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.

How Listing Ukraine As A Priority Foreign Country In Special 301 Violates WTO Agreements

Prof. Sean Flynn asks whether US sanctions of Ukraine under the US Special 301 program violates World Trade Organization rules. He also asks whether the operation of watch lists threatening sanctions for intellectual property matters could be challenged under the WTO even prior to any sanction going into effect.





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 >


    WIPO Treaty For The Blind: Rightsholders Seek Safeguards, Civil Society Seeks Real Access

    Published on 21 February 2013 @ 5:46 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    While country delegates at the World Intellectual Property Organization are working to find consensus on a text to become a treaty for the benefit of blind and visually impaired people, industry and non-governmental organisations are pushing their agendas. 

    A special session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is taking place from 18-22 February to try to clean up a text before it is transmitted to a diplomatic conference in June, in Marrakesh, Morocco, expected to agree on a treaty.

    Two of the central remaining issues as of mid-week were: establishing limits on the scope of the limitations and exceptions to copyright law that the treaty is aiming to create in order to facilitate access to books and information for the blind and visually impaired; and enabling the cross-border exchange of books.

    Early yesterday, when the plenary reconvened after a difficult day of negotiations on the text, (IPW, WIPO, 20 February 2013) non-governmental organisations were invited to give comments. In their remarks, private-sector representatives favoured concepts that are regarded by developing countries, particularly the African Group, as diminishing the usefulness of the treaty were they to be included in the text.

    At the heart of the publishers’ concerns is the concept of commercial availability, in which entities authorised through the terms of the treaty have to make sure when importing a book in any accessible format that this particular book is not already commercially available on the national market in accessible format.

    The other issue is how, or whether, the concept of the so-called three-step test should be included in the text of the treaty. The three-step test comes from Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It provides limits to the right of reproduction, stating that reproductions should not “conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.”

    The three-step test must not become “an additional filter through which any exception that is developed here has to pass” – Library Copyright Alliance

    The International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) said that WIPO members were expected to create an enabling legal framework that “will empower rather than threaten the ability of rights holders to serve the market of visually impaired persons.”

    The three-step test is important because “the international exchange of entire copyright-protected works in digital formats which are so flexible that not only visually impaired people can have access to the content but everybody else as well is a white space in the international copyright framework,” the representative of the International Publishers Association said.

    Concerning the issue of commercial availability, he said it was not an extraneous issue but a core issue as, “commercial products are already and will increasingly become the primary direct source of accessible books for persons with print disabilities not only in developed countries … but in developing countries as well.”

    The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations said it is indispensable that the exceptions in the treaty be subject to the three-step since some of the WIPO members have not ratified other copyright treaties. “Exceptions in favour of print-disabled persons should be made subject to copies not being commercially available which is particularly important with respect to the cross-border transfer of accessible format copies.”

    For the Motion Picture Association representative, “bringing extraneous issues about or abusing the process to redefine basic copyright principles is unnecessary and unfair to both creative sectors relying on copyrights as an incentive to create and finance new works as well as VIP [visually impaired persons] who deserve a successful outcome in Marrakesh.”

    The three-step test, he said, is not a new obligation but “a practical device that flows from pragmatism and is based on compromise … it sets limits on the scope of exceptions.”

    The three-step test is “a practical device that flows from pragmatism and is based on compromise” – Motion Picture Association, speaking on a treaty about cross-border books for the blind.

    “Countries that ratify and implement this instrument, where necessary, will create new exceptions in their laws,” he said. Those exceptions are defined by the three-step test, which “does not exist in a vacuum and is not some horrible device that is imposed on people.” It functions now at the international and national levels, the MPA representative said, and although is it not invoked often, “when applied works well and provides solutions.”

    Blind Persons Stress Access Above All

    The World Blind Union said that the vast majority of blind and visually impaired people “live in poverty and have limited access to education.”

    “This is a serious issue,” he said, and “the idea of being able to have materials in an accessible format will not only provide leisure reading but the real core of education and with it the opportunity for a full and normal productive life.”

    “We are not copyright experts and do not have particular views on the three-step test, or fair dealings, or fair use, except to the degree that whatever language is agreed facilitates the practical implementation of a system that allows the maximum access to materials by blind and visually impaired people throughout the world,” he said.

    The National Federation of the Blind based in the United States said “we don’t wish any particular feelings towards us, pity or anything else, what we seek is opportunity, opportunity to vast amount of information that you, as sighted individuals, have every day,” calling delegates to work on core issues.

    Libraries Have Faith in Market, Authors Want Support

    The Library Copyright Alliance from the US said that with respect to commercial availability “surprisingly it seems that we, the libraries, have a greater faith in the operation of the market than our friends in the publishing industry.”

    According to the library group, if works are truly commercially available on reasonable terms and prices, publishers will always be the primary source for people with print disabilities who will only turn to authorised entities if the works are not commercially available. It is important, he said, that the three-step test does not become “an additional filter through which any exception that is developed here has to pass.”

    The representative of the British Copyright Council also providing comments on behalf of the International Authors Forum, herself an author, asked WIPO delegates to “remember that there are writers in every one of your countries, both sighted and visually impaired.”

    “We want to be as widely accessible as possible,” she said, and “we would like every one of the 280 million that we have heard of to be able to access our works and to take both pleasure and instruction from them.” However, she said, authors want to be “sufficiently supported so we can go on providing you with all the works that you need ”

    James Love of Knowledge Ecology International told Intellectual Property Watch later that “so far the US and the European Union have been acting as though they were working for the Motion Picture Association of America and other publishers.”

    “The notion by some that Hollywood owns the White House on copyright issues is hard to reject here,” he added.

    “That the MPAA and other entertainment companies are so heavily engaged here is surprising, because the White House already demanded that audiovisual works be excluded from the agreement,” Love said.

    KEI published a paper titled ” Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions?”

     

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. john e miller says:

      The IPA Representative is quoted above as having said in part:

      ” … the international exchange of entire copyright-protected works in digital formats … is a white space in the international copyright framework,”

      From “The Harvard Business Review” 03MAY2001:

      “We recently conducted a unique research project that tried to fill in those gaps. The project focused on what we call the whitespace: the large but mostly unoccupied territory in every company where rules are vague, authority is fuzzy, budgets are nonexistent, and strategy is unclear”

      http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2064.html/

    2. Misdt says:

      Wow, that quote “VIP [visually impaired persons] deserve a successful outcome in Marrakesh.”!
      The guy (coming from the country of political correctness) should be alerted that:
      - the VIP don’t ‘deserve’ anything – they have a right to access
      - that right is cast in the UNCRPD
      - UN means United Nations, a body of which WIPO is an agency and NOT an old-boys country club

    3. john e miller says:

      When noting the ‘right to access’ by persons with disabilities in the UN CRPD, what is most often referenced is Article 30.3 which states:

      3. States Parties shall take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials.

      The deliberations at WIPO SCCR are to determine what are in fact the ‘appropriate steps’. It does not say that Parties should take ‘any and all steps’.


    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 180.76.5.183