Utilising the Copyright Act 'As It Is' - How?

Author: W. Kadi (LLB/LLM, Chevening Alumni 22/23)

Utilizing the Copyright Act As It Is – How?

Creative works are protected by legislation in the Solomon Islands. But how true and practical is that for the creative community?

In this article, we will attempt to analyze copyright law in Solomon Islands and explore the available options for protecting creative works, whilst discussing some of the limitations and challenges that are faced by the creative community.

There is a Copyright Act [1] that exist in Solomon Islands, and it is intended to protect literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. The Copyright Act of Solomon Islands was derived from the UK’s Copyright Act 1911. However, there are significant components of the UK’s Copyright Act 1911 that were being omitted, not to mention that the UK has created a more dynamic Copyright, Designs, and Patent Act 1988 to consolidate the management of copyright, design, and patent under one framework.

With these framework comparisons in general, it is fair to say that; obviously the Copyright Act of Solomon Islands falls short to effectively manage the evolution of art, literature, music, multimedia creations, and designs – not to mention patenting too!

How does the Copyright Act of Solomon Islands fail to protect copyright works?

It is not correct to say that the Copyright Act failed to protect copyright works, copyright exists automatically in each creation. Under the Solomon Islands copyright regime, television programs are protected, radio broadcasts are protected, literary works are protected – to some extent. However, a great deal of copyrighted works including music, paintings, designs, photography, and film are loosely organized and lacks the relevant institution that should grant confidence in protecting such works from being copied or infringed. A random search for infringement disputes in www.paclii.org under Solomon Islands jurisdiction, showed some hits of copyright infringement disputes being heard before the Court – but it is not as common as in other jurisdictions.

The biggest challenge in fact is how the industry was organized. What is even worse was the silence of the Copyright Act on issues of licensing, publishing, and managing the diverse creative categories of copyrighted work including music, photography, design, literary works, and other offshoots from these categories.

How was the industry organized?

The only clarity in terms of licensing under the Copyright Act was that; television (motion pictures) is to be licensed under the Television Act. The Television Act was the basis for proper licensing of television, however, falls short as well on the protection of audiovisual content, and licensing of independent works from local creators.

Under the Copyright Act it also provided that the registration of copyright works is to be facilitated under the registrar of copyrights. It was not clear whether such registration would amount to a license for creative works registered, however, such registration is prima facie evidence of ownership of a creative work. The challenge of the registrar of copyrights includes the organizing of such a database, as well as the existence of alternative copyright registrars that are efficiently organized and accessible online such as this digital copyright index.

What was absent under the Copyright Act is a licensing regime for musical, literary, painting, and design as distinct copyright works. The question that came to mind is: if television licenses are regulated by the Television Act, then why cannot Parliament create a similar framework or include such provision under the Copyright Act for the licensing of music, and other forms of art, including designs?

It seems ironic that the Copyright Act also provided that broadcasts are copyrighted and broadcasted from licensed broadcasters but falls short to acknowledge or discuss any form of compensation for sound recordings to be broadcasted under such licensed broadcasters.

How do these forms of art creators protect or compensate for themselves?

For sound recordings, sound creators, composers, and music artists are turning to publishing and collective management organizations that existed outside of Solomon Islands. This includes registration and publication of songs under performers rights organization and mechanical copyrights from Australia, France, and the United States. An example of such copyright management organizations is the Australasian Performer Rights Association and Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (APRAAMCOS) where most of the young creative musicians, artists, and producers from Solomon Islands are registered under.

However, the shortfall for such a registered copyright work is in Solomon Islands itself, where there is no locally established copyright management entity.

 Another way to utilize the Copyright Act is to register the copyrighted works in Solomon Islands with the registrar of copyrights. The practicality of such an approach is outside of our discussion here, but it is a viable option to take and test out any infringement proceeding before the High Court of Solomon Islands.

There is so much to say about creative art and copyright works and there are other viable options to harmonize all the loosely registered associations that exist, including the Solomon Islands Music Federation, and other art-related associations that were normally registered as charitable associations or organizations under the Charitable Trusts Act. It is a painful gap but also an untapped opportunity to explore the organization and collective collaboration of these copyrighted works and creative categories, to effectively develop the creative industry, and fix the regulation of copyright protection in Solomon Islands – not to mention patenting, and other intellectual property components.

Most importantly, as an opinion; it should be the creative community leading the collaboration and taking the initiative to develop and push for the reform on existing laws and to revise the practicality, complexity, and challenges faced by copyright work holders and owners. Otherwise, we will all be waiting for Godot. If you are willing to find out more on some thoughts for developing intellectual property, network and collaborate with key stakeholders beginning with the players in the creative industry itself. 

[1] *Copyright Act 1987 (consolidated in 1996) and has since not been amended to date.