About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

2022 WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum

22FORUM015-j

Back

Session 3: Constitutional Court of South Africa [2022]: Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others [2022] ZACC 33

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2022 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 3:  Copyright and New Technologies

Constitutional Court of South Africa [2022]:  Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others [2022] ZACC 33

Date of judgment:  September 21, 2022

Issuing authority:  Constitutional Court of South Africa

Level of the issuing authority:  Final Instance

Subject matter:  Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)

Plaintiff:  Blind SA

Defendants:  Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, the President of the Republic of South Africa.

Keywords:  Unconstitutional provisions, infringement of the rights of persons with visual and print disabilities, accessible formats.

Basic Facts:  The Plaintiff, is a non-profit organisation working for the benefit of blind people in South Africa.

 

The Copyright Act grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to do or authorise the reproduction or adaptation of their literary works (requirement of authorisation).

 

The Plaintiff contended that the Copyright Act restricts the availability of works under copyright in formats accessible to persons with print and visual disabilities, and therefore, unfairly discriminates against them.  After undue delays in the legislative process to amend the Copyright Act, the Plaintiff filed for a declaratory order from the High Court of South Africa on the unconstitutionality of the Copyright.  

 

The High Court, on December 7, 2021, affirmed the unconstitutionality of the Copyright Act to the extent that it: (a) limits and/or prevents persons with visual and print disabilities from accessing works under copyright that persons without such disabilities are able to access; and (b) does not include provisions designed to ensure that persons with visual and print disabilities are able to access works under copyright in the manner contemplated by the Marrakesh Treaty.

 

Held:  The Constitutional Court of South Africa (“the Court”) confirmed the High Court of South Africa decision on the constitutional invalidity of sections 6 and 7, read with section 13 of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 for constituting unfair discrimination and violating the right of individuals with visual and print disabilities to dignity, freedom of expression, freedom to receive and impart information, to receive basic education and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, set out in sections 9(3), 10, 16(1)(b), 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution, by restricting the availability of literary works in adapted format copies.  

 

The Court held that the requirement of authorisation cannot be applied without regard to the impact of the requirement upon different classes of persons. To apply the requirement to all is to expose those with print and visual disabilities to the damaging scarcity of literary works. That constitutes unfair discrimination and hence the Copyright Act, to avoid this discrimination, must apply the requirement of authorisation with due regard to the differential effect of the requirement upon those with print and visual disabilities.

 

The Court ordered interim relief including additional provisions to Section 13 of the Copyright Act for accessible format copies under “Section 13A Exceptions applicable to beneficiary persons”.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to copyright and new technologies: The Court noted that new technologies to adapt literary works into accessible format copies are being developed to provide tailored solutions to different impairments and should not be limited by copyright legislation against infringement.

 

The Court held that those who serve the interests of persons with print and visual disabilities should be given the greatest latitude to produce literary works in accessible format copies and to develop technologies to do so that are ever better at rendering the original work in the best possible way, tailored to the varied incidents of the impairments such persons suffer.

 

Relevant legislation:

 

Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled

Section 6, 7 and 23 of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978

Sections 9(3), 10, 16(1)(b), 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa