Previous 8 / 49 Next

UNTERHALTER AJ provinces).8 As a result, section 19D has not been passed into law due to this lengthy legislative process. [7] The proposed section 19D9 would allow for the conversion of copyright works into an accessible format copy, “but which does not introduce changes other than those needed to make the work accessible to a person with a disability”.10 Litigation history [8] Aggrieved by the inordinate delay of the legislative process, Blind SA approached the High Court for an order declaring the Copyright Act unconstitutional to the extent that it unjustifiably limits the rights of persons with visual and print 8 Blind SA describes how the reclassification of the CAB means that— “it will be subject to several additional parliamentary and provincial legislative processes, including a rigorous public participation process, before its finalisation. At the provincial level, it may even open up to debate provisions of the CAB in respect of which no concerns were raised by the President.” 9 The proposed section 19D reads as follows: “(1) Any person as may be prescribed and that serves persons with disabilities may, without the authorization of the copyright owner, make an accessible format copy for the benefit of a person with a disability, supply that accessible format copy to a person with disability by any means, including by non-commercial lending or by digital communication by wire or wireless means, and undertake any intermediate steps to achieve these objectives, if the following conditions are met: (a) The person wishing to undertake any activity under this subsection must have lawful access to the copyright work or a copy of that work; (b) The copyright work must be converted into an accessible format copy, which may include any means necessary to create such accessible format copy but which does not introduce changes other than those needed to make the work accessible to a person with a disability; and (c) The activity under this subsection must be undertaken on a non-profit basis. (2)(a) A person with a disability, or a person that serves persons [with] disabilities, to whom the work is communicated by wire or wireless means as a result of an activity under subsection (1) may, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright work, reproduce the work for personal use. (b) 10 The provisions of paragraph (a) are without prejudice to any other limitations or exceptions that the person referred to in that paragraph may enjoy. (3) A person with a disability or a person that serves persons with disabilities may without the authorization of the copyright owner export to or import from another country any legal copy of an accessible format copy of a work referred to in subsection (1), as long as such activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis by that person. (4) The exception created by this section is subject to the obligation of indicating the source and the name of the author on any accessible format copy in so far as it is practicable.’’ Id. 8

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others 2022

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (linked Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: 21 de set. de 2022

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgement in Favour of Plaintiff
Motion Granted

Keywords

Access to Information
Public Interest

Court Name: Constitutional Court of South Africa

Case Number: Case CCT 320/21

Case Summary: Facts

Blind SA, a South African organisation advocating for the rights of blind and visually impaired persons, brought a constitutional challenge against provisions of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. The organisation argued that the Act unlawfully restricted the ability of blind persons to access published works in accessible formats such as Braille, audio, and large print.

Because the Act required prior authorisation from copyright holders before works could be converted into accessible formats, blind persons faced systematic barriers to accessing education, information, and culture. Blind SA contended that this regime violated several constitutional rights, including the right to equality (s 9), dignity (s 10), education (s 29), freedom of expression (s 16), and access to information (s 32).

The respondent, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, opposed the petition, arguing that the Copyright Act balanced the rights of authors with public interest, and that reforms were already underway through draft legislation.

Issue

The central issue before the Constitutional Court was whether the Copyright Act’s failure to provide an express exception for the reproduction of works in accessible formats constituted an unjustifiable limitation of the constitutional rights of persons with visual disabilities.

Additionally, the Court had to determine whether it had the power to grant “reading-in” relief — namely, to modify the Copyright Act by inserting provisions that immediately allow the making and distribution of accessible format copies without requiring copyright-holder permission.

Rule

The case was decided under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa (1996), particularly:

Section 9 (Equality): Guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law.

Section 10 (Dignity): Affirms the inherent dignity of every person.

Section 29 (Education): Ensures the right to basic and further education.

Section 16 (Freedom of Expression) and Section 32 (Access to Information): Protect access to knowledge and information.

The Court also relied on international norms, including the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, which South Africa had signed but not ratified.

Analysis

The Constitutional Court emphasised that blind and visually impaired persons had suffered decades of systemic exclusion from access to knowledge due to copyright barriers. By conditioning access on obtaining copyright-holder consent, the Act perpetuated discrimination, undermined dignity, and entrenched inequality.

The Court found that the absence of an accessible format exception in the Copyright Act was unconstitutional, as it unjustifiably limited the rights of persons with disabilities. The Minister’s argument that legislative reform was pending did not absolve the Court of its constitutional duty to grant immediate relief.

On the remedy, the Court held that reading-in was appropriate to cure the constitutional defect. The Court thus inserted provisions into the Copyright Act allowing persons with visual disabilities, or organisations acting on their behalf, to make and distribute accessible format copies of works without prior authorisation, provided this was done on a non-profit basis and solely for the benefit of persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the Copyright Act violated the constitutional rights of blind and visually impaired persons by failing to provide for accessible format exceptions. The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional, and the Court read in new sections to immediately allow for the making, reproduction, and distribution of accessible format copies.

Case Significance: Copyright act of 1979 s 6 and s 7 declared unconstitutional.

Available in

English

Related Law

Source Name and URL: saflii

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 18 de ago. de 2025

Primary Documents

BLIND SA 1.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others 2022

Primary Documents

Notifications