US and EU Influence Cited in South Africa’s Postponement of Copyright Reform Bill

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently returned a major copyright reform bill to parliament, citing constitutional issues as the reason for the delay. However, evidence shows that the United States and the European Union played a significant role in urging South Africa to postpone the legislation through threats of tariffs and withdrawal of investment.

While the U.S. openly threatened trade sanctions, the European Commission’s efforts to stall the reform were more discreet. Dozens of internal Commission documents obtained by former Member of the European Parliament Julia Reda via access to document requests and shared with POLITICO reveal a coordinated campaign. These documents include letters from Hollywood studios, record labels, and publishers urging the EU executive to intervene with the South African government, as well as communications between various Commission directorates and the EU delegation in South Africa requesting a delay.

Andrew Rens, a copyright expert at Research ICT Africa, remarked on the situation: “That kind of unilateral pressure is not terribly surprising from the current U.S. administration. What is surprising is that the European Commission seems to have joined in.” He noted that while the U.S. was explicit about its intentions, the European Commission’s involvement was more subtle.

The decision by Ramaphosa to delay the bill highlights the influence of the cultural industry, which opposes the reform fearing it could set a precedent across Africa. Additionally, South Africa, severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, was reluctant to jeopardize trade relations with the U.S. and risk losing up to $2 billion in export revenues.

Dominick Luquer, General Secretary of the International Federation of Actors, expressed concern over the delay, stating, “Pressure from the cultural industry has gone as far as mobilizing the U.S. and EU trade authorities, threatening repercussions against South Africa were the reform to receive presidential assent. Clearly ... these threats have proven quite effective.”

A European Commission official defended Brussels’ role, describing it as conducted “in [the] spirit of collaboration and mutual respect.”

The reform process began in September 2015 when South Africa introduced changes to its copyright laws, which had remained largely unchanged since the apartheid era. The legislation, comprising the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers' Protection Amendment Bill, was approved by parliament and submitted to the president in March 2019.

Key features of the reform included the introduction of “fair use,” a broad exception to copyright allowing uses such as research, teaching, and caricature. The European Commission raised concerns early on, writing to the South African government in 2015, 2017, and 2019 about fair use and treaty compliance. A Commission official clarified that the EU was not opposed to fair use provisions in third countries but sought “a balanced approach and legal certainty.”

The concerns focused on clearly defining the scope of exceptions, their application to commercial uses, and compensation mechanisms for uses under exceptions.

Fair use is championed by technology companies like Google but opposed by rights holders who fear it permits free use of their content. While U.S. copyright law includes fair use, critics argue South Africa’s proposed provisions were broader. European copyright law does not include a fair use doctrine.

Other contested elements of the reform involved additional remuneration rights for authors and performers. These were supported by some local creators but opposed by entities such as movie studios and record labels, which argued the provisions interfered with contractual freedom.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA), representing Hollywood studios and Netflix, welcomed Ramaphosa’s decision. A spokesperson noted, “The MPA was part of a cross-creative sector group which included publishing, music and author societies (among others), which worked closely with local creators to voice concerns transparently across many engagements with the relevant authorities.” This referred to an open letter sent to Ramaphosa in August 2019.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) declined to comment.

On the day of the delay announcement, Ramaphosa questioned the reform’s constitutionality and suggested that copyright exceptions might conflict with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. However, prominent South African figures, including a former justice of the Constitutional Court, have argued that the bills are constitutional.

The episode illustrates the complex dynamics at the intersection of domestic copyright reform, international trade pressures, and the influence of global cultural industries on policymaking in Africa’s largest economy.