SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    WIPO Event Addresses Tensions Of Librarians And Publishers In Digital Archiving

    Published on 17 July 2008 @ 6:26 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Kaitlin Mara
    Records of human history and creativity – glimpses into the past caught on papyrus or in carefully preserved books – might themselves become things of the past without better ways to create permanent record in an increasingly digitised world, said speakers at a 15 July conference at the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    “One of the fundamental challenges of the day,” said keynote speaker Clifford Lynch of the Coalition for Networked Information, is establishing “a culture that honours stewardship.” He added that “our intellectual legacy” is “more fragile than in the past” due to both ease of elimination of copyrighted works – thanks to centralised databases, rather than dispersed print copies – and difficulty involved in legal copying.

    The event, titled “International Workshop on Digital Preservation and Copyright,” brought together librarians, lawmakers, publishers and archivists on 15 July to discuss the state of play of copyright law on digital works, and strategise ways to better preserve digitised culture.

    International Study

    Co-sponsors to the WIPO event – the United States Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, the Joint Information Systems Committee of the United Kingdom, the Australian Open Access to Knowledge Law Project at Queensland University of Technology, and the Dutch SURFfoundation – published this month an extensive “International Study on the Impact of Copyright Law on Digital Preservation,” examining the various applicable laws in the four countries, and issuing recommendations to encourage digital preservation.

    Common themes also were found in the opening panel discussing various jurisdictions’ ways of dealing with potential conflicts between preservation and copyright. Applying a “three step test,” which asks if an action is a special case that will infringe upon neither the normal interests of the rights holder nor the rights holder’s ability to exploit the work, before allowing copyright exceptions was common in many jurisdictions, said Adrienne Muir of Loughborough University in the United Kingdom.

    But it is also widely recognised that current copyright laws are not modern enough to reflect the online world, she added.

    Existing legislation, explained Ben White of the British Library, is “too based on analogue” publications. For instance, there are laws that allow for copying of copyright work to replace a lost or damaged part of a library’s permanent collection. But “what is a permanent collection,” asked White, “if it is digital?”

    Ten recommendations made at the end of the international study call for measures to save “at risk” copyright material, including by granting necessary privileges to public institutions, such as libraries or museums, so that they may preserve copyrighted material against loss, damage, deterioration, or technical obsolescence. It is explicitly acknowledged that “reproduction and retention” of copies of the work, transfer of the work to different formats to keep pace with technology, and communication of the work between preservation institutions might be necessary for effective preservation.

    June Besek of Columbia Law School in the US explained one reason why making copies is necessary. In US copyright law, copies are allowed for missing, damaged and hard to replace copyright works. But, she said, in the digital world damage can occur quickly and without warning. In situations like these, the old laws do not allow for proactive preservation.

    Alejandro Martín of the Biblioteca del Banco de la República in Colombia illustrated the need for digital updates to copyright law when he spoke of the divide between wealthy and poor, urban and rural areas in his country and the need to be able to transfer information – preferably digitally – between branches of the national library.

    Archivists, says the international study, should work with rights holders to allow preservation without harming the interest of content creators. Its authors add that further research is needed on how to provide access to copyright content once archived.

    Orphans, Access, and Time

    Digital preservation also brings with it additional questions that were not possible under the old analogue system. Previously, explained Lynch, the idea of preservation was that individuals at some point would access the data directly. But now there is a desire to analyse documents and data – digital uses of archiving that will need different kinds of regulation.

    There also is a problem of choosing what to preserve. Magdy Nagy from the Bibliotheca Alexandria in Egypt told of his library’s initial attempt to archive television programs, in which they found it would take 6 hours to annotate a single hour of content for later searching. In this case, he said, copyright was less a difficulty than time.

    Howard Besser of New York University brought up the problem of orphan works, those for which the rights holder is not known or cannot be found. It is important to answer the question, he said, of how to deal with such material.

    Abbie Grotke of the US Library of Congress spoke of fair use in internet harvesting – and how it plays into the kinds of websites that can be collected. After September 11, 2001 she said, the library started collecting all the data it could, sending notifications to “info@” and “webmaster@” addresses. But now they are trying to get permission from sites they archive, especially creative sites and blogs. Lack of response to requests of permission is a big problem: some 70 percent of those emailed do not answer.

    And finding the proper addresses of site owners is time consuming. It took 10,000 work-hours, she said, to archive the internet coverage of the 2004 election in the United States.

    Access, too, poses important questions. Whereas there were previously physical barriers to accessing archived material – one had to get to a library, and be granted permission to access the archives – digitisation makes ease of access much simpler, and thus increases the need for clear access regulation.

    Several e-journal archivists spoke about the kinds of ‘trigger events’ that would lead them to allow libraries access to archived content. These include the publication ceasing its operation, the e-journal becoming no longer available, or the catastrophic failure of the libraries resources (such as a blackout).

    But then, user access also is a question. Electronic journal archives represent the “minutes of science,” said White, so it is important for researchers to be able to see them. The leading modern malaria drug, he said by way of example, was re-discovered when researchers went through a post World War II archive of Chinese medical journals.

    Newspaper archivists said charging for content is in question. The industry is heading in the direction of free content, panellists said, but did not know how the trend would last. Catherine Müller of the Swiss Press said advertising was becoming the business model, while Anne Louise Schelin, of the International Federation of Journalists in Denmark, said that libraries “have always offered something for readers that means a loss of income for publishers.” Digitisation must satisfy rights holders, but, said Schelin, there is also a right of open access for users.

    Costs of library archives was further raised as a concern. It is cheaper to archive immediately, said White, who added that waiting years for publisher permission to store copies sends prices “through the roof.”

    Exceptions and Limitations Needed for Least Developed Countries

    But none of these discussions are directly applicable to least developed countries, Riaz Tayob of the Third World Network said at the event. No least developed nations were represented in the WIPO discussion. The situation is different in these locations, said Tayob, so there must be special provisions. Free trade agreements causing convergence in copyright law, or causing LDCs to adopt copyright law as practiced in more developed nations, are not necessarily beneficial for the poorest countries. Measures like compulsory licensing, or alternative licensing – such as the Creative Commons model – for preservation purposes should be discussed.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.196.195.207