permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>]

This thread shows how much confusion there is over the various permaculture
copyrights. Maybe we can clear some of this up.

So far, we know from Scott's post that the logo is trademarked, and it's
understood that the Design Manual, like any book, is copyrighted. Thus
neither can be reproduced in all or part without permission (outside of
what's called "fair use" for reviewing and limited educational use).

Two other points are less clear (and I raise this not to exploit the lack of
clarity, but to encourage us to tighten it up). One is Mollison's assertion
that the word "permaculture" is copyrighted and thus can only be used by
permission. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong here, though I've spoken
to my lawyer-brother, to my literary agent, and to my publisher. They tell
me that you can't copyright a single word, even one you've coined. You can
trademark it, a different process that requires registration, unlike
copyright (which applies automatically when a work is created). Though
trademark usually applies to manufactured goods (e.g. Coca-Cola), it is also
used for intangible services like Dianetics and Rolfing. Trademark would
accomplish exactly what Mollison wants to do with his assertion of
copyright: restrict who can use the term commercially, and insure that a
certain standard is maintained. Users of the trademark could then be
licensed in some way. (Whether "permaculture" can be trademarked is less
certain, since coined words that become used generically can't be
trademarked. Aspirin, escalator, and thermos are famous examples of products
that lost their trademark. Permaculture already may be too generic to be
trademarked.) 

This means that Bill's asserting restrictions over the use of a word may be
meaningless. That needs fixing.

The other point of confusion is the curriculum, which Bill says is
copyrighted. Copyright applies to specific works by an author. A book that
outlines the curriculum (like the Design Manual or course handbook) can be
copyrighted. But a collection of ideas or a group of subjects cannot be
copyrighted. Ernst Haeckel coined the word "ecology" but could not legally
control the teaching of ecology. Someone could teach the subjects covered in
the DM in their own style and call the course anything they want; they just
can't plagiarize by copying material from the DM and printing it in a
curriculum. This also works the other way: there is some leeway in what one
could cover in a course and still call it permaculture. Also, legally I
could paraphrase the Design Manual in my own words and be granted a
copyright on that work (that's what any textbook author does), as long as I
don't plagiarize Bill's physical work itself.

Again, I'm not suggesting that any of that, though legal, is ethical, or
that we disregard Bill's wishes--I intend to follow them--but legally, right
now he may have few enforceable rights over the teaching of permaculture and
the use of the word. I wish I could assume that everyone is ethical and will
adhere to Bill's high standards without any encouragement or legal coercion,
but that's not the case. So some sort of protection is necessary, and Bill
and the various Institutes should continue to pursue it.

Not being a lawyer I may misunderstand some of these issues, but that's my
interpretation of them.


Toby