Copyright Amendment Bill approved by SA Cabinet

[_Jakes_]

The photographer is still the creator but AFAIK SA is now the only country where the copyright defaults to the commissioner of a photo.

So you feel that if a person commissions a painting that the painting should belong to the artist and not the client?

And if I ask a builder to build me a house you think the house should belong to the builder once completed? Should we all rent from builders?

Why is it that artist feel that their work is somehow special and should be treated differently from others.

 

[bwana]

So you feel that if a person commissions a painting that the painting should belong to the artist and not the client?

I feel the creator should own the copyright, not the painting.

And if I ask a builder to build me a house you think the house should belong to the builder once completed? Should we all rent from builders?

No, the plans.

Why is it that artist feel that their work is somehow special and should be treated differently from others.

If you designed something unique and sold the product of your design should anyone be allowed to copy the final product?

 

[noxibox]

Hasn't it long been a complaint that South Africa's law was unusual in that someone who was paid to produce a piece of software owned the copyright unless they explicitly assigned it to the person who paid them? Whichever way they go it should be the same for everything, either the creator owns it unless they sign it over or it is automatically owned by the person that commissioned it.

 

[noxibox]

Insertion of sections 28O, 28P, 28Q, 28R and 28S are an interesting read when it comes to using tools to make a backup/copy of your legally purchased media (i.e. rip a DVD)

Elsewhere it gives the explicit right to make backups.

 

[noxibox]

If you designed something unique and sold the product of your design should anyone be allowed to copy the final product?

Not the same scenario at all.

 

[bwana]

Not the same scenario at all.

Why not?

 

[_Jakes_]

I feel the creator should own the copyright, not the painting.

No, the plans.

If you designed something unique and sold the product of your design should anyone be allowed to copy the final product?

So if I paid Leonardo da Vinci to paint my wife "Lisa", should he be able to make exact copies of the painting to sell to other people?

 

[Fulcrum29]

No, the plans.

That is a massive liability and responsibility. However, design elements and principles are a whole other case and ownership can be established by the creator.

 

[bwana]

So if I paid Leonardo da Vinci to paint my wife "Lisa", should he be able to make exact copies of the painting to sell to other people?

Should you have the right to prevent others making exact copies?

 

[_Jakes_]

If you designed something unique and sold the product of your design should anyone be allowed to copy the final product?

If you designed a product on your own then yes you should be able to sell it to as many people as you want.
If I pay you to design that product then No you should not be able to sell it to as many people as you want.

You are more than welcome to take photos and make as many copies as you want and sell them at the market. The moment someone pays you to take that photo it should belong to them unless contractually agreed otherwise. Does the footage that Multichoice camera men shoot belong to them or multichoice?

 

[_Jakes_]

Should you have the right to prevent others making exact copies?

If I commissioned and paid for the painting then yes but you as the artist have got no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my wife painting. If I want to give copies of the painting to my children then why not.

Should you as the artist be able to sell copies of my wife's painting?
Can you go and paint a similar painting for someone else in the same style? Yes

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

I am not sure why photographers cry about this. Surely you will have agreements drawn up which makes it clear where the copyright lies and who has exclusive usage. In most cases copyright would reside with the creator and the commissioner has unlimited use of it.

To be honest, I doubt many of the photographers who have ever taken wildlife pictures in one of SANParks facilities have ever applied and paid for a commercial film license either

 

[bwana]

Does the footage that Multichoice camera men shoot belong to them or multichoice?

The multichoice cameraman is part of a team that delivers the final footage, he's told where to stand and what to shoot, so the general consensus is that copyright belongs to multichoice.

I do my editing and set I up my shots. I plan the lighting, I pose the subject, and I set up the camera to produce the image that I designed and at the end of the day the final image carries my name and I think I should have the right to say what the image is finally used for. If a company pays me to photograph an image for the cover of a surfing magazine they shouldn't be able to use it for a completely different purpose later on.

 

[Voicy]

I feel the creator should own the copyright, not the painting.

No, the plans.

If you designed something unique and sold the product of your design should anyone be allowed to copy the final product?

In effect what bwana said.

Here's an example. I designed an electrical reticulation and distribution system with integrated standby generator control circuit unique to type of controller being used - for the Dept of Public Works.

A year later the DPW called me up to ask for assistance on another project that we weren't part of because the electrician on site couldn't get the system to work. I asked for a copy of the drawings to see the wiring diagram etc...they sent me my own drawing. Turns out some Mthatha based electrical engineering consultant found my drawing in a tender document and copy pasted it exactly as is into his design document.

When I informed the DPW of the plagiarism they told me "no it's fine. We own the designs because you sold them to us so we can give them to any consultant to use." BS!

 

[bwana]

I am not sure why photographers cry about this. Surely you will have agreements drawn up which makes it clear where the copyright lies and who has exclusive usage. In most cases copyright would reside with the creator and the commissioner has unlimited use of it.

They should but many photographers don't. Lawyers cost money and most of the agreements they find online work on the principle that the creator owns the copyright by default, as per the Berne Convention which SA is a signatory of, because that's the way it is everywhere else.

 

[_Jakes_]

In effect what bwana said.

Here's an example. I designed an electrical reticulation and distribution system with integrated standby generator control circuit unique to type of controller being used - for the Dept of Public Works.

A year later the DPW called me up to ask for assistance on another project that we weren't part of because the electrician on site couldn't get the system to work. I asked for a copy of the drawings to see the wiring diagram etc...they sent me my own drawing. Turns out some Mthatha based electrical engineering consultant found my drawing in a tender document and copy pasted it exactly as is into his design document.

When I informed the DPW of the plagiarism they told me "no it's fine. We own the designs because you sold them to us so we can give them to any consultant to use." BS!

Did you stipulate in your original contract with the DPW that the rights to the design is not part of the work that you provided? If not than the design belongs to them.

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

In effect what bwana said.

Here's an example. I designed an electrical reticulation and distribution system with integrated standby generator control circuit unique to type of controller being used - for the Dept of Public Works.

A year later the DPW called me up to ask for assistance on another project that we weren't part of because the electrician on site couldn't get the system to work. I asked for a copy of the drawings to see the wiring diagram etc...they sent me my own drawing. Turns out some Mthatha based electrical engineering consultant found my drawing in a tender document and copy pasted it exactly as is into his design document.

When I informed the DPW of the plagiarism they told me "no it's fine. We own the designs because you sold them to us so we can give them to any consultant to use." BS!

But your consulting to DPW was a “work for hire" job and you where commissioned to design something specific for DPW and unless you had some exclusive agreement in place they could very well share and use it elsewhere. If your work / IP is not protected by agreements, copyrights or patents, you have no rights to work you produce as part of your "work for hire" engagement (this is no different to an IT person coming up with a great product for his company and then not being able to resale it elsewhere).

Locking down IP, non-compete and exclusivity is a trivial thing and to be honest, if you work in this field, it is very naive not to protect your work - it's your livelihood after all.

 

[_Jakes_]

If you want the own the right to your work than put it in a contract.

 

[Drunkard #1]

In effect what bwana said.

Here's an example. I designed an electrical reticulation and distribution system with integrated standby generator control circuit unique to type of controller being used - for the Dept of Public Works.

A year later the DPW called me up to ask for assistance on another project that we weren't part of because the electrician on site couldn't get the system to work. I asked for a copy of the drawings to see the wiring diagram etc...they sent me my own drawing. Turns out some Mthatha based electrical engineering consultant found my drawing in a tender document and copy pasted it exactly as is into his design document.

When I informed the DPW of the plagiarism they told me "no it's fine. We own the designs because you sold them to us so we can give them to any consultant to use." BS!

And they're right - legally and morally. It's not their fault that you didn't read the terms of contract, and they can't be expected to get every single engineer to waste time with their own design when they've already paid you to do that work.

The multichoice cameraman is part of a team that delivers the final footage, he's told where to stand and what to shoot, so the general consensus is that copyright belongs to multichoice.

I do my editing and set I up my shots. I plan the lighting, I pose the subject, and I set up the camera to produce the image that I designed and at the end of the day the final image carries my name and I think I should have the right to say what the image is finally used for. If a company pays me to photograph an image for the cover of a surfing magazine they shouldn't be able to use it for a completely different purpose later on.

Which is why the copyright rests with the client by default. Because 99% of the disagreements in this regard are with wedding photographers who think they're god's gift to mankind, use copyright clauses to rip off unsuspecting clients, and couldn't give two ****s about "artistic merit" beyond how it affects their income stream.

If you want to take an aggressive approach when dealing with faceless corporations, fine, capitalism will decide your fate, but ripping off unsuspecting consumers is something else.

 

[bwana]

Anyway… copyright issues aside the amendments do have some bonuses such as attribution and royalties - it will be interesting to see how corporations feel about those.

23. Section 20 of the principal Act is hereby amended:
(a) by the addition after subsection (2) of the following subsections:
“(3) Notwithstanding the transfer of the copyright work in a television, film, radio, photography or crafts work to the owner, the creator of the copyright work has the moral right to –

(a) be attributed as the creator;
(b) not to be falsely attributed; and
(c) not to have their work treated in a derogatory manner.​

(4) Notwithstanding the transfer of the copyright work in a television, film, radio, photography or crafts work to the owner, the creator of the copyright work or the performer has, exclusive of contractual arrangements, the moral right to receive royalty payments –

(a) when repeats of the film, television, radio, photography or art work is used as prescribed by the Minister.”.​