Copyright discussions are important in ensuring that people get recognised for their work, and that
there is a well organised and displayed ownership partly for recognition and partly to ensure
accountability. While much of the information in this section is fairly technical, it is worth
remembering the values that underpin voter education and the implications of these as far as
copyright issues are concerned. If one of the major aims of electoral and civic education is to
build democracy through the development of civic values and citizen responsibility, it seems
reasonable to expect that organisations and government agencies involved in this work should
promote open and honest dealings with each other's materials by paying due respect to copyright.
The section covers the following:
- what is copyright?
- how do copyright matters affect voter education?
- what are the legal frameworks for copyright?
- how is permission obtained to use copyrighted material?
What is Copyright?
Freedom of expression, as everybody knows, is one of the cornerstones of a democracy. This
fundamental human right is generally understood to grant freedom of speech to citizens and, in
particular, to the media. It should also be remembered that it grants creative freedom to writers,
musicians, painters, and the like: people who pursue the original expression of ideas through
research or art.
Another basic human right is the right to own property, where property is understood not to be
limited to land. People are not permitted to rob others of something they own. This can apply as
much to a person's original expression of certain ideas as it does to physical property. The product
of someone's own intellectual efforts is called intellectual property: it belongs to that person in the
same way that physical property does.
Copyright, though traditionally not considered one of the fundamental human rights, can be seen
as an extension of the two basic rights mentioned previously. Copyright laws prevent anyone from
copying or appropriating the intellectual property of another person. Copyright laws provide
protection for anyone who does creative work, on condition that their work fulfils two basic
requirements. First, it must be presented in material (or physical) form: in writing, in a sound
recording, in a painting or sculpture. There is no copyright on ideas, but only on the material
expression of ideas. Second, a work is eligible for copyright only if it is original. This does not
mean that it has to be highly innovative and present ideas that have never been mentioned before.
It simply means that the work has not been copied, but is the product of its author's own efforts.
How Do Copyright Matters Affect Voter Education?
Voter education materials are produced for a very specific purpose and often under fairly
pressurised conditions. There are two types of agencies that generally get involved in producing
these materials:
- nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), which are committed to promoting democracy and
political literacy amongst citizens
- statutory electoral authorities, which produce such materials if the implementation of voter
education campaigns is part of their official mandate
In both instances, the development of voter education materials is motivated by a desire to see
elections succeed. Because such large numbers of people require information and insight into
electoral processes at the time of an election, voter education agencies are always interested in the
distribution of materials on the widest possible scale. Combining these imperatives with the fact
that voter education has to happen under enormous time and financial constraints, it is tempting to
use ready-made resources rather than to design new materials from scratch each time.
NGOs, particularly those that define themselves as public-interest organisations, are inclined to be
remarkably unpossessive about materials that they produce. Their main concern is to see the
materials are used, and if this means that users end up photocopying the materials in large
quantities, this is often cause for delight rather than dismay. In certain instances, copying is even
actively encouraged, as in this caption from the front page of a civic education trainer's manual:
'This material may be freely copied by trainers for use in workshops, with acknowledgement of
source.'
While the good intentions behind this kind of statement are easy to understand, there are
drawbacks to dealing with original materials in this way.
Not only are NGOs often willing to allow their materials to be photocopied liberally in the interests
of wider dissemination of information, but they are also inclined to be somewhat careless about
even identifying materials as theirs. Many voter education materials are ephemeral in nature:
pamphlets, posters, broadsheets, and comic strips. Perhaps because they are produced at great
speed, or because they pass through many hands during the production process, such materials are
often distributed without the name and contact details of the organisation from whence they
originated, let alone the names of contributing authors and illustrators.
It is important to remember that all such original work, even in the area of voter education, is
protected by copyright law. And this, after all, is not a bad thing. Consider a scenario where an
NGO in a country preparing for elections develops an information booklet for voters. The booklet
is reproduced in-house in fairly large numbers (through a simple photocopying and stapling
process) for distribution in the area of the country where the NGO is based. Close to the time of
the elections, the electoral commission of that country, having seen a copy of the booklet, decides
to reproduce it for distribution nationwide. The name of the NGO that produced the booklet does
not appear anywhere, and the electoral commission assumes that the organisation, in the interest
of successful elections, would support mass distribution of the booklet anyway. Funds are duly
voted to this project and the booklet is printed for distribution with the logo and contact details of
the electoral commission on the front page.
People respectful of copyright will react to this scenario with some alarm. It is but one example of
how voter education material produced by one agency can be appropriated by another. Situations
also arise where the mass media, and newspapers in particular, reproduce voter education materials
assumed to be in the public domain. And, of course, NGOs have been known to copy each other's
work too, without giving credit where it is due.
Not only is this an internal problem in countries running elections, but it has become increasingly
easy for voter education agencies to gain access to materials from beyond their borders. A number
of international agencies facilitate voter education across the globe. When copying materials from
foreign sources, the same rules should apply.
In the final analysis, it is simply not worth being coy about copyright matters. It does not take
much to acknowledge the original work of the writers and illustrators who create voter education
materials, and to respect the procedures that copyright laws impose. It should not be forgotten that
the development of materials requires fairly considerable financial input. In the case of NGOs, this
money often is received from donor agencies. If the materials are then reproduced by others
without any acknowledgement of the time, skill, and money invested in the process of origination,
this does an injustice to all involved.
In instances where it is possible, some sort of financial agreement should be reached to allow for
the copying of materials. In a country like the United States, the right to financial reward for one's
intellectual efforts forms the basis of copyright law. Throughout the world, the NGO sector is
constantly struggling with financial problems. Buying the right to reproduce voter education
materials can make a small contribution toward the sustainability of the NGOs that developed
them.
When it is not possible to pay for permission to reproduce voter education materials, or in cases
where voter education agencies decide to waive such costs, it is important (at the very least) to
apply for permission through the proper channels and formally to acknowledge the source of such
materials. The creative skills of people working in NGOs are often not sufficiently appreciated,
and they can be as self-effacing as their organisations are in their commitment to the interests of
society at large. Nevertheless, NGOs are well known for their capacity to be responsive to
community needs, to experiment with innovative methodologies and to be a step ahead of bigger,
less-flexible educational institutions, particularly in the state, which by their very nature cannot
move as fast.
NGOs and their staff deserve better recognition of their work in the area of voter education, and
respecting their copyright is a good place to start.
What are the Legal Frameworks for Copyright?
There are two international copyright conventions, and most countries in the world are signatories
to either one or both of these. The Berne Convention stipulates that a work does not need to be
formally registered in order to enjoy copyright protection. Copyright is understood to be inherent
and automatic, whether a formal notice of copyright appears in a work or not. The Berne
Convention also lays down the principle that copyright on a particular work should be respected
throughout the life of the authors and for a fixed number of years after their death (in most
countries the cut-off point is fifty years). When copyright on a work expires, it falls into the public
domain.
The United Copyright Convention (UCC) does not specify the duration of copyright. Its most
important provision is that in countries where authors are required to register their work for
copyright purposes (although the UCC does not demand this), such formalities can be complied
with by simply placing a copyright notice in the work, together with the name of the copyright
holder and the date of first publication. The registration procedure is as straightforward as that: it
does not involve making formal application to official bodies, filling in lengthy forms, or standing
in interminable queues. Authors of published works (as opposed to unique works of art) may be
required to deposit a copy (or copies) of their work with an official body, such as their country's
state library.
These international conventions do not preclude the need for signatory countries to have
copyright legislation of their own. Rather, the conventions provide guidelines for the drafting and
application of such laws. Importantly, under the international conventions, countries undertake to
provide the same copyright protection to writers and artists from outside their borders as they offer
to those within.
Like any legislation, copyright laws can be fairly complex, and it is not possible to cover every
aspect of copyright here. It is also difficult to make generalisations that apply in every country of
the world. Broadly speaking, however, copyright is owned by the author of a work, that is, the
creator of a material expression of an idea. This person may or may not be the person who had
the idea originally. When the author is employed (for example in an NGO) and the work is
created as part of that job, then copyright belongs to the employer. When a work is produced in
the employ and under the direction of the state, then the state owns copyright.
In the case of commissioned work, copyright rests with the author, unless it is formally signed
over. If an organisation develops a voter education manual, for example, and commissions a set of
illustrations to form part of the manual, then copyright on the illustrations belongs to the artist,
unless this is formally ceded to the organisation. Much depends on the nature of the contract that
is signed for commissioned work. A contract with an illustrator could specify, for instance, that
the organisation commissioning the work has the right to reuse the illustrations a certain number of
times or for certain purposes.
Questions of copyright ownership become more complex in the case of collective works. Often in
NGOs, voter education materials are the combined work of several authors. If the contributions of
the various authors are indistinguishable from one another, then the authors own copyright jointly.
Where the authors are in the employ of the organisation, then in most cases the organisation holds
copyright. When a work is composed of separate, identifiable contributions by different authors
(for example different chapters of a book), then the authors own copyright in their individual
contributions, while the editor owns copyright on the compilation as a whole (known as
compilation rights).
Finally, copyright can actually change owners, just as is the case with physical property. However,
it cannot simply be given away. In order to change hands, copyright must be formally assigned.
In such cases, authors or illustrators come to a formal agreement with publishers, commissioning
agencies, or any other parties to assign all copyright in a particular work to them. An assignment
of copyright must also guarantee that copyright in a work has not been granted to any other party.
How is Permission Obtained to use Copyright Material?
Though copyright is clearly intended to protect the interests of people who produce original work,
copyright laws are mindful of the interests of broader society too. For example, copyright
legislation generally permits writers to quote from other works, provided the source is
acknowledged and the quotation is not excessively long. In educational institutions, photocopying
is permitted, with certain limitations, for the individual use of students. In such cases where limited
copying is allowed, the exact limits are difficult to define.
Copyright laws require that people apply the principle of 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' to determine
whether something can be copied without obtaining formal permission from the author. It is
almost impossible to quantify what this means, and the principle can be qualitative too. In the case
of material that is sold on the commercial market, an obvious consideration is that copying should
not jeopardise sales.
Out of respect for the creators of original work, and bearing in mind that sufficient respect often is
not paid to the work of NGOs, it is recommended that formal permission be obtained to copy any
work if the copying is not being done exclusively for personal use. Permission should be applied
for in writing, and should clearly specify the intended use of the copyrighted material.
With works published by recognised publishing houses, it is often the case that authors hold
copyright while the publishers hold quotation rights. Again, in such cases, the nature of the
contract between the publisher and the author is all important. Contracts can specify such things
as territorial rights (the territorial extent of copyright), translation rights, and a range of other
restrictions. Generally, this is all linked to the financial interests of the author and the publisher.
For this reason, permission to copy is often granted at a price.
In the area of voter education, it is unusual for people to be motivated by the desire to make a
profit, although organisations involved in voter education obviously have to cover their costs. If
one organisation applies to another for permission to copy voter education material and clearly
explains the context in which this will be used, it is reasonable to expect that such permission will
be granted for free or at a very low cost. Having obtained permission to copy materials, it is
important to be meticulous about acknowledging the source. As a courtesy, it is also
recommended that a copy of the new materials be sent to the organisation that granted permission
for their work to be copied.
If an organisation is approached for permission to copy voter education materials that they have
produced, then as much information as possible should be obtained about the intended use: target
audience, proposed print run, area of distribution, and anticipated price (if the material will be
offered for sale). Such details will facilitate the decision about whether it is necessary or fair to
charge a fee. As far as fees are concerned, there are no hard-and-fast rules and requests generally
have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In granting permission, a letter should be written
stating any particular terms and conditions that may apply. A copy of the new materials can also
be requested.
Finally, the question arises about what should be done if copyright is violated. While the offended
party understandably feels outraged when this occurs, unfortunately there is not much to be gained
by taking copyright cases to court. In fact, such cases seldom reach the courts, unless there is very
big money involved. If an organisation discovers that its voter education materials have been
copied without permission, a formal apology could be demanded and, if necessary, a fee imposed
retrospectively.
