africa. A general negative reaction on
this should be transmitted to the South African authorities in this regard. The lack of
tradition and jurisprudence of South Africa in this regard raises significant concerns.
Furthermore, the provisions are often difficult to understand, since they sometimes
include references to the need to obtain authorisation from the right holder or from the
Commission (a South African public body to license works). There is also a list of factors
to be considered in order to determine if certain use is fair or not (Section 12A.5), but it
is not clear whether commercial uses are covered or not, for instance (Section 12A.6
raises doubts about this as well). The compliance of these provisions with South Africa's
obligation related to the three-step test should be challenged. Other comments:

Section 12A.3 is not clear enough.

Section 12A.4 seems to mix parody and private use and format-shifting. Further
clarification would be needed.

Compensation is never mentioned. We would need clarification on this.

The purpose of Section 12A.8 is unclear. Is it related to the possibility to circumvent
TPMs? The South African authorities should clarify this.
-
As a general comment, the exceptions on education and libraries are sometimes unclear.
For instance, it is not clear whether online uses are permitted (Does Section 19C.1.a
apply to online uses or digital materials when it mentions distribution? – distribution is
not defined in the law.
-
Section 20c.5 deals with obligations of broadcasters (it is a "must" provision). The
meaning and purpose of this provision is unclear.
-
Section 21 lays down the provisions related to orphan works. Firstly, paragraph 3 sets
out that "ownership of any copyright whose owner […] is deceased shall vest in the
state. This is completely unwarranted and should be modified, since the successors in
title or the exclusive licensees are the necessary right holders of those works.


Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)
Art. 4(1)(b)

 << File: Copyright Act.pdf >>  << File: Draft Bill copyright 25 7 2015.pdf >> 
I have just noted that besides several positive aspects (e.g. 
introduction of a resale right) we could have concerns about the 
introduction of a kind of  US-style "fair use" (not the tradition in 
SA), compulsory licenses for certain exceptions, State controlled 
“compulsory licence” type of mechanism for the reproduction of 
whole analogue print works and audio visual fixations not 
available in South Africa, licensed uses for “systematic 
instructional activities” (right-holders are entitled to “just 
compensation”), exceptions / State controlled “compulsory 
licence” for translations, etc. 
We are going to inform the South African authorities that the 
European Commission will be in position to comment properly 
the draft Copyright Amendment Bill published for public 
comment at a later stage after the summer break. 
Therefore, it would be good to get your comments on the 7th of 
September eob. 
I am back on the 1st of September and I will be available to 
discuss with the colleague in charge of South Africa in your Unit 
at his convenience. 
Amitiés 
Art. 4(1)(b)