Visually Impaired Advocacy Group Goes To War With South Africa Copyright Law

from the defending-rights dept

Our own Glyn Moody has written several posts about how exceptions that have been made to copyright laws throughout the world have picked up steam, but also appear to have left the visually impaired hung out to dry. That finally began to change in 2013 with the Marrakesh Treaty, which was specifically designed to restore the rights of the blind and visually impaired by carving out copyright exceptions so that literary works and the like could be translated either into braille or in such a way so as to be accessible on mediums and devices designed for those who cannot navigate the originals.

While many countries have signed onto the Marrakesh Treaty, one notable exception has been South Africa. South Africa could not sign the treaty specifically because its copyright laws prohibited it. However, in 2021, an advocacy group called Blind SA went to court challenging the constitutionality of South Africa’s copyright laws and won. With that, the court determined that the country’s copyright law was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the court’s declaration was suspended for two years to give South Africa’s government time to amend its copyright law to make it constitutional and, ostensibly, to make it so that the country can enter into the Marrakesh Treaty. The blind and visually impaired, it seems, were told to suffer as second class citizens for two more years while the gears of bureaucracy did its thing.

But Blind SA understandably doesn’t want the people it advocates for to suffer in the interim. It has now gone to court in South Africa asking for the suspension to be lifted and for the previous court ruling to be permanent after 1 year if the South Africa government fails to make the changes needed during that time period.

Blind SA is seeking confirmation of the High Court order, but is also arguing that the 24-month period is not needed as the Section 19 read-in already remedies the situation. It wants the reading in to be made permanent after 12 months if parliament has not yet finalised the legislative process for the Copyright Amendment Bill.

It’s hard to think of an argument against this request, given that less than 1% of published literature in South Africa has currently been translated in a format for the visually impaired. That’s an almost complete denial of culture for a class of citizens operating in an impaired state due to no fault of their own.

Because of the obvious morality of such a request, the pushback against it is instead procedural.

While the minister of trade and industry is not opposing the order – and agrees that the Copyright Act is unconstitutional – he is opposing the relief sought by Blind SA as he deems it is not appropriate.

This is because the Section 19D read-in remedy would remove the parliamentary processes, which would be an over-reach and in conflict with the separation of powers. The minister is suggesting the read-in as an interim measure, while parliament fulfils its duties over the 24-month period.

There are also some South African attorneys chiming in stating that the current law, unamended, also grants the government the ability to grant exceptions to copyright law that would give Blind SA what it wants. The problem with that claim is that, if it’s true, why, again, are there virtually no works of literature being translated for the visually impaired? Something is keeping this from happening and it’s almost certainly concerns over being sued for copyright infringement.

This is a travesty. Culture and equal protection under the law are important small “l” liberal concepts. Denying culture to a class of the impaired isn’t just against the purpose of copyright laws, but it’s pure denigration of the blind and visually impaired.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: blind sa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Visually Impaired Advocacy Group Goes To War With South Africa Copyright Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

… while parliament fulfils its duties over the 24-month period.

The SA parliment has already pissed away 8 of the 24 months. The minister is laying the groundwork for a further delay.

… and note that the SA president sat on this bill for 13 months until Blind SA took to court to force his hand. It is entirely possible that he’ll sit on the revised bill once it reaches his desk, forcing yet more court action.

There are also some South African attorneys chiming in stating that the current law, unamended, also grants the government the ability to grant exceptions to copyright law that would give Blind SA what it wants.

The lawyer’s opinion is worthless in this instance, regardless of whether it is on the status quo or the proposed law, since the high court has ruled on the Act and told parliament what it needs to do to make it constitutional.

Anonymous Coward says:


It’s not worthless.

The executive is arguing that the principle of separation of powers prevents both it and the judicial branch from directly interfering in the legislative process, and that the only option is to wait until parliament corrects the law to reach compliance with the supreme court ruling.

These lawyers are pointing out that the parliament already granted the executive authority to alter the current law to comply with the supreme court ruling, so any whining from the executive about separation of powers is merely sophistry.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Ummm pookie, someone should have warned you my short responses like this are usually meant as snarky sarcasm.

Last time I used this line it was when book publishers were fighting tooth and nail to stop e-books from having the ability to be text to speeched, because blind people never read their books.

“So the idea that blind and partially sighted people can’t watch movies is completely wrong.”
Have you met the copyright cartel?? They aren’t very bright.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: I'm calling bullshit

I don’t believe you, not at all. I don’t just “know a blind guy”, I’m married to one (except for her gender, but that’s picking nits).

Trust me, I have a very long fuse, but right about now, if you were sitting across the table from me and uttered that statement, I’d beat you about the head and shoulders so severely that your grandchildren will be born black and blue.

Don’t. Even. Think. Of. Going. There.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...