Constitutional Court declares Copyright Act unconstitutional

Does copyright protection prohibit the distribution of works in formats that are accessible to people with print and visual impairments? Our Constitutional Court had occasion to consider this important question in the recent judgment of Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others.

In this case Blind SA brought an application challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (“Copyright Act”). Blind SA claimed that the Copyright Act restricted the conversion of works that were copyright protected to formats that made such works accessible to people with print and visual impairments.

According to the Copyright Act the creation of formats for use by people with print and visual impairments can only be done by first obtaining the copyright owner’s permission. As a result, individuals with these impairments face obstacles that others without such disabilities do not when trying to access works protected by copyright.

The Constitutional Court unanimously found in favour of Blind SA and ordered that Parliament has 24 months to address the unconstitutionality of certain sections of the Copyright Act. 

In the meantime certain exceptions would apply to those affected, namely that “permitted entities” including a government institution or non-profit organisation, that provides education, instructional training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiary persons (including a blind person or person with a visual impairment or reading disability) on a non-profit basis, and has the provision of such services as one of its primary activities or institutional obligations, may, without the copyright owners authorisation, create, acquire, or issue accessible format copies of works protected by copyright, if certain requirements are met, such as:

  • The permitted entity wishing to undertake such an activity must have access which is lawful to either the original work or copy of that work.
  • Changes are made to ensure that the work is changed into an accessible format copy and does not implement any other changes than those required to make this work accessible to the “beneficiary person”.
  • Accessible format copies are provided solely to be used by a “beneficiary person”.
  • The activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis. 

The judgment was not opposed by Government confirming the importance of the need to improve accessibility to literary works for persons with visual or print impairments. 

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). The permitted entity

November 22, 2022
Prescribed Minimum Benefits: Can your medical scheme refuse to pay?

Prescribed Minimum Benefits: Can your medical scheme refuse to pay?

With the cost of proper medical care, and in particular specialist treatments such as oncology being almost unaffordable to the average person, medical aid has become somewhat of a necessity to most South Africans. Although medical schemes offer different packages and benefits to suit the needs of their members, all schemes are required to provide Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMB). But what are these and to which extent can medical schemes be held responsible to pay for elected procedures?

Can an employer demand biometric information from its employees?

Can an employer demand biometric information from its employees?

The need for greater and more stringent security measures in the business environment, has seen the introduction of sophisticated control and security systems. These systems increasingly make use of biometric information such as fingerprinting, blood typing, voice recognition, retinal scanning etc. as unique personal identifiers allowing access to/egress from physical locations, programmes, systems or networks. For an employer to implement such control measures, biometric information must be collected from employees, raising the question as to whether employees can be forced to provide biometric information, under which circumstances and for what purposes.

The legal nature of exclusive use areas in a sectional title scheme

The legal nature of exclusive use areas in a sectional title scheme

In order to understand the legal nature of an exclusive use area it is important to know how it was historically developed, what exactly constitutes an exclusive use area and how it is established. In this article we will focus briefly on the historical development of exclusive use areas in South Africa, what an exclusive use area is, the two types of exclusive use areas that can be established and the legal nature of these two types of exclusive use areas.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest