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.

Ten Questions About Internet Governance

On April 23 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” also known as “NETmundial” in an allusion to the global football event that will occur later in that country, will be convened. Juan Alfonso Fernández González of the Cuban Communications Ministry and a veteran of the UN internet governance meetings, raises 10 questions that need to be answered at NETmundial.


Latest Comments
  • These obscured negotiations appear to this reader ... »
  • The EU or the US are not the banana states for whi... »

  • 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 >

    IP Experts Sign Declaration Seeking Balanced Copyright Three-Step Test

    Published on 24 July 2008 @ 9:30 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch
    Harmonisation of copyright regulation in recent years has overly “focussed on securing rightsholders’ ability to benefit from new modes of exploitation and business models” and has primarily served “the interests of copyright exporting countries.”

    This statement does not come from copyright critics, but from a group of well-known experts in copyright law mostly from Europe and one from the United States gathered at the annual conference of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP) held 21-23 July in Munich.

    The academics signed a declaration – initiated by this year’s ATRIP host, the Max Planck Institute of Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law – asking for “a balanced interpretation of the ‘three-step test’ in copyright law.”

    In the declaration, the academics argue that three-step test has in fact established “an effective means of preventing the excessive application of limitations and exceptions” to copyright. However, it adds, “there is not [a] complementary mechanism prohibiting an unduly narrow or restrictive approach.”

    Courts and national legislatures in recent years had been “wrongly influenced by restrictive interpretations of the test,” it said. But the test “does not require limitations and exceptions to be interpreted narrowly. They are to be interpreted according to their objectives and purposes,” demand the signatories.

    The so-called three-step test first laid down in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is integrated in several international copyright related treaties like the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, the rules under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the EU Copyright Directive.

    The test allows the narrowing of limitations and exceptions from copyright to special cases (first step) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work (second step) and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder (third step).

    Copyright, the academics underline, “aims to benefit the public interest” and “the public interest is not well served if copyright law neglects the more general interests of individuals and groups in society when establishing incentives for rightsholders.”

    Possible conflicts between authors as the original rightsholders and subsequent rightsholders have to be taken into account as well as third party interests. These interests include those “derived from human rights and fundamental freedoms”, “interests in competition” and the “general scientific progress and cultural, social, or economic development,” the declaration said.

    “The intention is not to do away with the three-step test,” said Christophe Geiger, researcher at the MPI in Munich and one of the co-authors of the original draft. “What we want to point out is that commercial interest is only one aspect of many to be taken into account. For the time being, the three-step test has very often been interpreted as if the commercial interest is the most important.”

    Geiger told Intellectual Property Watch that the drafting for the carefully worded declaration started two years ago and was influenced by the discussions about the development agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    Developing countries there had promoted, according to Geiger, an international treaty more clearly specifying exceptions and limitations. “We hope that the declaration will be discussed next year in the US and possibly also in Latin America,” he said, asserting that at the Munich conference, the text was very well received by international participants.

    Possible EU Changes on Limitations and Exceptions

    A discussion on possible changes to limitations and exceptions in EU copyright law has just been initiated by the European Commission with regard to the educational and research sector and also for disabled persons.

    EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, in charge of the Directorate General for Internal Market and Services, last week started a consultation on this issue by presenting the Commission’s green paper on copyright in the knowledge economy.

    Rainer Kuhlen, UNESCO chair in communications at the University of Constance (Germany) and one of the initiators of the German “Coalition for Action ‘Copyright for Education and Research’,” said to Intellectual Property Watch: “While the Commission once more focuses heavily on commercial exploitation of scientific content, I hope that the resulting consultation might backfire.”

    The coalition that plans to set up a European network on the issue of copyright for education and research in November has asked in recent years to make open access to content funded by public universities and research institutes “the default” and commercial exploitation of it the exception.

    Kuhlen said he hopes that the EU and national legislators in Europe could be convinced in the course of the consultation to introduce open-ended limitations and exceptions like the “fair use principle” instead of the existing list of 20 exceptions.

    The IP law experts in Munich say that this is already possible under the existing three-step test. “We certainly think that open-ended limitations and exceptions are covered and could be implemented,” said Geiger.

    The declaration may be signed here.

    Monika Ermert may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. john e miller says:

      The above article mentions that the Munich Declaration was adopted in 2008 – there were many signatories in 2008 and 2009 in addition to ‘the original research group’. The current list (English) is available at

      http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration-threesteptest/list_of_supporters.cfm#i34948

      There were an additional 8 signers in 2010; 3 signers in 2011; and none so far listed in 2012. At least for the USA, you will not see any signatories from the Law School Faculties of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UCLA, NYU, etc.

      However, these days you can find at least someone who wants to attach provisions of the Munich Declaration to almost any international IP Treaty or Act such as TPPA, ACTA, or the WIPO SCCR Copyright proposal for those with reading disabilities. To the best of my non-lawyerly research, the provisions of the Munich Declaration have never as yet been codified in any domestic or international legislation.

      For the upcoming WIPO SCCR 24 discussions, there is a proposed Article I. in SCCR23/7 that mentions:

      “The three-step test should be interpreted in a manner that respects the legitimate interests of third parties, including
      – interests deriving from human rights and fundamental freedoms”

      The proposed 23/7 instrument is already burdened by endless definitions. The Max Planck – Munich Declaration authors refer to the EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION which states at Article 26:

      Integration of persons with disabilities

      The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.

      This definition of ‘fundamental freedoms’ does little to specify what actual IP rights should be granted to Treaty Beneficiaries at Article B. whose definition of such persons is also yet to be finalized.

      One might also anticipate that some persons in Geneva at SCCR 24 will try to introduce elements of the Munich Declaration into the proposed SCCR 23/5 PROPOSAL ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES.

      For those who would oppose these 2 WIPO SCCR instruments, a stall-is-as-good-as-a-win.

      I am sure those opponents would be happy to discuss at length just what-is or could-be or might-be a ‘fundamental freedom’ to be so codified or maybe included as a new ‘Whereas’ in the respective Preambles … and maybe to carry such discussion to SCCR25 next winter and beyond.


    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 54.204.68.109