permaculture

[Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>]

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