Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: Permaculture copyright

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Akiva" <akivaw@hotmail.com>
  • To: permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Permaculture copyright
  • Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:45:57 GMT


Copyright is a legal construct used to protect intellectual property for the purpose of commerce.

If Mollison and/or Holmgren want to protect the word "permaculture" in this context, then they certainly have reasonable claim to do so. However, each of the assembled ideas within the practice of permaculture is more like parts of a shared body of wisdom which arise from human experience upon this living planet. People were placing swales on contour and growing banana circles before Bill was born. Is each individual concept touched upon by permaculture (and often shared by other uncopywrited ecological design practices) to be only contained within a legally restricted, copyrighted label? This seems conterpurpose to permaculture ethics and natural patterns, smacking of inefficient centralized monopoly. There is no legal standing for such a restrictive appoach.

Permaculture ethics say nothing about maintenance of currently-existing hierarchy, unless of course, that hierarchy is the most effective approach for care of the earth and its inhabitants. Truth will out, and good design is our universal, rightful inheritance based upon patterns in nature, no matter who expresses and copyrights expression of that awareness. It's like trying to copyright "justice" or "efficiency".

Scott wrote:
"There is the opposite problem of those whose egos don't allow them to
give credit where it is due so rather than call it permaculture they lay claim to ideas formulated by others. I guess the high road approach would be to say "oh, well! as long as the word gets out." But it seems to me that the greater the ground swell named permaculture the greater the effect on the world at large. I has been a long struggle for many who have carried the design process and teaching around the world where permaculture is becoming well known and a common name shared by all of us permaculturalists that I would hate to see lost. That commonality in and of itself is a critical
part of creating a borderless sustainable future for people."

Yes, share credit where credit is due. There is, however, no reason why someone couldn't call themselves an "ecological designer" and use some concepts found within the practice of permaculture in their professional work without commercially representing it as permaculture. If we are to have a "borderless sustainable future", no one needs accept attempts to restrict their design practice beyond the reasonable right to do so.

Scott also wrote:

"It has been a long time since there has been any kind of personal
interaction in the U.S. permaculture family and there are many issues
that could be discussed and shared."

Is the global permaculture community a "family" in which the the next generation gets to freely live their own creative lives and we share common ethics and practices, or is permaculture a commercial corporation in which distribution rights are controlled and limited by a central power? Or both? There seem to be different conceptions of permaculture simultaneously held and often within the same person.

I recommend that those who consider themselves part of permaculture get clear on what the rightful parameters of permaculture actually are, so that its power and benefit are optimized. This will yield support for the earth and its inhabitants rather than confusing or restricting our personal practices because the copywrite/ownership of permaculture sprawls beyond those rightful parameters.

Thanks for this vital exploration,
Akiva Werbalowsky
Ojai, CA











From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflondon@mindspring.com>

On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:23:44 +1000, Pacific Edge Permaculture
<pacedge@magna.com.au> wrote:

>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.


I think it is very shortsighted to make this statement. To throw
Bill's copyright to the winds would be, essentially, to abandon the
very standards and principles that have made this movement grow
steadily in acceptance and use since it began. To open this Pandora's
Box would be a huge mistake. "You never miss it until it's gone", you
know.




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page