Advocating Openness

Written by Andrew Rens on December 9th, 2009

In a few months I’ll be completing a three year fellowship at the Shuttleworth Foundation. What has it all been about?

Some three years ago pioneers of social innovation in South Africa, excited about access to knowledge, openness and the knowledge commons were struggling with the default setting of closed in policies, laws and minds. People seeking to radically change education, scholarly communication, innovation, publishing and standards in South Africa encountered Intellectual Property law as an obstruction. Intellectual Property law is complex, technical and in many cases unclear. Laws are blunt instruments, Intellectual Property laws are among the bluntest, but the effects on positive social change are often diffuse.  Terms like “Intellectual Property” and “Access to Knowledge” can seem abstract. But the issue is simple, often brutally simple. How do we get books in the hands of kids so that they can learn, data to scientists so that they can cure diseases, and knowledge to entrepreneurs so that they can create new products? How can engineers, teachers, techies and social entrepreneurs navigate around the obstruction?

Presciently Helen Turvey hired me not only to help open projects as they grappled with intellectual property issues but also to identify the major systematic challenges to open presented by intellectual property law and opportunities to change it. I became, in the words of my good friend Philipp Schmidt “chief counsel for the open movement in South Africa”.

The team at the Shuttleworth Foundation reckon that good change happens faster if we can first change default settings of closed to open. Often the default is set by to closed by intellectual property; law but also by intellectual property policy and practises.

During the first two years we learned that if we were familiar with the shape of problems, and the solutions which had been tried that we were prepared, so that when conditions changed and presented an opportunity we could act quickly. We learned to take advantage of existing processes for policy advocacy, as well as devising longer processes for systemic change. We acted as a resource to others so that they could move faster and challenge the barriers in their own spheres.

After nearly three years the social innovation space in South Africa is moving towards openness. Although I haven’t achieved all that I’d liked to in the time, thanks to the support of colleagues, the Shuttleworth Foundation, and our partners we’ve given shape to desirable reforms, mapped major obstacles, neutralised some dangers and helped a lot of projects. There are now many more people working in this space who know how to navigate around the hazards of Intellectual Property.

Sharing ideas and experiences was always central to my work but during 2009 I concentrated on turning our previous efforts, and learnings into resources that others can use in the future. This has resulted in two initiatives: Copyright for Educators, and an analysis of access to knowledge efforts in South Africa.

Copyright for Educators is an open, scenario based, course which incorporates many of the lessons we’ve learned from grappling with copyright issues in learning environments. Copyright for Educators was one of the anchor course of the Peer to Peer University pilot. One of the participants was able to get credit for the course as independent study in his Instructional Technology PhD. His assessment of the first iteration of the course was: “for a first pass, I felt the organization of the Copyright for Educators course was very good. The content was interesting and to the point.”

The most challenging issue which the course deals with is the inclusion of copyright works used under exceptions, like fair use, in materials that are under open licences. For example someone might use a photograph under an educational exception in an instruction module that is under a Creative Commons licence. I first raised this issue in a Shuttleworth Foundation issue paper, which subsequently became a chapter in a book: Implementing the World Intellectual Property Agenda (available for free download). The issue has been taken up by ccLearn, the people at Creative Commons focused on open education, who’ve developed a report “Otherwise Open” and recommendations for educators.

There have been a wide range of approaches to increasing access to knowledge in South Africa, but no single record of the different approaches. During 2009 I was able to organise many of the activists, scholars and entrepreneurs to contribute to research on the different approaches and projects, and to have it published as part of the Yale Access to Knowledge Research Series. It examines the battle for open standards, the Foundation’s intervention into the Pearson publishing mergers, the Free High School Science Texts project, and the work of partner projects such the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge project, and the Opening Scholarship project at the University of Cape Town.

I had the opportunity to contribute a great deal to the Foundation’s Open Resources policy. The policy and the thinking behind it were featured as cutting edge in a report by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society; An Evaluation of Private Foundation Copyright Licensing, Policies, Practices and Opportunities.

South Africa still has a long way to go towards an open knowledge society, the kind of society in which networks of links, code and content are open at every level. But there is now movement towards open as a default setting. There is growing agreement that access to knowledge is a basic issue, important to everyone.

 

A Treaty for the Visually Impaired

Written by Andrew Rens on November 30th, 2009

Update:  South African Multi-Stakeholder group has issued a Declaration in
Response to the WIPO Treaty for Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons (TVI).

When the World Intellectual Property Organisation Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meets from 14 to 18 December 2009 a possible treaty on exceptions and limitations to copyright for visually impaired persons will be on the agenda.

Countries participating in the WIPO meeting are considering the Proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, relating to limitations and exceptions: Treaty proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU) at the Copyright Committee of the World Intellectual Property Organisation on May 25, 2009.

What are the legal considerations from a South African perspective of the proposed exceptions and limitations?

How would the treaty proposal interact with existing South African law?

The most important law in South Africa is the Constitution which is the supreme law. South African supreme law requires that visually impaired persons should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their impairment (section 8 of the Bill of Rights). The South African government is obliged not only to prohibit such discrimination but take positive steps to ensure that visually impaired persons enjoy the progressive realisation of their rights to education (section 29) and access to information (sections 16 and 32). The progressive realisation of these fundamental rights is currently constrained by dual limitations on the adaptation of material for the needs of visually impaired persons.
Firstly the current Copyright Act, drafted decades before the advent of democratic government, forbids the South African government from simply adapting materials to serve the needs of visually impaired citizens. Secondly even if permission is obtained for ta particular he adaptation of a particular work then that work must be adapted in South Africa, even if it has been adapted elsewhere. Adaptation is costly, so the duplication of adaptation efforts is grossly ineffecient.

The proposed minimum exceptions and limitations offer a solution to the problem created by legislation passed by the previous non-democratic state which limits the rights of visually impaired South Africans in an unconstitutional way. As a result amending South African copyright law in line with the proposed Treaty to enable visually impaired persons to exercise their rights to education, and information is not just desirable but required by the supreme law, the Constitution. The proposed Treaty will assist to make exceptions and limitations in South African legislation for visually impaired persons much more effective because it will address the second factor, the restrictions on the import of materials adapted for visually impaired persons, by permitting materials adapted in countries with relatively more resources to be shared in South Africa. The Treaty is in harmony with the supreme law of South Africa, the Constitution 106 of 1996.

How will the treaty proposal interact with existing international obligations of South Africa?

Like all sovereign nations South Africa is entitled to agree with other sovereign nations to vary its existing obligations in terms of international law. Although a possibility for South Africa this is not necessary in the case of the proposed Treaty which intends to harmonise minimum exceptions for visually impaired persons. Minimum exceptions for visually impaired persons fit into the types exceptions guaranteed to countries by the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property.

What are the possible benefits of or concerns about the treaty proposal, including with regard to the objectives of the treaty proposal, how those objectives could lead to improved access for the blind and visually impaired, and any concerns about the implementation of the proposed treaty provisions in South Africa or abroad?

A major concern is that the overbroad provisions of the proposed enforcement treaty (ACTA) currently being written without the participation of South Africa and most developing countries will make cross border transfer of materials adapted for visually impaired persons into criminal offences. Apparently even though South Africa and most developed countries are not permitted to be party to the ACTA planning it is intended to be unilaterally imposed on South Africa and other developing countries. Unfortunately its impossible to engage in deeper analysis the likely negative impact of that treaty on the rights of visually impaired persons since it is being negotiated in secret.

Globally far too few resources are available to address the needs of visually impaired persons. Currently those resources are being wasted, as each effort to adapt material for visually impaired persons whether permitted by national exceptions or through voluntary arrangements is confined to a specific country. Thus in each country resources may be devoted to adapting a work even though it has already been adapted in many other countries. The Treaty will enable the creation of global systems which enable efficient use of the limited resources.

What other possible courses of action would facilitate access by blind, visually impaired, and other reading disabled persons?

One alternative proposal that has been suggested is that publishing industry, by which is mean the three or four incumbent multinationals which dominate the global publishing industry enter into some sort of voluntary agreement between them and the representatives of the visually impaired to enable theblind. However recent technological and consequent economic changes put the continued viability of the publishing industry in question, so a voluntary agreement may not be a long or even medium term solution. A voluntary undertaking by incumbent publishers will also not give access to orphan works. Orphan works are copyright works that are inaccessible because permission cannot be obtained because the rights holders cannot be located, and possibly no longer exist.

Minimum exceptions are thus necessary to ensure that visually impaired persons have access in a technology neutral way which operates in all environments, and without requiring the consent of any information intermediaries whether search engines, internet service providers or other intermediaries. Only a treaty which creates legal rights will ensure that visually impaired persons get access to knowledge not matter what happens technologically or economically.

Legal opinions and reviews for other jurisdictions are hosted at a US government site.