CC licenses function within copyright (the “all rights reserved” approach), yet they differ by employing a “some rights reserved” approach. By default, all CC licenses grant the public permission to use the works. The licenses provide for additional conditions, but remain in place for as long as the underlying copyright lasts or until a reuser violates the license terms. It is fundamental to clarify that CC licenses work on top of copyright, not instead of copyright.
In 1973, Uganda joined the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Uganda is one of 19 member states of the Africa Regional Intellectual Property Organization an intergovernmental organization (IGO) that facilitates cooperation among the member states in intellectual property matters.
On Dec 10, 1982, Uganda signed onto the Harare Protocol on Patents and Industrial Designs.
Welcome to the second post my #CopyrightEdu series (also written in submission as an assignment to my Creative Commons Certification class – which by the way is so exciting!)
So I play the guitar, but not quite like Charmant – he plays, but has invested significant effort into a creative project – a music album! Whatever his motivation for doing this, did you know that at the time creatives like Charmant are making new works of art like music, or maybe poetry, it may not be clear to them that there is such a thing called automatic copyright – and it likely restricts most reuses by others without their permission? What if you knew upfront, would it change the way you create? or the rules under which you might want to copyright your work?
This post was created, in response to CC Certification Assignment – #1
So you have seen the circled C – the embodiment of restrictions – All Rights Reserved – the tag that accompanies CopyRight. This month, I am part of the Creative Commons Certificate Class, and I invite you, through my assignment, to discover how we got here (copyright); and how we can move on from here.
The story of Creative Commons (fondly aka CC) begins with copyright. Copyright, in law, regulates the way human creativity products are used – like books, academic research articles, music, and art. The creator, or author, gets a set of exclusive rights so that they can prevent others from copying and adapting their work (for a limited time).
This may have been okay in a world without the technological advancements of the 21st century. The internet has given us the opportunity to access, share, and collaborate on all human creations at an unprecedented rate (and scale). This instant-always-on-sharing capabilities made possible by digital technology are in tension with the sharing restrictions embedded within copyright laws around the world.
Technology makes it possible for online content to be consumed by millions of people at once, and it can be copied, shared, and remixed with speed and ease. But copyright law places limits on our ability to take advantage of these possibilities. Creative Commons was founded to help us realize the full potential of the internet.
How does one work around this real, and ever present conflict?
In Flash of Genius (See Review), a biographical film story of FORD’s 1953 war on infringement, in the adoption of the Intermittent Wiper (your car wiper), an american jury ruled in the favour of a retired Physics professor, because he swayed them with the argument that Shakespeare’s works despite picking from words common to the English language, were actually inherently private and inventive because he was the first to arrange them in the order in which we revel today. He argued, that he too needed to be compensated by FORD, for “stealing” his idea of the Wiper, despite writing down the constituent parts of the Wiper, and their functionality and handing these over to the FORD Motor Company.
In high school, the current Makerere University Chancellor was made a god of economics based on works that he placed in pamphlets and these went about as near gospel truth in the study and revision for Economics, both at Advanced Level, as well as for some First Year Economics Courses. Whereas Dr. Sentamu has a right to these works as derivative works, and as such deserves, and reserves the right to the Intellectual Property therein, the actual knowledge contained in these books cannot be wholly attributed to him. Alas, Dr, Sentamu cannot claim to be the originator of this knowledge. Or can he?
In Ugandan Universities, a large amount of student pocket money is spent on photocopying lecture notes. Many an office printer in the average work place does some photocopying for one or 2 students, at least once a week. Frankly, one could say the University, as we know it, could not exist without photocopying as we know it. But have you ever actually wondered what it would be like to study without Photocopying?
You see, in the 16th Century, the battle lines around copying were drawn – and 3000 people died. So lets not take it lightly at all. Read the amazing Story Here
In the eyes of every author, it is their solemn hope that they will retain moral rights to the content in their written works, BUT also, that they will acquire economic rights when we buy the book. So When we copy the book, not only do we infringe on their rights – as we often don’t ask for permission, we also directly affect their income, because we then wont go out to buy an original copy of the book. YET, when the author rights that book, he cannot then stand in the way of our right to enjoy the access to the information contained therein. In fact, one can argue that if he didn’t want us to know about it, he might not have written the book in the first place.
Ugandan Copyright & Neighboring Rights Act of 2006, awards copyright to such an author, for the rest of their lifetime (or the lifetime of the last surviving co-author) plus 50 years. As it stands, even the works of Okot B’itek are not yet public domain works. So every copy you have made has in fact been illegal, and you should be in jail, fined, or both! Thankfully, that’s the Penal Code.
So when can you copy, and do so rightly? You need permission from the author. Simple as eating matooke. Yes, even when the author took their works from Shakespeare’s the law protects them as Derivative works, so you still need permission. Alternatively, the author could make copying of their works allowed. So we should in fact consider the moral obligation to CEASE, immediately, ANY and ALL unauthorized copying of literary works.
I could end here, but then you will ask what about the inherent right to knowledge – and the fact that access to that knowledge should be an implied right. And some would argue at this stage, that if the Right to Education is a gazetted Human Right, then the right to access to Educational Materials is implied. Well, does that take away the Intellectual Right that the author had on this content? Certainly not. So how do we cater for both sides?
At the CEHURD Media Training on Intellectual Property Rights, I am learning how to navigate the vast legal ocean to be able to answer this question in a way that would satisfy both parties. But if the world’s Least Developing Countries do not succeed in getting an extension to the TRIPS Agreement (part of the laws under the World Trade Organization, for which Uganda is a member), then in fact this law will come into play, and very soon, as soon as 1st July 2013, it could be completely illegal to photocopy!
TRIPS Agreement – http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm1_e.htm
CEHURD – http://www.cehurd.org/
FOSSFA – http://www.fossfa.net