Copyright, and Photographs or Videos of Public Art, in South Africa: An Imperfect Picture
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/21581Keywords:
photography, videography, public art, copyright, South Africa, limitations and exceptions, user rights, freedom of panorama, incidental inclusionAbstract
The rise of digital photography and videography has made the creation, sharing and commercialisation of high-quality photographs and videos more accessible, in terms of both cost and skills required. This thematic report examines the impact on copyright infringement of the increase in photographs and videos containing public art. It then analyses the applicability, for such photographs and videos, of the general exceptions for protection of artistic works in South Africa’s Copyright Act 98 of 1978. The author argues that the Act’s general exceptions are too ambiguous, and in at least one important case too narrow, and thus insufficient to cater to the current digital environment. Accordingly, the author proposes the introduction of broadened and clarified copyright exceptions that include fairness requirements.
References
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (1886). Commonwealth of Australia. (1968). Copyright Act 63 of 1968.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). (2015). [draft] Copyright Amendment Bill 2015. Government Gazette No. 39028, 27 July. Retrieved from http://www.thedti.gov.za/gazzettes/Copyright_Amendment_Bill.pdf
European Union (EU). (2001). Directive No. 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive).
Flynn, S. (2015). Copyright legal and practical reform for the South African film industry. African Journal of Information and Communication, 16, 38-47. https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/19313
Flynn, S., & Jaszi, P. (2009). Untold stories in South Africa: Creative consequences of the rights- clearing culture for documentary filmmakers. PIJIP Research Paper No. 20. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/20
Football Association Premier League Ltd v Panini UK Ltd [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1147. Government of Canada. (1985). Copyright Act of 1985.
Hennigan, J. (2003). Copyright – just what is the meaning of incidental? Entertainment Law Review, 14(8), 215-217.
Italian Book Corp. v American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978) New Zealand Government. (1994). Copyright Act of 143 1994.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (n.d.). Permanently. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
Republic of South Africa (RSA). (1978). Copyright Act 98 of 1978, as amended up to Copyright Amendment Act 9 of 2002. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=130429
R v Innes (1925) CPD 161.
Sharp, J., Pollock, V., & Paddison, R. (2005). Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 1001-1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500106963
Sony Corp v Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
United Kingdom (UK) Government. (1988). Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 (chap. 8).
United States Congress. (1976). Copyright Act, as amended. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810.
World Trade Organisation (WTO). (1994). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
- Abstract 225
- pdf 141
.png){kind=spacer}