[Fundación Karisma, Link (CC-BY-SA)] El lunes 2 de octubre, la Dirección Nacional de Derecho de Autor citó a Karisma y a otros actores interesados para socializar la nueva versión del proyecto de ley de reforma al derecho de autor, que se presentará al Congreso para cumplir obligaciones TLC relacionadas con derecho de autor. Les dejo mis primeras impresiones sobre el texto.
Abstract: In 1982, China promulgated its first modern intellectual property law, offering protection to trademarks. Since then, China adopted the Patent Law in 1984, the Copyright Law in 1990 and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 1993. In December 2001, China finally became a member of the WTO, assuming obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. One can certainly debate about the actual age of the modern Chinese intellectual property system, but it will not be too far-fetched to suggest that the system began in the early to mid-1980s and is now entering, or approaching, its middle age. What exactly does a middle-aged Chinese intellectual property system mean? Will the system hit its prime? Or is it about to face a hard-to-predict mid-life crisis?
[Ethan Senack, Creative Commons USA, Link (CC-BY)] Today, Senators Durbin, Franken, and King, in conjunction with Representatives Polis and Sinema, introduced the Affordable College Textbook Act to the 115th Congress. In summary, the Affordable College Textbook Act provides funding for institutions of higher education to develop, adapt, and adopt openly-licensed educational resources that “either reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use, reuse, modification, and sharing with others.”
[Originally published in South Africa’s Business Day, Link] Over the past two weeks, I have been participating in a series of events and workshops explaining copyright “fair use” rights to South African stakeholders and officials. This week, Parliament has been hearing about fair use while it considers the Copyright Amendment Bill, part of which includes the introduction of a fair use right.
Rights management organisations, which collect royalties from schools, venues and other organisations that use copyrighted works, are up in arms. A collection of these organisations and foreign media companies such as Sony Pictures, calling itself the Copyright Alliance, has claimed that fair use means:
This week the South African Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry will hold three days of hearings on the Copyright Amendment Bill (B13-2017). Witnesses will give 20 minute presentations, followed by 20 minutes of Q&A.
The hearings will be on August 1, 2 and 4, and the testimony will be open to the public.
[Timothy Vollmer, Creative Commons, Link (CC-BY)] Copyright policymakers in Europe and South America have proposed legislation that would impose an unwaivable right to financial remuneration for authors and performers on copyrighted works. The laws attempt to ensure that creators receive payment for their work, but they would interfere with the operation of Creative Commons licensing by adding a special and separate economic right above and beyond the intention of some authors who wish to share their creative works with the world for free.
PIJIP has created a table of comments submitted to the South African Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry regarding the Copyright Amendment Bill. It was last updated on July 19, 2017.
Please send additional comments to firstname.lastname@example.org, and I will them to the table
[Matthew Sag and Sean Flynn, IP Watch, Link (CC-BY-NC-SA)] This week, the South African Parliament began accepting comments on its pending Bill proposing to amend the South African Copyright Act to align it with the digital age. We and other experts and civil society organizations submitted comments praising many of the Bill’s provisions and proposing that it adopt an “open” fair use right. Here we focus on one major reason to adopt an open fair use right – to authorize so-called non-expressive uses of works. We conclude with some reflectio ns on how international law could help in this regard.
I am writing to commend you on the drafted, revised Copyright Amendment Bill 2017. The Amended Bill is a vast improvement on the prior Bill. In particular, there must be commendation for changes such as state ownership in orphan works, perpetual state ownership, and so on. There are however, some problematic areas regarding the Bill. What follows will be a brief overview of some of the areas I think the Bill could be improved upon.
Excerpt: Our Federation welcomes Government’s initiative to review and modernize the legal framework for copyright in South Africa and implement the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. We collectively believe in the need to make the Copyright Act fit for purpose in the digital age, so that local creators and producers of content may continue to see their works protected effectively whilst taking full advantage of the emergent new digital business models for content production and distribution.
Excerpt: South Africans would benefit greatly from a provision that makes is clear that the technical processes at the heart of machine learning, cloud computing, text mining, plagiarism detection, automated detection of copyright infringement and constructing search engine indexes do not violate copyright law. Under current South African law, all these activities are arguably unlawful because, although they do not communicate the copyright owner’s original expression to the public in any way, they all rely on copying as an intermediate technical step. Thus, it is a matter of concern that the current copyright revision bill, B13-2017) (Copyright), appears to make no provision whatsoever for important large-scale applications of new digital technology that will important to research and development in both the non-profit and for-profit sectors. As a result, the terms of the proposed revisions would leave South Africans at a permanent and crippling disadvantage compared to residents of the United States, Israel, South Korea and other countries that have adopted, or are considering adopting a so-called “fair use” approach to copyright limitations and exceptions, as well as other countries that may take a narrower approach to immunizing information technology innovators from liability.
[Submitted by Tobias Schonwetter] Excerpt: We note that the 2017 Bill is, as far as the drafting is concerned — and subject to our specific comments below — a marked improvement to the 2015 Copyright Amendment Bill. Some technical drafting errors do, however, remain. In particular, in many sections of the Bill, the word “author” is used, sometimes with a list of others, instead of the term “rights owner” being used.
In our comments concerning the 2015 Bill, we expressly welcomed the proposed introduction of a more flexible and open fair use provision. We note with concern that the lawmaker has since decided to significantly reduce the provision’s utility by limiting its applicability to a closed list of permitted purposes. We strongly urge the lawmaker to reconsider this decision and amend S12 of the 2017 Bill in line with our suggestions in this submission.