THE PERFORMERS PROTECTION BILL

TUESDAY EDITION | PROFILE/ INTERVIEW 

WHY THE PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION BILL MUST BE SEPARATED — AND SIGNED NOW

By Thami akaMbongo Manzana 
| The Creative Passport 

For years, South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries (CCI) have been caught in a legislative stalemate. Two bills — the Performers’ Protection Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill — have been treated as inseparable twins, debated together, delayed together, and ultimately stalled together.

This approach has come at a cost — and that cost is borne most heavily by performers.

It is time to say this clearly:

The Performers’ Protection Bill must be separated from the Copyright Amendment Bill and signed into law immediately.

Not tomorrow. Not after consensus on “fair use”. Now.

Image: President Cyril Ramaphosa 

     (Source: www.gov.za)

PARKING THE COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL — FOR NOW

Let us be clear from the outset:

The Copyright Amendment Bill raises legitimate and complex concerns, particularly around the contested “fair use” clause. These concerns deserve focused, careful engagement — and they will be addressed in a separate article.

But continuing to bind the fate of performers to unresolved copyright disputes is neither fair nor strategic.

Performers should not be collateral damage in a broader legislative disagreement.

Image: DTIC Logo

  (Source: DTIC)

WHAT THE PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION BILL IS REALLY ABOUT

At its core, the Performers’ Protection Bill is not controversial. It is corrective.

The Bill seeks to:

- Protect performers from exploitation

- Ensure consent for the use of performances

- Guarantee equitable remuneration

- Recognise performers as rights-holders, not just contributors

- Align South Africa with international standards on performers’ rights

In practical terms, it acknowledges a simple truth:

A performance has value beyond the moment it is recorded or broadcast.

Image: DSAC Sector Clusters

(Source: DSAC)

THE REALITY PERFORMERS FACE TODAY

Without updated legislation, performers in South Africa continue to face:

- Use of their work without consent

- No control over how performances are distributed or monetised

- Once-off payments for work that generates long-term income for others

- Weak legal recourse when exploitation occurs

This is not a theoretical problem. It is lived reality across:

- Music

- Film and television

- Theatre

- Dance

- Spoken word

- Digital and streaming platforms

The absence of modern protection entrenches inequality within the very sector that is meant to express freedom, creativity, and dignity.

Image: Minister Parks Tau

  (Source: www.gov.za)

WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IF THE BILL WAS SIGNED INTO LAW

If President Cyril Ramaphosa were to sign the Performers’ Protection Bill into law — independently — the impact would be immediate and transformative.

1. Legal Recognition of Performers’ Rights

Performers would be recognised as rights-bearing professionals, not disposable inputs in the value chain.

2. Stronger Bargaining Power

Contracts would no longer be one-sided. Performers would negotiate from a position of legal backing rather than desperation.

3. Fairer Revenue Distribution

Ongoing use of performances would require compensation — particularly in an era dominated by streaming, rebroadcasts, and digital platforms.

4. Industry Stability

Clear rules reduce disputes, protect producers who operate ethically, and professionalise the sector.

5. Economic Inclusion

For many performers, sustainable income means dignity, employment continuity, and intergenerational wealth — not just exposure.

Image: Parliament of South Africa

   (Source: www.gov.za)

WHY SEPARATION IS THE ONLY LOGICAL PATH FORWARD

The insistence on treating the Performers’ Protection Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill as inseparable has created a false dependency.

Yes, the two intersect.

No, they do not require simultaneous resolution.

Legislative separation would:

- Allow progress where consensus already exists

- Reduce political risk

- Demonstrate responsiveness to performers’ needs

- Prevent indefinite delays caused by contested clauses elsewhere

- Most importantly, it would unlock implementation.

A law not implemented is not protection — it is symbolism.

Image: GNU Political Parties

  (Source: www.gov.za)

A CALL TO LEADERSHIP — AND UNITY

President Cyril Ramaphosa, and many in government, often speak about these two bills as if they can only exist together. But leadership sometimes requires recognising when decoupling is the most responsible choice.

This moment also presents an opportunity.

For once, the Cultural and Creative Industries can speak in one voice — not on everything, but on this:

- Performers must be protected.

- We may still be finding each other on copyright reform.

- We may still disagree on fair use.

- But on performers’ protection, there is common ground.

Image: Progressive Caucas Political Parties

 (Source: www.gov.za)

FROM AGREEMENT TO ACTION: QUESTIONS WE CAN NO LONGER AVOID

If we all agree that performers must be protected, then the real question is not what we believe — but what we are prepared to do.

To fellow practitioners:

Are we willing to organise beyond social media statements and panel discussions?

Will we formally petition for the separation and signing of the Performers’ Protection Bill?

Are we prepared to hold our own representative bodies accountable for inaction?

To industry organisations, unions, and collecting societies:

Have you issued a clear, unified position calling for immediate separation of the Bill?

What concrete steps are you taking to engage Parliament and the Presidency?

Are performers being meaningfully consulted, or merely referenced?

To policy-makers and government departments:

What is the legal justification for continuing to delay the Performers’ Protection Bill?

Why must performers wait for consensus on unrelated clauses elsewhere?

What message does this delay send to working artists trying to survive today?

To Parliamentary Committees and the Presidency:

If protection is agreed in principle, what is the obstacle to implementation?

What would it take — politically and procedurally — to sign this Bill now?

How long must performers remain unprotected in a digital economy that moves faster than legislation?

And to all stakeholders across the Cultural and Creative Industries:

Are we committed to action, or are we comfortable with another talk shop?

Will this be remembered as the moment we acted — or the moment we deferred again?

CONCLUSION: PROTECT THE PERFORMERS, UNLOCK THE SECTOR

Separating and signing the Performers’ Protection Bill would not weaken copyright reform — it would strengthen the creative ecosystem as a whole.

It would send a clear message:

- That performers matter

- That exploitation will no longer be normalised

- That South Africa values its creative labour

- That progress does not have to wait for perfection

- The Cultural and Creative Industries are watching.

- Performers are waiting.

The question is no longer whether performers should be protected —

it is who is prepared to act to make it happen.

The Creative Passport is an independent platform focused on Arts, Culture and the Creative Industries. Readers are encouraged to follow, comment and engage constructively.

HOW TO FOLLOW THE CREATIVE PASSPORT

RECEIVE POSTS BY EMAILS