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.

Advertisement


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.

WHO Should Have The Evidence? Ben Goldacre Refutes WHO Director’s Claim

“Bad Science” adversary and journalist, Dr Ben Goldacre, this week challenged WHO Director of Ethics and Social Determinants of Health, Dr Rüdiger Krech, on his understanding of published evidence.





Latest Comments
  • As it happens, I own and create "intellectual prop... »
  • So long term planning of the UN Development Decade... »

  • 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 >


    Copyright Infrastructure In The Digital Age: Raising Awareness At WIPO

    Published on 19 October 2011 @ 10:50 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    A global meeting entitled “Enabling Creativity in the Digital Environment: Copyright Documentation and Infrastructure” was held recently at the World Intellectual Property Organization. Gathering representatives of governments, business leaders, academics, and other stakeholders, the conference was organised in the framework of the Development Agenda Thematic Project on Intellectual Property and the Public Domain.

    The 13-14 October conference programme is available here.

    During his welcome address, Trevor Clarke, WIPO assistant director general with responsibility for copyright, explained that the two-day conference was convened to raise awareness of member states of the important role that copyright infrastructure can play in development, especially in the digital environment. “Very often the same infrastructure and documentation that facilitates the exercise of copyright and related rights … can help the general public to delimit the public domain,” he said.

    With topics ranging from public registration and legal deposit systems to balanced and effective dissemination of creativity over the internet, the conference covered a lot of ground. Dr. Ismail Serageldin, director of the Library of Alexandria in Egypt, boiled down the meeting’s broad scope with a simple phrase during his keynote address: “Inventing the future is what this conference is all about.”

    In the context of the speed of development and change in the digital era, he said that there is an urgent need to promote works in the public domain and access to knowledge, to rethink the law and what is copyrightable, to recognise fair use for non-commercial exploitation, and to nurture artistic and creative development.

    The Business of Copyright Infrastructure Online

    Bringing together copyright experts, entrepreneurs, and business leaders, the panel session on “Copyright Infrastructure for Business Models Online” covered many issues related to copyright in a digital world which provoked intense reactions from audience members and a lively debate.

    “Copyright management is often quite a challenging, complicated endeavour, but copyright licensing shouldn’t be for users,” said Victoriano Colodrón, the executive director of RightsDirect, a European subsidiary of the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). “It should be an easy process for content users.”

    Colodrón illustrated his key message with three examples of successful online business models used by CCC to provide flexible copyright licensing solutions to multinational corporations. One of these models, RightsLink, used by publishing heavyweights such as the New York Times, Elsevier and Springer, places the licensing mechanism where the content is and where the content consumption takes place, allowing publishers to licence content on their websites.

    In the same session, Ralph Simon, CEO of Mobilium International, urged IP leaders to take into account the importance of mobile and smartphone use in the development of copyright infrastructure. He said that there will be just 360 million sales of PCs in 2011 compared to 1 billion mobile phone sales, emphasising that mobile growth is especially strong in African countries. “One of the key objectives and, I believe, imperatives of WIPO is it would be very important for us to try to gather in all of the TELCOs [telecommunication companies], handset makers, TELCO infrastructure providers because we need that constituency to help us with the process of copyright registration and copyright attribution…. And to help us to protect the creative rights of copyright creators.”

    Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Chief Technology Officer, Mitch Singer, came to the table with UltraViolet, an internet movie platform launched in the United States on 11 October. Singer describes the concept as “Blu-ray meets the Cloud,” as the platform provides the rights of a film purchased by a user so they can view the video on other devices and share it with family members. Backed by some of the biggest movie studios, UltraViolet is being hailed as a solution to the stagnation of digital movie distribution. It will soon be available in Canada and progressively in Europe.

    Panellist Jun Wu, chief executive director of R2G, China’s first centralised music distribution platform, evoked some of the challenges in today’s digital music environment and some solutions that seemed to hit a nerve with some conference participants. He argued that today, in the online digital music world, there is a huge imbalance between total revenue generated versus benefit reaped by content providers. He provided a figure to illustrate his point. In 2010, $2.7 billion US dollars of revenue in digital music consumption was generated in China. Of this, the music industry was only able to capture $40 million US dollars. He explained that that this gap is in part due to the lack of infrastructure to support and define copyright in a digital environment.

    “In the internet world,” he said, “we should be able to support multiple, different business models, however, we need to have an infrastructure to facilitate that. And currently today there is no such infrastructure.”

    In terms of what such an infrastructure would look like, Wu explained, “Through a unified registration process, copyright will have a very clear definition in the future. The definition should have a more direct association with the commercial value of that product. This means that even though the user-generated content might inherently have its own copyright, it is fundamentally different from a commercial copyright. Copyright should be very definable and it should not take 29 degrees to define what is a copyright.”

    The Future of Copyright in a Digital World

    During the question and answer period of this session, Clarke came back to this point asking for further explanation on eventual new ways of looking at copyright. Wu responded, saying that from a Chinese perspective, it is impossible to monetise copyright in the current system and called for a simplification of copyright to improve commercialisation.

    This suggestion provoked strong reactions from audience members. Jörg Evers, a classical composer and chairman of GEMA, one of the world’s largest societies of authors for works of music, responded by saying that such monetising difficulties were due to “a lack of proper legislation in China, because in Europe it’s very easy for an author to prove that he has written his work or written his music, so there is a lack of a proper protection of author’s rights.” Ndèye Abibatou Youm Diabe Siby, director general of the ministry of culture and communication of the Senegalese Copyright Office, said that although there are new economic realities, she found the suggestion to review the definition of copyright unnecessary and worrisome as it could undermine the work which has been done in terms of the protection of authors’ rights.

    In an interview following the session, Wu clarified his remarks, saying, “what I am suggesting is how we can provide an infrastructure so that part of what we understand as copyright today can be better monetised in the future in a digital world.”

    Access to Knowledge Issues

    During the session covering “Infrastructure Enabling Access to Knowledge” a number of topics were covered including preservation of creative material in the digital environment, infrastructure for beneficiaries of limitations, public domain databases, and orphan works.

    Dr. Silke von Lewinski, department head of international law at the Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property in Munich and author of “Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property: Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore”, spoke about the possibilities and challenges related to protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and whether or not there should be registries or databases of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). Among the challenges that she mentioned was that many indigenous peoples object to the idea of separating a TCE from its larger context (e.g., an event, a ceremony, a place) and do not agree with the idea of trying to codify them in a database. She also cautioned that creativity and access to knowledge are western values that indigenous peoples do not necessarily share in the same way.

    Maria Pallante, register of copyrights and director of the US Copyright Office, spoke about the progress that Washington has made developing orphan works legislation. The legislation would allow good-faith users of copyrighted content to move forward in cases where they wish to license a use but cannot locate the copyright owner after a diligent search. Although the House of Representatives did not pass the 2008 Orphan Works bill, Pallante said that “it was close” and that the legislation would be introduced again.

    Rachel Marusak Hermann may be reached at rachel@rachels-ink.com.

     

    Comments

    1. Morning Coffee with David Farrell, October 20 says:

      [...] In terms of what such an infrastructure would look like, Wu explained to a meeting of WIPO delegates, “Through a unified registration process, copyright will have a very clear definition in the future. The definition should have a more direct association with the commercial value of that product. This means that even though the user-generated content might inherently have its own copyright, it is fundamentally different from a commercial copyright. Copyright should be very definable and it should not take 29 degrees to define what is a copyright.” – Source: Intellectual Property Watch [...]

    2. sonal says:

      Dear sir, I have one question regarding this digital copyright- suppose if someperson ceated a theam (He is the owner) but other created copy &without his permission published on youtube.And 3rd person saw then can the original owner has right to take action on that 3rd person who has seen on youtube.

    3. In Egypt, Director Of Famed Library Of Alexandria Under Fire | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] In mid-October, Serageldin was the keynote speaker at a World Intellectual Property Organization conference in Geneva entitled, Enabling Creativity in the Digital Environment: Copyright Documentation and Infrastructure. He spoke in favour of access to knowledge, among other things (IPW, WIPO, 19 October 2011). [...]


    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 23.20.196.179