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 Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea 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.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    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 >


    ‘Positive Noises’ On Resuming Talks On WIPO Audiovisual Performances Treaty

    Published on 9 September 2009 @ 8:12 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Intellectual Property Organization this week may have witnessed the beginnings of a resumption of high-level negotiations on an international treaty on the protection of audiovisual performances.

    Informal open-ended consultations on protection of audiovisual performances were held in the context of a 7-9 September WIPO meeting on the half-century-old International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, known as the Rome Convention of 1961.

    A high-level negotiation – known as a diplomatic conference – held in the year 2000 collapsed in disagreement and has not been able to be restarted by proponents. Until now.

    “Everyone seems to be keen to start discussing negotiations,” a European private-sector participant said after the consultation. Another participant said, “There was a general attitude of encouraging [talks], positive noises.”

    A third was more cautious, saying only that some participants “saw a glimmer and are trying to make fire.”

    And a WIPO official concluded, “There’s a scale of enthusiasm. [But] nobody spoke against agreement.”

    Several sources said producers who in the past had been opposed to talks on the transfer of rights section of the draft treaty signalled some flexibility this time. It appears according to sources that there was a suggestion that where in the past US producers have insisted the treaty follow the US approach on transfer of rights, they might now consider a treaty that preserves national approaches like that of the US but does not limit it to that.

    The next step for audiovisual is unclear but the subject falls under the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and it is expected the subject will be addressed by the WIPO General Assemblies, to be held from 22 September to 1 October. The next SCCR meeting is scheduled for 14-18 December, and the audiovisual treaty is on the agenda.

    According to the European source, a new diplomatic conference, should one be held, could pick up with the same text from 2000 and focus only on the sticky issue of transfer of rights. In the 2000 text, four alternatives were offered on this, as described in the background document for this week’s informal, open-ended consultations.

    These four were based on: a rebuttable presumption of transfer of rights of audiovisual performers; the model of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Article 14bis (2), which established in favour of the producer an entitlement to exercise the rights of performers; principles of private international law, which apply the law of the country most closely connected to the subject matter; and finally, an option of no provision at all relating to transfer.

    According to another participant, one suggestion was to create a stakeholder platform like has been done in the context of discussions on a WIPO treaty for the visually impaired.

    A representative for the producers could not be reached by presstime.

    Rome Convention

    The draft report for the Rome Convention meeting on Monday and Wednesday (with the audiovisual consultation between) will be available here shortly. The draft report was adopted with only minor technical changes, an official said.

    Since the Rome Convention took effect in 1961, WIPO, along with the International Labour Organization and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have held regular meetings on it. The last meeting was at UNESCO in Paris in 2005. In recent years it has become apparent that there may not be significant changes to the convention (as separate, new treaties have been negotiated at WIPO and elsewhere to address new needs), making it less necessary to hold the meeting, sources said. It was agreed this week again to suspend the mandated biennial meeting of the Rome Convention parties, and that the next meeting would be within a year of any “decisive new development.”

    On the WIPO treaty on broadcasters rights, which saw a failed attempt at a diplomatic conference in 2007, the secretariat is commissioning a study on the socioeconomic dimension of the unauthorised use of signals, expected to be available for discussion in the following SCCR meeting in 2010, according to the draft Rome Convention report.

    On the future of the Rome Convention, a document was drafted for the meeting by the three secretariats that described work done in recent years, mainly in WIPO, but offered little in the way of substantive proposals for changes to the convention.

    William New may be reached at wnew@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.