This is a time of notable events and articles that have taken place or been published in the course of Wikimedia South Africa's advocacy efforts in support of Fair Use and Freedom of Panorama. Both of these legal concepts were adopted into the South African Copyright Bill of 2018 (CAB). This is a subsection of the main article on Wikimedia South Africa's copyright reform efforts. Please see the main article South African Copyright Amendment Bill for more information about the overall advocacy effort, what these concepts mean, why they are important for South African Wikipedia editors, and why the chapter supports their adoption into South African law.
This is currently an ongoing advocacy effort by Wikimedia South Africa.
F -> indicates articles, individuals or content that is For the bill
A -> indicates articles, individuals or content that is Against the bill
It was discussions about the copyright of uploading recently built national monuments at the launch of Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 (held at the Castle of Good Hope) that made us aware of the need for Freedom of Panorama in South Africa.
May 2012: Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 highlights the need for Freedom of Panorama. This is reinforced by similar experiences at subsequent Wiki Loves Monuments events between 2012-2015. We are prevented from accepting photograph submissions of recently built monuments, such as those about the struggle against apartheid, due to a lack of Freedom of Panorama.
10 October 2012: Following a request for advice by Wikimedia South Africa Dr Tobias Schonwetter (UCT - IP Law unit) points out that photographs of older monuments past a certain date are allowed to be submitted to the Wiki Loves Monuments competition as their copyright has expired. However he states that it is very likely the case, given the outdated and poorly worded nature of the South African Copyright Act 1978, that newer monuments can not be uploaded as the owners of said works could conceivably sue for royalties of photographic depictions of their work. None of the exceptions in the 1978 Act would allow for uploading to Wikimedia Commons and would therefore disqualify such photographs from the competition. This highlights the urgent need for reforming and updating the South African Copyright Act of 1978.
2 September 2014: the complications of a lack of Freedom of Panorama is again highlighted by a concerned South African Wikimedian.
31 October 2014: The Wikimedia South Africa Annual General Report for 2014 is published stating for the first time that the Wikimedia chapter for South Africa intends to advocate for the adoption of Freedom of Panorama in South African copyright legislation (page 23). Explicit mention is made that the right to take and share photographs under a Creative Commons license (thereby allowing their upload onto Wikimedia Commons) of national monuments and other public works of art is the reason for this decision.
"In the future we [Wikimedia South Africa] will also be focusing more on lobbying in support of getting the Copyright Act of 1978 amended, so as to allow for Freedom of Panorama. Currently, it is not possible to take picture of recently built ‘public art’ such as monuments, statues and stadiums and submit them to commons in South Africa. This has also prevented us from accepting pictures of recently built monuments, such as monuments commemorating the struggle against Apartheid to Wiki Loves Monuments. This is due to the very vague way in which the Act was written when coving these issues. We are working with Creative Commons South Africa to promote and encourage government to amend the Act, so members of the public can freely take photographs of these places to share these wonderful places with everyone in the world."[1]
-Wikimedia ZA 2014 Annual General Report
August 2015: Attended the the Internet Rights, Cultural Development and Balancing Features in SA Copyright Reform conference where Wikimedia ZA is introduced to a number of important participants in the South African copyright community broadly. Was invited to attend by Wikimedia ZA's friends at Creative Commons South Africa to discuss the need for Freedom of Panorama in South Africa.
16 September 2015: Academics (UCT IP unit and Collage of Law at American University) sends letter to Department of Trade and Industry calling for both Fair Use and "right of panorama" (Freedom of Panorama) to be included in the new and currently being drafted Copyright Bill.
A presentation at the Workshop on the South African Copyright Amendment Bill in Cape Town.
6 December 2016: Attended the Workshop on the South African Copyright Amendment Bill in Cape Town hosted by Wits University and the University of Cape Town's Intellectual Property Unit. The workshop included presentations on the current provisions of the bill that promote various interests followed by technical discussions about how the language could be supported or improved in the upcoming legislative process. Met a number of important allies at this event including academics associated with the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property.
12 December 2016:It was decided at the 2016 Wikimedia South African Annual General Meeting that Wikipedia banner add be run to raise awareness of the lack of freedom of panorama in South Africa, the problems this causes for Wikipedia editors, and a way forward to possibly fix it.
May 2017: Mandate from South African Wikipedia community to more actively and publicly advocate for Freedom of Panorama
The other South African language Wikipedia communities at the time were very small communities with less than 3 active editors in any one month. As such it was felt to work through the chapter to get their feed back as the most active editors in those language Wikis were senior chapter members.
Presentation given to the South African Parliament by Wikimedia South Africa on 3 August 2017 advocating for Freedom of Panorama in the Copyright Amendment Bill.
14 June 2017: Wikimedia ZA starts mobilising in support of Freedom of Panorama in South Africa by launching a petition and page on Commons to explain the need. A Wikipedia banner add ran for at least one month visible to South African visitors to Wikipedia only. The petition gathered 730 signatures calling for Freedom of Panorama in South Africa.
21 July 2017: Wikimedia ZA is invited to attend the Amendment Bill Round Table on Fair Use hosted by the Mandela Institute, Google, Freedom of Expression Institute, and the American University Washington College of Law to discuss the development of the bill with as many different role-players as possible.
3 August 2017: Wikimedia South Africa gave a presentation to the South African parliament on need for Freedom of Panorama in the draft Copyright Amendment Bill. A written account of that presentation can be viewed at the Parliamentary Monitoring group here.
Early 2018: Freedom of Panorama added to the Bill
17 May 2018: ReCreate South Africa is created to advocate for Fair Use in the Copyright Amendment Bill. Wikimedia ZA is a founding supporting member of ReCreate SA.
Cachalia addressing the Globalizing Copyright User Rights session at the Wikimania 2018 pre-conference.
19th July 2018: the session Globalizing Copyright User Rights is hosted at the Wikimania 2018 pre-conference. Hosted by Douglas Scott and Sean Flynn to discuss copyright globally, South Africa's place in it, and its relevancy to the Wikipedia/Free Knowledge movement. Democratic Alliance Ghaleb Cachalia (MP), Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, delivers keynote address. He later votes against the bill when it comes up for vote in Parliament.
28 October 2018: F ReCreate releases a video (Fair Use in South Africa, YouTube) explaining the need for Fair Use in South African Copyright law. It features the following supporters of Fair Use in South Africa:
For the CAB: 197 votes Against the CAB : 4 votes Not present to vote Ministers of parliament voting on the CAB on 5 December 2018.
5 December 2018: Bill is passed by the house and sent to the Council of Provinces. 197 MPs voted in support of the CAB whilst 4 voted against, no MPs abstained whilst 199 of the 400 total MPs were not present on the day. It was a strategy of the opposition parties to try and prevent the passage of bills on the day by not being present to vote on them in the hope that there would be too few MPs present to allow for a valid vote. This strategy was not successful on the day. A video and detailed account of the vote along with speeches by political parties on the justification for their vote can be seen here: https://www.re-createza.org/new-page
March 2019 pannel discussion with the public co-hosted with ReCreate ZA to explain our position on the bill.To support the vote on the Bill WMZA along with ReCreate created this infographic to explain how the bill was good for society.
28 January 2019: A FM 1027 Classic Business radio interview with anti-bill panelists presents a number of misconceptions about the bill and key concepts within it such as Fair Use. Repeating the narrative that the new bill will undermine property rights and was done with minimal public consolation.[2]
19 March 2019: FWikimedia ZA in partnership with ReCreate host a public event with press invited to explain our position on the bill.[3] A recorded version of this press event can be seen here.
late March 2019: Bill is passed by the Council of Provinces and sent to the President for enactment
27 March 2019: A South African photographer, Pri Hollis, publishes Business Day op-ed against the bill. Alleging that the Fair Use clause will ensure that artists will have "no protection from rampant plagiarism". Repeating a common misconception about Fair Use and how it works.
16 April 2019: ACoalition for Effective Copyright in SA lobby group states that they will fight to prevent the President from signing the Copyright Bill into law. They argue against the Fair Use provision and state that the bill will result in the "recolonisation of our curriculum".[4]
24 & 25 April 2019: F Wikimedia South Africa publishes two opinion pieces in Business Day[5] and GroundUp[6] calling for President Ramaphosa to sign the recently passed bill and why we support the bill.
10 July 2019: F ReCreate Policy Fellow, Nontando Tusi, writes an op-ed in Business Day arguing in support of the bill and reiterating calls for the President to sign the bill.
15 August 2019: A Prof Keyan Tomaselli (University of Johannesburg) writes op-ed arguing that the "Copyright bill means expropriating creativity without compensation." He states that he is against signing the bill as he feels it would rob people of their "sweat of the brow" rights to derive an income from their work. This is a common misconception about Fair Use and how it works that the anti-bill lobby tries to spread so as to scuttle the bill.
31 August 2019: ADALRO and other anti-bill groups host a conference to talk about why they are against the bill. Where Carlo Scollo-Lavizzari (Lenz Caemmerer) stated that "if enacted, the fair use provisions of the Bill would run counter to international copyright norms."[7]
His Excellency Cyril Ramaphosa,
President, Republic of South Africa,
Union Buildings
Private Bag X1000,
PRETORIA,
0001
South Africa
Date: 29 January 2020
Subject: Copyright Amendment Bill
Your Excellency,
I write today on behalf of Wikimedia South Africa, the volunteer driven non-profit chapter for South African Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, editors and free knowledge contributors. As volunteers in the Wikimedia movement, we understand the important role that access to knowledge plays in South Africans’ lives. This is why we have spent the last 6 years advocating for amendments to the South African copyright act which will allow South Africans to fully participate in free knowledge. These amendments now sit on your desk as a part of the Copyright Amendment Bill, and I ask today that you sign this bill into law.
One of the most important inclusions for free knowledge in this bill is the codifying of fair use in South Africa. Fair use, and its less expansive counterpart, fair dealing, have been adopted by countries around the world to empower their creators, educators, journalists, and innovators. Fair use, which allows for the use of a copyrighted work for certain specific social beneficial purposes like criticism, reporting, and education. One of the largest test markets for fair use is the United States, where citizens have been benefiting from these laws for years. Some examples of fair use in the United States include: critics using stills or clips from content they are criticizing; investigative reporters telling their stories using primary sources; and artists building their work on foundations laid by prior generations.
We understand that there have been criticisms around the inclusion of fair use in the Copyright Amendment Bill, with claims that the new bill means that South Africa cannot adequately protect foreign copyright interests. We respectfully disagree. A lack of fair use in our laws only serves to further a status quo where the rest of the world can freely use and benefit from the work of South African creators, but South Africans cannot do the same. Fair use, at its heart, protects publicly beneficial uses of copyrighted works. The introduction of fair use in this bill will simply allow South Africans to be better protected when they choose to use both domestic and foreign copyrighted works in their art, criticism, reporting, and research the way others have been doing across the globe for years. On Wikipedia, fair use plays an important role in contextualizing facts, and illuminating knowledge. At Wikimedia South Africa, we want South Africans to be able to share their knowledge with the world, and fair use is an important part of that.
We are also thrilled that the bill has included provisions which codify freedom of panorama in South Africa. Freedom of panorama is a copyright principle which allows for the photographing of artistic and architectural works in public spaces. Currently in South Africa, taking or sharing photographs of public spaces which contain statues or memorials are technically in violation of the author of that work’s copyright and could result in a lawsuit. This means that many markers of South Africa’s vibrant and important history legally cannot be shared by its own citizens online. Worse, because copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the author, no post-apartheid statues or monuments may be photographed and shared online legally in South Africa, leaving a literal blind spot in our nation’s visual history online. As Wikipedians, we understand the importance of documenting our history and sharing South Africa’s rich culture with the world, which is why we believe freedom of panorama is such an important inclusion in South Africa’s amended copyright law.
At Wikimedia South Africa, we are proud to share our knowledge of South Africa and its people with the world. The Copyright Amendment Bill will be a big step toward enabling Wikimedia South Africa and all South Africans to fully access, share, and participate in knowledge online. This is why we respectfully ask that you sign this bill into law.
Sincerely,
Douglas Ian Scott
President
Wikimedia South Africa http://wikimedia.org.za
2012/038827/08
8 Spin Street, Cape Town, Western Cape, 8000, South Africa
29 January 2020: F Wikimedia ZA publishes an open letter to President Ramaphosa calling for him to sign the bill (see letter to the right).
January 2020: AUnited States Trade Representative (USTR) states that South African adoption of the bill would threaten South Africa's access to the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) trade agreement. Concerns over respect for property rights is expressed due to, amoungst other things, adopt Fair Use (this is ironic given that the US invented and currently uses the legal concept). This happend after the International Intellectual Property Alliance submitted a petition to the USTR to pressure the SA government.[8] The Wikimedia Foundation along with others advocates for South Africa as the bill will not violate property rights.
26 May 2020: Fan account of the US film industry lobby comes out showing how the US film industry has coordinated efforts to put pressure on the SA government to drop the bill between December 2018 to November 2019. It includes their efforts to lobby the USA Trade Representative to pressure the SA government.[9]
20 March 2020: A European Union Representative in South Africa (run by the EEAS) publishes letter attacking the Copyright Amendment bill and accusing it of undermining property rights. The EU takes aim at the proposed adoption of Fair Use in the bill, particularily at the bills use of having both a Fair Use provision in addition to a list of copyright exceptions in the original Fair Dealing of the old act.[10][11] Libraries and Wikimedia chapters in the EU write counter letters in support of the bill and asking the EU to respect South Africa's right to pass its own legislation. EU replies with a non-committal response.
7 June 2020: Blind South Africa takes the Presidency to court for violating their constitutional rights to access to information by not signing the bill.[12]
8 June 2020:A Noted anti-bill advocate and South African legal scholar, Sadulla Karjiker, writes op-ed criticising Blind SA's court action by calling it "political expediency".[13]
10 June 2020: F Blind SA responds to Karjiker's article fiercely criticizing him for trying to reduce or belittle the right of blind people to understand and advocate for their own rights.[14]
19 June 2020: Blind SA was informed that the "President had now decided to refer the CAB to Parliament on the grounds of certain specific constitutional reasons." Reasons cited include:
"Incorrect tagging of the Bill;"
"Retrospective and arbitrary deprivations of property;"
"Insufficient public hearing on Fair Use;"
"Impermissible delegation of legislative power to the Minister; and"
"Copyright exceptions and limitations that are in conflict with WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty."[15][16][17]
This could mean that the existing bill would either be further amended by the 27th Parliament or it might be completely redrafted from scratch.
22 June 2020: F Infojustic.org summarises the president's decision and reasons. It quotes Prof Sean Flynn (who is associated with Infojustice) that the decision to send back the bill due to "alleged issue with compliance of the limitations and exceptions with the international “3-step test” in the Berne Convention and WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is puzzling" given how similar it is to exceptions in other countries that comply with the aforementioned treaties.[18]
24 June 2020: F Blind SA, Recreate ZA, SADTU, African Guild of Actors, and the Independent Beneficiaries release a open letter published in the Mail & Guardian jointly calling on the president to support the Copyright Amendment bill. They make a social-historical argument for signing the bill focusing on its redistributive benefits in a poor unequal society.[19]
2 July 2020: A Swiss based advocate André Myburgh publishes op-ed in Mail & Guardian critical of the bill and supportive of the Presients send back of the bill to P.[20]
7 July 2020: A American lobbyist Neil Turkewitz publishes an op-ed in the Daily Maverick critical of the bill thereby vocalising the Copyright Alliance's supportive point of view on the President's decision send the bill back to Parliament. [21]
9 July 2020: F An open letter from Chicco Twala accusing the music collecting societies of robbing musicians.[22] Thereby highlighting the need for the Performers Protection bill.
At 9:00 on the 18 August 2020 a hearing was held by the South African Parliament on the bill. Introduction to hearing given by Minister of Trade and Industry Ebrahim Patel. In summary, the minister was supportive of the bill and Fair Use in particular but did suggest that the retroactivity clause regarding the rights of creators to get income from their work be reviewed as it might not be constitutional.
Objections raised with the bill and discussed by the minister were:
Incorrect tagging of the bill - minister advised that the bills do not meet the test of 'substantiality' but section 75 tagging has a low risk that specific provisions of bill cover cultural matters or trade thereby making it incorrectly tagged. If this is the case it will delay the finalising of the bill. Retagging recommended by minister.
Deprivation of property - exploitation of creators in the past through unfair contracts led to retrospective rights for creators of content. Government legal advisors concluded that alternative mechanisms be considered to address the issue of creator exploitation.
Concerns that substantial discretionary powers are vested in the minister which might make it unconstitutional.
Public participation - minister talks about fair using vs fair dealing, seems supportive of fair use. This Fair Use issue seems to be the heart of the bill and the public participation challenge as many stake holders expressed opinions for or against it. Minister makes clear that the bill has a Fair Use foundation but also has a Fair Dealing list to make clearer what is exempt from copyright protection. Two year public participation held which meant it was not necessary to reconduct the public participation process. However two constitutional cases (Doctors for Life) highlighted the need get more public participation.
Copyright exceptions - objections that the exceptions are too broad. Legal view that three-step-test determined that exceptions were not too broad. Exemptions are reasonable and justifiable and not in breach of international treaties.
International treaty implications - bill sent back to Parliament by President for reconsideration of treaty implications. Opinion of Minister is that the bill is aligned with treaty obligations. But Parliament still encouraged to reconsider
Bill may not pass constitutional muster and this referral back to Parliament is to ensure that the bill is constitutional.
24 August 2020:F Justus Dreyling from Wikimedia DE publishes an article in Germany about the South African Copyright Act. Summarising why it is important and our experience so far.[23]
24 August 2020:ASecretary for the CCSA, Chola Makgamathe talks to Cape Talk Radio about why they want the bill to go back to Parliament and why they are against the bill. Both the interviewer (Africa Melane) and Makgamathe state that the "South Africans are against Fair Use". Recreate sends a complaint about this as bias and is invited to an interview on 25 August.
25 August 2020:F Tebogo gave an interview on behalf of Recreate supporting the view and disputing the points raised by Makgamathe in the previous interview.[24]
3 November 2020:AEbrahim Patel turns a deaf ear to copyright alarm bells, opinion piece by Glen Gillis, CEO of South African animation firm Sea Monster that is critical of the bill arguing that it will have a negative impact on the creative industry by undermining property rights. Repeats many misconceptions spread by the Copyright Alliance about the bills impact on copyright.
10 November 2020:F ReCreate South Africa hosts a webinar for teachers, learners, academics and creatives content producers on the bill and how it is beneficial for them. Attended by around 40 people.
10 March 2021: ACopyright Amendment Bill: Potential Cause For Concern For Trade Between SA And The USA by Maureen Makoko and Chiraag Maharaj of the law firm Adams & Adams. This article highlights the potential negative impact of passing the bill as it might prompt the United States government to remove South Africa from the African Growth and Opportunity Act thereby negatively impacting trade. It points out that this review of the bill follows lobbying in the United States against the South African bill by the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) who allege that the Copyright Amendment Bill and Performers' Protection Amendment Bill will "fail to "provide adequate and effective protection" of American copyrights."
28 March 2021: FSouth African Copyright Amendment Bill – Still No Progress! Denise Nicholson, a long time and very strong supporter of the bill, gives a summary on the two year long delay in the signing of the Copyright Amendment bill into law. Nicholson summarizes how the bill has been repeatedly delayed and stalled, the arguments made by its critics to stall it, and long drawn out process in parliament it is still being subjected to.
7 April 2021: FChallenge to the constitutionality of ‘outdated’ Copyright Act heads to court BlindSA launches a case in the high court of South Africa (Gauteng Division) to force the presidency to sign the bill into law, arguing that by not passing it into law the government is violating the Constitutional Rights of blind South Africans to access knowledge in a form accessible to them.
10 May 2021: AParly committee accused of trying to rush through 'defective' copyright bill for political reasons, News24 journalist Ahmed Areff criticises the bill by quoting parties critical of the bill whilst presenting it as anti-creative without consulting or presenting views supportive of the bill. Repeats threats made by foreign interests that they will pull out investments in South Africa if the bill is passed without presenting evidence. News24 is owned by Naspers which also owns DSTV and other entities that have been against the bill as it arguably seeks to erode their monopoly over cable and streamed TV in South Africa.
10 May 2021: F Recreate South Africa hosts a Copyright Press Conference on the Copyright Amendment Bill. A Joint Academic Opinion of the bill is released stating the Constitutionality of the Bill and calling for it to be passed. Speakers at this Zoom webinar includes Andrew Rens, Malebakeng Forere, Faseega SolomonBen Cashdan, Sanya Samtani, Sean Flynn, and Fatima Hassan.
21 May 2021: The Mandela Institute hosts a webinar debate on the bill. People who spoke at the webinar include:
Mr. Duma Nkosi, Chair of Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, National Parliament - explains Parliament's current concerns
Prof. Malebakeng Forere, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand - in favour of the bill F
Prof. Sean Flynn, American University and University of Cape Town IP Unit - in favour of the bill F
Prof. Owen Dean, Professor, Stellenbosch University - critical of the bill A
Dr. Joel Baloyi, Entertainment Law & IP Management, Copyright Coalition of SA - critical of the bill A
Mr. Ben Cashdan, Filmmaker and Founder, ReCreate SA. Former advisor in Mandela presidency. - in favour of the bill F
The letter sent by Wikimedia South Africa (page 1 of 2) in July 2021 to the South African Parliament. It was written in support of clause 13 of the Amendment Bill following a call by Parliament for written submissions on the issue.
4 June 2021: G The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry issues another call for written submissions on the bill. This time with reference only to clause 13 (sections 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D), clause 19 (section 19B) and clause 20 (section 19C). All submissions have to be submitted by 9 July 2021.
9 June 2021: FRoyalties For Artists: Artists struggling to survive (eNCA News), an interview with Recreate South Africa member Jack Devnarain on the impact of a lack of sufficient copyright creator rights on actors in South Africa. Given in the context of the recent death of South African actor Shaleen Surtie-Richards which was believed to have been partly due to a lack of funds despite a long successful acting career. Jack talks about the importance of the new royalty rights that the new bill will afford artists and calls for the bill to be enacted.
6 July 2021: F Wikimedia South Africa submits a letter (see letter on the right) to the South African Parliament explaining why we support clause 13 (fair use) in the bill.
31 July 2021: AOPINION | Owen Dean: Footing the Bill - Why the Copyright Amendment Bill needs to be redrafted (News24) by Owen Dean. Owen Dean of Stellenbosch Univeristy writes about why he thinks the Copyright Amendment Bill is bad legislation. Alleging it is "infested with anomalies, inconsistencies and incorrect or imprecise terminology and concepts. He argues it must be reviewed in its entirety and redrafted by a committee of true copyright experts."
11 August 2021: ADebate rages on over controversial Copyright Amendment Bill , by LINDA ENSOR, Business Day. Article gives an updated account of the controversy surrounding the bill. Particularity around Clause 13 related to fair use. It quotes a number of people and legal scholars who either strongly support or are critical of the bill. More detractors of the bill are quotes than supporters of the bill thereby tilting this article into the 'anti-bill' bias.
A second round of hearings were held by the South African Parliament (Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry) on the 11 and 12th of August 2021. The committee was held to hear public submissions on clause 13 (sections 12 A-D allowing for fair use), clause 19 (section 19B allowing for General exceptions regarding protection of computer programs) and clause 20 (section 19C allowing for general exceptions regarding protection of copyright work for libraries, archives, museums, galleries and for persons with disabilities).[25] Wikimedia South Africa, along with many other organisations, submitted a letter in support of Clause 13 on 6 July 2021 in the run up to these hearings. It is noted that the lineup of those selected to present to the Committee was heavily populated by detractors of the bill with very few supporters of the bill selected to present.
30 August 2021: Pro-bill, former anti-bill, advocate, Tebogo Sithathu, was implicated in threatening a journalist over a lottery money investigation.[26]
21 September 2021:F The South Africa (Gauteng Division) high court rules in favour of a motion brought by BlindSA ruling that sections of the Copyright Act of 1978 is unconstitutional. BlindSA argued that the current act was unconstitutional as it limits blind people's access to knowledge by denying them the right to transcribe content into braille as the law regarded that as an infringement of the copyright of the original authors. BlindSA asked the court to ‘read in’ section 19D of the Copyright Amendment Bill that gives copyright exceptions for the transcribing of material that is unacceptable to blind people into a format that makes that information more accessible to them. BlindSA also stated that they "also believe that Fair Use for educational purposes would enable us to have more access to literary works. We will continue our advocacy with parliament and the provincial legislatures to try to speed up the signing of the bill into law."[27]
9 November 2021:G Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry meets publicly to discuss constitutional issues with the Copyright Amendment Bill. DA committee members question the independence of the academics who ran copyright workshops for MPs (possibly recycling a criticism made by Stellenbosch academics who are heavily critical of the bill that they were not included). Minister of Trade and Industry cites the hypocrisy of some American interest groups critical of the bill for adopting Fair Use by pointing out that the US also has Fair Use and that the concerns of undue pressure on the SA judiciary are unwarranted. The retrospectivity aspect of the bill is cited as an important constitutional issue that needs to be amended.
3 December 2021:G The South African Parliament announced a new round of public consultations inviting members of the public to one again submit comments on clauses 13 (Fair Use), 20, 11A & 11B, 27, and 33. The announced deadline was 12:00 on 21 January 2022 and must be submitted to ahermansparliament.gov.za.
Wikimedia South Africa's submission to the South African Parliament in January 2022.
27 January 2022:F Wikimedia South Africa makes its submission to the South African Parliament as part the public consultation regarding clauses 13 (Fair Use), 20, 11A & 11B, 27, and 33 of the bill.
17 March 2022:F Douglas Scott (WMZA) was a panelist on The Economic Impact of the Copyright Amendment Bill hosted by the South African United Business Confederation. Douglas talked about Freedom of Panorama, Fair Use, and the role of copyright in growing the technology industry in general and the domestic video games industry in particular.
11 May 2022:FD-Day in ConCourt bid to have Copyright Act declared unconstitutional, Daily Maverick by Linda Daniels: this article details BlindSA's attempts through the courts to get the still active old Copyright Act of 1978 forcibly updated to include the Marrakesh Treaty exceptions for the blind community. These allowances are already contained within the 2019 Copyright Bill still waiting to be signed by the president.
6,[28] 11,[29] 17 & 18 May 2022: GPortfolio Committee on Trade and Industry meets to acquaint the new committee members on the Copyright Bill, key concepts within the bill (notably Fair Use), and its status. Presentations are given to the committee by most relevant stake holders, both pro-bill and anti-bill as well as those involved in drafting the bill. The committee makes a number of new recommendations; most of which are to reword certain sections for clarity. For Fair Use it is recommended that Section 12(A)(d) is deleted, many changes made to Section 12(B).
8[30] & 10[31] June 2022: G Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry meets to discuss and decide on a way forward with the CAB and PPB. Committee members from the ACDP, DA and FF+ political parties rejected the CAB and PPB outright whilst the ANC and EFF voted to proceed. It is our opinion that the vote to reject by the ACDP, DA and FF+ was unreasonable as it "threw the baby out with the bathwater" by using objections to relatively minor issues with the bills that can be fixed as a reason to reject the entire bills outright. Committee's Reports on both Bills, including minority views, were approved on 10 June. The DA and FF+ said the reports were an accurate reflection of proceedings to date but they reject the Bills. ANC supported the reports whilst the EFF abstained on both reports. Both bills will now proceed to the National Assembly for discussion and voting.
13 May 2022: FBlind SA challenges copyright act (PowerFM). A radio interview with Blind South Africa on the CAB and why it needs to be passed.
12 June 2022: ASA’s new copyright law, backed by Google, is slated by the creative industry (12 June 2022), by Sasha Planting, Daily Maverick. This article quotes four critics of the bill in the Independent Producers Organisation, Netflix, Copyright Coalition of South Africa and noted critic of the bill Stephen Hollis from Adams & Adams whilst consulting only one supporter of the bill (Dr Andrew Rens). It thereby presents a one sided view of the bill whilst providing an incomplete understanding of what Fair Use is. It also makes the accusation that Google supports the bill whilst providing no evidence of this.
26 August 2022: ASouth Africa needs a comprehensive, multifaceted strategy to curb the economic impact of piracy (Mail & Guardian) Opinion by Chola Makgamathe. Argues that the "bill should not be passed in its current form" and that "passing the bill in its current form would be the death of any reward for our creators and it would not remedy all the problems which arise from content theft."
The South African Parliament vote on the Copyright Amendment Bill and Performers Protection Bill on 1 September 2022. Shades of green votes in favour of the bill. Shades of red or orange votes against the bill. The governing African National Congress is displayed on the bottom of the graph whilst all the opposition parties are displayed on the top of the graph.
Opposition parties (top) Voting for the bill Al Jama-ah: 1 seat African Transformation Movement: 3 seats Inkatha Freedom Party: 7 seats Voting against the bill Freedom Front Plus: 3 seats African Christian Democratic Party: 1 seat Democratic Alliance: 23 seats Economic Freedom Fighters: 18 seats Did not vote Non-present opposition members: 131 seats Governing party (bottom) Voting for the bill African National Congress: 153 seats Did not vote Non-present ANC members: 77 seats
1 September 2022: GPLENARY (HYBRID), 01 September 2022; the South African Parliament holds and urgent plenary to vote on if the House approves the second reading of Performers Protection Act and Copyright Amendment Bill. If not passed it would make the passage of the CAB into law uncertain, delay the process and possibly result in the scrapping of the bill. A vote in favour allows the bill to continue the process of its passage into law following amendments made to the CAB. The CAB and PPA were amended in previous rounds of review following its referral for review by the South African president due to concerns over drafting issues and possible problems the with the constitutionality of certain aspects of the original bill, most notably the issue of retrospective royalty rights.
The House voted to pass the bill (163 for; 45 against, no abstentions) and the bill is sent to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence. The following political parties voted on the CAB & PPB in the following way:
Democratic Alliance: voted against the bills (23 votes)- argue that the drafters of the bill were unwilling and unable to adequately draft such a "complex" bill, rushing the process, and accused the drafters of being disproportionately influenced by "special interests" including being captured by "big business and overseas American tech" (alluding to Google), no mention of which "big businesses" he is referring to. Concerns over lack of clarity of the bill, accused the DTI of being over reliant on certain academics, alleges that "all industries rejected the bill", and that it is open to being challenged in constitutional court.
Economic Freedom Fighters: voted against the bills (18 votes)- argue that the bills need to have retrospective royalty rights that the original bills had (this retrospective issue was judged unconstitutional and so removed). Accuse the ANC of selling out to big business by removing this part of the original bill.
Inkata Freedom Party: votes for the bills (7 votes)- argue that the bills are important for giving justice to creators and that the process has been delayed for too long. Believe the bill will provide legal certainty and allows SA law to conform with treaty obligations.
Freedom Front Plus: votes against the bills (3 votes)- argue that there are drafting mistakes.
African Christian Democratic Party: votes against the bills (1 votes)- argue that the bills are important to modernize the law and make it complaint with treaty obligations; is concerned with lack of protection for performers rights in PPA and the replacement of Fair Dealing with Fair Usa arguing that it will create uncertainty and legal litigation that will hurt industry.
Al Jama-ah: votes for the bill (1 vote)- wants more rights for artists to derive an income from their work but does not want "more benefits for users."
African National Congress: votes for the bill (153 votes)- argues the bill provides protection to copyright owners whilst balancing public benefit exceptions, adhere to treaty obligations, modernizes the law, protects artists (creators) from exploitation by rights holders, encourages investment. Accuses the Bill's detractors of actively trying to delay the process of passing the bill as much as possible so as to keep the status quo for as long as possible.
Written submission by WMZA to parliament in its January 2023 call for submissions on the bill. The submission repeats WMZA's support for Freedom of Panorama and Fair Use included in version [B 13D – 2017] of the bill.
5 September 2022:ALETTER: Let’s have a chorus against ruinous copyright bill (Business Day) by Rhulani Bila of the Publishers Association of South Africa (PASA). Bila argues that the bill is a "win for big tech companies and a loss to South Africans, particularly book sector professionals" and that "The bill gives users a right to copy your work without paying for it if they can prove it is for educational purposes." These statements are false and based on a misunderstanding of Fair Use.
6 September 2022:FParliament passes bills for the creative sector (Bizcommunity). Quotes the Minister for Sport, Arts and Culture, Nathi Mthethwa on how the bill provides protection to creatives.
7 September 2022:ALETTER: Blinding copyright bill (Business Day) by Owen Dean. "Experienced and knowledgeable legal practitioners, objective expert academics and well-balanced business people, not to mention those who create original works for their livelihood, have time and again told the government that the Copyright Amendment Bill is fundamentally flawed, badly drafted and generally poor quality and unworkable legislation that is an embarrassment to SA in the international milieu."
15 September 2022:FNew copyright bill will take South Africa into the 21st century at last (GroundUP & Daily Maverick) by Denise Rosemary Nicholson, Opinion. Denise argues that the CAB will "give South African artists and creators benefits and rights already enjoyed in many countries." Also discusses misinformation in the media around the CAB, balancing mechanisms, what Fair Use is, and why it is beneficial to society,
18 October 2022: The Select Committee on Trade and Industry of the South African Parliament hosted a workshop for MPs on copyright with the intention of better parparing them to discuss the CAB and understand the issues relating to copyright in South Africa. Two professors from different sides of the copyright debate on the issue of Fair Use, Dr Owen Dean and Dr Tobias Schonwetter, were invited to give crash course introductions on copyright law to the participants.
December 2022:A Academic Keyan Tomaselli publishes a paper which repeats a number of arguments raised by academic publishers against the CAB. In the paper Tomaselli alleges that the bill is a "stark contradiction within emerging state policy relating to the creative industries in an era when information has economic value" and argues that the bill will negatively impact the development of a domestic text book publishing industry (a position challenged by Prof Sean Flynn), negatively impact research activies by publishers, and it will "i) a swing away from the publication of homegrown textbooks in favour of copyright-protected expensive imports; with clear implications for the ii) de-colonisation of content; iii) a reluctance of international firms to collaborate with South African publishers; and iv) a significant contraction of the South African publishing industry." And that the Bill will undermine protection of intellectual property rights.[32]
7 December 2022:G Following the October parliamentory discussions and the publication of version B 13D of the CAB a new call for the submission of written comments on the bill was posted. To be submitted no later than 27 January 2023. Wikimedia ZA submitted a written comment reiterating our support for Freedom of Panorama and Fair Use already included into the CAB.
23 January 2023 - 27 January 2023:FA Right to Research in Africa conference; the event was a week of debates on copyright and access to knoweldge. It took place in the cities of Pretoria and Cape Town. Hosted by ReCreate South Africa with support from multiple organisations including the Wikimedia Foundation. Douglas Scott assisted in organising the event and presented three models. The event sought to increase awareness and debate on the issue of copyright and its impact on research in Africa. The issues of Freedom of Panorama and Fair Use were discussed.
21 Feburary 2023:G Parliamentary Zoom hearing on Copyright Amendment Bills, WMZA presented on Freedom of Panorama. Many other groups both for and against the bill also presented. Can view the proceedings via the Parliament TV YouTube channel or hear an audio recording at the Parliamentory Monitoring Service here:
From February 2023 onwards the bill was presented at multiple locations within each of South Africa's 9 provinces. Since WMZA is based in the Western Cape and the province was judged to be the most significant source of resistance to the bill (due to the political dominance of the DA in the province which is against the bill) WMZA focused on the province.
Wikimedia South Africa presents to the Western Cape legislature on the need for Freedom of Panorama to be adopted into South African law. In support of the Copyright Amendment Bill.
On 20 June 2023 the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) concluded their respective review process of both the CAB and PPB and proceeded to vote on their passage. The NCOP voted in favour of both bills thereby passing the CAB (B13D-2017) and PPB. Both the CAB and PPB was then passed on to the presidency for signing (for a second time).
Provinces voted the following way on the adoption of the Copyright Amendment Bill [B 13D-2017]:
The Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The Free State Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The Gauteng Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Legislature abstained.
The Limpopo Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The Northern Cape Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The North West provincial legislature voted in favour of the bill.
The Western Cape Provincial Parliament voted against the bill.
Resulting in a final total of 7 in favour of the bill, 1 against, and 1 abstention = the bill was passed by the National Council of Provinces.[34] Next step: NCOP's Plenary meeting later in September 2023, then the NA process to approve Bill and send to President.
27 August 2023:A Copyright Coallition (Alliance) launches a media campaign against the Fair Use clause in the bill culminating in a march by SA Creative Federation. They claim that moving from Fair Dealing to Fair Use will mean people will "not know what the rules are" in cases of copyright infringement.
Note: It was reported in the South African media that one of the participants in the August 2023 march against the bill, the Cultural and Creative Industry Federation of South Africa, was allegedly involved in corruption when they misdirected funding from the Department of Arts and Culture to sponsor the Usiba Creative and Cultural Industries Awards.[35]
8 September:ARiSA: We will fight for our rights! (Daily Sun) The Recording Industry of South Africa (RiSA) stated that will joined the music fraternity in the fight against the Fair Use clause. They complained they "were not properly consulted" in the bills drafting, that the pre-hearing workshops were not done (this is false). No mention was made of why they are against Fair Use.
14 September 2023:FPolitics, patronage and a front organisation delay vital copyright reform (Daily Maverick) by Jack Devnarain of SAGA. Jack, an ally and member of Recreate, is critical of the CCIFSA march on 27 August, partly because they made the misleading claim that the CCIFSA falsely tried to represent the "entire creative sector" in being against the bill. Noted corruption associated with the CCIFSA.
25 September 2023:FWho’s ‘Pulling the Wool Over Whose Eyes’? by longtime Recreate member Denise Nicholson argues that "Intermediaries such as rights holders and collecting societies representing composers and authors of literary and musical works (currently unregulated under our Copyright Act) continue to confuse creators by spreading inaccurate information and sketching dystopian scenarios in the media."
26 September 2023:GNCOP PLENARY, 26 September 2023 - National Council of Provinces voting session during which 7 out of 9 Provinces voted for the Copyright Amendment Bill. The bill then goes to the NA Plenary for passage again.
29 September 2023:FSA Arts Industry | Plight of South African actors (eNCA News), an interview with Jack Devnarain of SAGA. Jack talks of the need for regulating the creative industry, in support of actors, in South Africa and therefore the need for the adoption of the PPA.
15 November 2023:ARiSA: Copyright Bill a serious threat to SA creative industry and economy (Business Day) written by the Copyright Coalition of South Africa. The article argues that the CAB is a threat to creative industries because it will, they claim, create 'unprecedented legal uncertainty' due to the adoption of Fair Use.
12 December 2023:FSpotlight on Zahara’s royalties battle against TS Records over the years (TimesLive), by SINESIPHO SCHRIEBER. Article about musician Bulelwa “Zahara” Mkutukana's struggle to get royalties from collecting societies and highlights the need to pass the PPB which will impost stricter penalties on violating collecting societies.
10 January 2024:AMickey Mouse, and South Africa’s battle over copyright by Sandra Laurence (TechCentral). Talks about the need to update South Africa's Copyright Law but only quotes critics of the law in the copyright legal industry and does not consult legal scholars who are more knowledgeable about new IP concepts contained in the CAB.
19 January 2024:F Wikimedia South Africa submits another letter to Parliament reminding them of the need to pass the CAB. There was uncertainty about the fate of the Bill should it not be passed before the 2024 South African General elections.
26 January 2024:FAdvocating for Freedom of Panorama in South Africa (Wikimedia Diff), by Douglas Scott. Wikimedia South Africa writes up an account of our Freedom of Panorama advocacy journey to date for the Wikimedia community. It closes with some important lessons for others interested in Wiki advocacy based on our experiences.
30 January 2024:FLetter to the editor: copyright article missed the mark by Denise Nicholson, on behalf of ReCreate (TechCentral). Denise writes to correct a number of misconceptions contained in the 10 Jan TechCentral articles. A specific focus on Fair Use, what it means, and how it works.
6 February 2024:GPublic Parliamentary meeting on the CAB. Review a number of technical tweaks to the CAB and PPA such as to clauses 29, 31, 35, 40. NO changes to fair royalties or fair use sections.
8 February 2024:ACopyright Amendment Bill ‘bad news’ for South Africa by Keyan G Tomaselli and Hetta Pieterse (University World News: Africa). Strongly critical article that makes a number of allegations (mostly false or alarmist) against the CAB such as that it will "harm South Africa’s research economy, and the country could become a haven for servers hosting pirated content." It alleges that there has been an "absence of a cogent policy or impact assessment that supports" the "supposed benefits of ‘fair use’." It also alleges that a) it is the work of American academics, b) it would fewer incentives to create new works, and c) "concerns raised by members of the public have simply been swept aside without full explanation".
8 February 2024:AGlobal authors ask Parliament not to adopt harmful copyright bill by Lameez Omarjee (News24). States that a global network of over five million creators, led by CISAC, urges South Africa's National Assembly not to adopt the Copyright Amendment Bill, expressing concerns about potential harm to the creative community, while the bill's supporters argue for its positive impact, highlighting provisions for accessibility, fair use, and equitable remuneration. News24 is owned by Naspers that also owns the Showmax and DSTV multimedia streaming and satellite services, both are against the bill.
14 February 2024:G The CAB and PPB were approved by Parliamentory Committee on Trade and industry. Next is to be passed by National Assembly again and then to the NCOP for first the Select Committee to review and then the NCOP to adopt. Then to the President to enactment with hopes he does not, again, send it back.
20 February 2024:FCopyright law must be flexible, by Denise Nicholson (Mail & Guardian). Denise argues in support of the build and the need for Fair Use copyright exceptions.
22 February 2024:FFollow The Money: Who is against the Copyright Amendment Bill by Recreate ZA including Wikimedia ZA (The Daily Maverick). The article talks about the importance of the CAB and PPB as well as who is against the bill, some of the misinformation they have spread about the bill, and why they have a vested self interest against the bill. This article was widely shared amoungst MPs and is believed to have had a strong positive impact in support of the bill.
28 February 2024:FParliamentary review of Copyright Amendment Bill (Newzroom Africa), interview with Jack Devnarain of SAGA. Jack is supportive of the CAB and PPA and Fair Use, the Newzroom Africa interviewer seems biased against the bill, trying to bait Jack into saying something bad about it.
Letter from ReCreate with an update on the Constitutional Court case as of 21 November 2024
29 February 2024: GNA PLENARY (HYBRID) (Video). Parliament of South Africa. Parliament meets to discuss the bill, again, and MPs agree to send it on to the president for signing and enactment. This is a great success for the bill and is the second time the bill has been given to the president for signing.
The different political parties state their positions on the bill again:
The ANC: supports the bill and Fair Use.
The DA: is against the bill, acussing the ANC of being paid and dictated to by American big tech companies.
The EFF: argues that the bill is 'not radical enough' and calls for retrospective royalty rights (legally not constitutional)
The IFP: is now against the bill as it is not perfect.
The National Freedom Party: against the Bills. Gave some statistic that it could lead to a 33% decline in book sales
The FF+: against the bill, quoting famous authors that are against the Bills.
February 2024:FSADTU submits a letter to the presidency in support of the CAB. The SADTU is an important part of the ANC coalition that the presidency is a part of.
February 2024:F RECREATE submits a letter to the Democratic Alliance political party making a case for them to support the CAB. The DA is public in its opposition to the bill as they argue, incorrectly, that it will damage economic development. The letter highlights that the CAB is "modeled on adopted USA and Singaporean law, and have proven to be pro-growth, pro-technology, and pro-business by making it easier to establish technology companies and innovate."
Due to the long length of time the Presidency took to sign the bill into law friend of the CAB and ReCreate, Blind SA, took the Presidency to the Constitutional Court for being in violation of the South African Constitution for greatly exceeding the allowed time to sign a passed Bill into law and violating the rights of South Africans (and blind South Africans in particular). Arguing that the blind South Africans are being arbitrarily deprived of their rights to educational material due to not being allowed to transcribe it into brail, some the CAB would allow as it enacts the Marrakesh Treaty into South African Law. The Presidency argued that they did not sign it into law due to concerns with the constitutionality of certain elements of the bill as they might arbitrarily deprive people of their property rights.
21 November 2024: The Constitutional Court separates the Blind SA matter (set for hearing on 28 November 2024) from the President's ex parte referral on the Copyright Amendment Bill and on legal advice ReCreate Action withdrew as Amicus Curiae from the Blind SA case. Since it is unopposed and well-argued already by Blind SA and Section 27, ReCreate decided to instead concentrate its efforts on the referral matter. It was judged that this would give ReCreate's submissions greater prominence. ReCreate continued drafting arguments for the referral case with its partner organisations while still supporting Blind SA informally, such as by sharing Section 27's online content.
28 November 2024: first hearing at the Constitutional Court
May 2025: the constitutionality of the CAB is reviewed by the Constitutional Court.
27 May 2025: Two part blog post about the Constitutional Court hearings
July 2025:F ReCreate ZA submits a letter to the South African government warning that recent Arts and Culture Sub-Committee dialogues on copyright reform undermine ongoing Constitutional Court processes by favoring intermediaries over key creative and civil society voices. ReCreate urges the government to respect democratic legislative procedures, broaden stakeholder inclusion, and accurately educate the public on the bills.
17 November 2025:FHow to get Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Wrong (International Federation of Libraries): The article argues that while the Marrakesh Treaty has been widely adopted, several national governments are undermining its goal of ending the "book famine" for people with print disabilities by introducing restrictive regulations, such as complex registration systems, extra fees, and commercial availability checks.
30 October 2025:AAI muddies the copyright issue (Sadulla Karjiker, Mail & Guardian): Long time critic of the Bill, Prof. Karjiker, argues that South Africa's proposed Copyright Amendment Bill weakens rather than protects local creators because its introduction of an open-ended, US-style "fair use" system favors big tech corporations looking to train AI models without authorization.
26 June 2026:G the Constitutional Court passes judgment finding that all sections of the CAB were found to be constitutional except subsections 1-5 of S12D, the educational exceptions regarding course packs and copying of whole books in some circumstances. it is expected that the CAB will now have to go back to Parliament.
The Judgement
Access the Court's judgment in full here: Full Judgment
Access the summary of the Court's judgment here: Summary Judgment
Analysis: The judgement is good for passing the CAB and its connected bill, the PPA, into law as it dispels most the the Presidency's concerns about the constitutionality of the exception clauses in the Bill. However, the finding on the constitutionally problematic educational exceptions means that the bill in its current form needs to be changed before it can be enacted. This creates uncertainty on how the Presidency is likely to proceed from here and we await clarity on this matter. The following scenarios, at this point, are now possible:
The Presidency decides to drop the problematic sub-sections from the CAB (1-5 of S12D) and signs it into law. This is the quickest path to enacting the law but given the past, almost willful, and unconstitutional foot-dragging of the Presidency in the past on the Bill this seems like the least likely.
The Presidency sends the CAB back to Parliament with a request to redraft it with the problematic sub-sections removed. This would be a repeat of the three year process that started in 2020 that took until June 2023 to be passed again by Parliament and the Council of Provinces. This is currently judged to be the most likely case with the added complication of a new Parliament that is more hostile to the bill.
The bill gets scrapped and a new process of redrafting a new Copyright Bill from scrap begins. This could take another 10 years or more to complete. This is less likely given that the CAB and PPA has already been passed by Parliament twice.
26 June 2026:FCOSATU (Matthew Parks) publishes a statement summarizing the Constitutional Court finding, criticizing government for the decade long (or longer) process the bill has gone through, voices support for the bill, and calls for clarity from the Department of Trade and Industry on what the way forward on the bill likely is.
27 June 2026:F pro-bill campaigner and fellow Recreate member, Jack Devnarain from SAGA, is interviewed by Newzroom Afrika about the court judgement, what it means and why passing the bill is important, all from the perspective of South African actors.
29 June 2026:F News outlet IOL publishes an article broadly supportive of passing the CAB. The article describes the Constitutional Court approval of most of the Copyright Amendment Bill, including its fair use framework, but sent the education copying provisions back to Parliament for redrafting.
7 July 2026:ASamro urges caution after ConCourt copyright ruling (Terri-Ann Brouwers, Moneyweb) extensively quotes SAMRO and their call for parliament to carefully rebalance the Copyright Amendment Bill's "fair use" provisions after a Constitutional Court ruling left the bills unresolved, warning that overly broad fair use rules could undermine creators' incomes amid growing digital and AI exploitation of content.
21 July 2026:FSign the Copyright Bill: Protect musicians from exploitative collecting societies (Douglas Scott, Daily Maverick [FB]), the author outlines the hypocritical position of SAMRO regards to both their position on the bill and their past poor treatment of the artists they exist to represent, pointing out that SAMRO is heavily incentivized against the bill as it contains real penilties for offending collecting societies like them.
22 July 2026:ALES South Africa "Unpacking the CC's Copyright Amendment Act [see also webpage] (Licencing Executive Society) hostile assessment of the bill and courts judgment. Example from Stephen Hollis: (1:01:19) "...and it must also be understood that the court did not say fair use is constitutional ... So for all the copyright lawyers in South Africa in the room you better start sharpening your pens and your pencils you're going to get lots of cases soon and we're going to take it all the way to the constitutional court and they're going to be very busy in interpreting fair use."
31 July 2026:APaperback writer, meet the shredder (Nicola Mawson, IT Web) Anthropic's "Project Panama"—a secret, court-sanctioned initiative that involves buying, scanning, and physically destroying millions of books to train AI—has sparked debate over copyright law gaps, cultural preservation, and potential legislative impacts on South African authors.
3 August 2026: Government announces the establishment, structure, and powers of South Africa's Standing Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property (SACIP), a minister-appointed statutory body tasked with advising the government and recommending legislative amendments regarding copyrights, trademarks, designs, and patents.
Stephen Hollis speaking at the United States Consulate General, IP for Growth Workshop on 18 August 2026 in Johannesburg.17-18 August 2026:AUnited States Consulate General: IP for Growth Workshop [X] [Facebook]. A joint initiative between the U.S. Consulate General Johannesburg, U.S. Mission Geneva, and Universal Music Group (UMG). With the objective to bring together global music executives, legal experts, policymakers, and creators to strengthen intellectual property (IP) frameworks, foster U.S.–Africa creative exchange, and examine methods for protecting and monetizing creative works in the digital age. Event gave a notable platform to prominent critics of the bill such as lawyer Stephen Hollis, Annabell Lebethe from SAMRO with no prominence given to anyone known to be supportive of the bill. Attendees reported that the event speakers presented a number of misconceptions about the bill and seemed ignorant about a number of its details and the process of developing it. The event is reflective of the hostile stance the Trump administration has taken towards the bill.
20 August 2026:FCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES FAIR USE IS CONSTITUTIONAL (by Denise Nicholson), about the Constitutional Court judgment that validated key exceptions for libraries, research, software interoperability, and personal copying, it struck down certain broad educational provisions for enabling unconstitutional textbook copying, requiring Parliament to refine those specific academic exceptions before the reform can be enacted into law.
parliament.gov.za.
