Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: Permaculture copyright

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>
  • To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Permaculture copyright
  • Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:21:10 -0600

At 02:23 PM 6/6/00 +1000, you wrote:
To quote you"The issue was addressed in a letter by permaculture founder,
Bill Mollison, in a recent edition of Permaculture International Journal. In
that letter,
Bill reasserted his rights as the owner of the copyright over the
permaculture concept. Although he did not mention the fact, this right is
enshrined in the Australian Copyright Act".

May I qoute Bill's words in the PC Manual. p11
A Policy of Responsibility (to relinquish power)
The role of a beneficial authority is to return function and responsibility
to life and to people; if successful, no further authority is needed. The
role of successful design is to create a self-managed system.

Permaculture started with Bill Mollison and David Holmgren but has since
been shaped by the input of us all.  We where invited to be part of it. Now
we see what was undeniably the work of many being asserted by an individual
as their copyright. In the PC Manual it is not expressed as a Bill Mollison
copyright . . . perhaps a little late to claim one. Time has seen PC shaped
by many not steered by one.

The copyright was claimed in 1978 or 1979 and was to protect the word from unethical use.  Bill stated in the Designers Manual that it is the property of the graduates and institutes.  "Permaculture is a word coined by the author.  Its copyright is vested in the Permaculture Institutes and their College of Graduates, and is guarded by them for the purposes of consistent education." Permaculture a Designers' Manual by Bill Mollison, 1988, Tagari Publications.  I have spoken to Bill many times, most recently in May, and he has never changed his position on this issue.  His concern is that people use his work, as published in his books, without attribution or permission.  I have seen his illustrations, and words scattered like confetti throughout other peoples books and talks without any hint that the words originated with Bill - this is rude and disrespectful to a man who has given all of us, both directly and indirectly, so much.  His words "for the purposes of consistent education" is key to the copyright and there has been a great loss in consistency with the advent of "new age" pseudo-science whose advocates insist is permaculture or zone 6.

Perhaps the whole issue around maintaining standards could have been put out
to a forum such as this which represents the collective efforts of the many
who joined the founders of the concept and contributed to where it is now. A
dictate from above to a network that has evolved to a level playing field.
Why? Do we need a beneficial authority after more than 20 years? If so then
PC as a movement was not a successful design, is not a self managed system.
Permaculture is not very Permaculture??? If it is not a successful design
why bother worrying about it being in decline. Let it go. . . or evolve into
something more successful than any of us can even imagine.

The copyright claim, whether well intentioned for the purposes of
maintaining quality standards or for more self serving reasons, the effect
is the same.  . .  a decline in PC. If pushed further it will see a  number
of legal counter claims from those who have helped shaped it and it herald
the widespread abandonment of the use of name in the activities of many
more.

See above comments.  I find this paragraph a scurrilous attempt through innuendo to push an agenda.  The threat of litigation is typical of North America and abandonment by the author (who hides behind anonymity) of the use of the name might not be a bad idea.

Now we may be coming a bit closer to why Permaculture is in decline. I
personally have operated as a business professional for many years
independently of  using the name Permaculture. Firstly, I am then in control
of my own corporate image and P.R. Secondly I have never wanted my ideas to
be taken to be the ideas of a loose coalition only to be ultimately seized
by an individual claiming Intellectual Property rights over them. Finally,
PC has no management structure or standards. PC  has too loose a corporate
structure for me to use as anything other than a part of my education and a
networking opportunity.

Yet another reason through your own impeccable logic to remove yourself from the permaculture assembly.

I think that all this points to a need to get organised . . . get a
structure that is fair and democratic whilst honouring the contributions of
the founders and the many who have since contributed to it. In other words
get professional . . .  a democratic corporate structure.

There are many of us who are working to get better organized and it is happening on a global scale our work is made more difficult by the kind of  thoughtless and disingenuous comments you have written.

It would be a tradgedy to see so much good work decline and die.

It would certainly help prevent such a tragedy if we had less willingness to read in the worst possible scenario to every event that is unclear or misstated.  I always find it best to go to the source rather than involve myself in the game of "gossip".

Scott Pittman


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page