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 Negotiators Reach Breakthrough On “3-Step Test” In Treaty For Blind

    Published on 24 June 2013 @ 2:06 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Marrakesh Conference CenterMarrakesh, Morocco – A breakthrough was reached over the weekend in the World Intellectual Property Organization negotiations to provide more access to visually impaired people, according to participating sources. Agreement appears to have been struck on the controversial issue of restrictions to the exceptions to copyright that the treaty is proposing to establish.

    A revised draft treaty text [pdf] was issued on 22 June. Accessible format is available here.

    The so-called three-step test has been a thorny issue in the negotiations (IPW, WIPO, 14 June 2013). But a new proposed text was issued which is described as a breakthrough by most.

    A version of the agreed three-step test text was circulated over the weekend and will be made available here soon.

    The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as “the Berne gap,” which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

    The Marrakesh Conference Center (Photo Credit: Catherine Saez, IP-Watch)

    The Marrakesh Conference Center (Photo Credit: Catherine Saez, IP-Watch)

    The WIPO Diplomatic Conference is taking place from 17-28 June in Marrakesh, Morocco. The aim is to reach a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by print-disabled persons.

    According to some sources, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry on 22 June asked delegates to step up the pace of their negotiations and show flexibility.

    The new text states that when an authorised entity in one of the treaty contracting parties receives an accessible format copy of works, and that particular country is not a member of the Berne Convention, the country will ensure that the accessible format copy is only reproduced and distributed for the benefit of beneficiary persons in that country, according to its national law.

    The text also contains two agreed statements. One says that nothing in the treaty creates any obligations for a contracting party to ratify or accede to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) or to comply with any of its provisions. It also says that nothing in the treaty prejudices any rights, exceptions and limitations contained in the WCT. The second agreed statement says that nothing in the treaty either reduces or extends the scope of exclusive rights under any other treaty.

    According to delegates both from developed and developing countries, this compromise language was agreed on by all and represents a breakthrough in one of the main diverging issue in the treaty.

    The African Group had submitted a proposal [pdf] on the issue of the three-step test and the Berne gap on 22 June, which, according to an African Group source, was rejected by the United States. The African Group proposal stated that “Any Contracting Party which is not a member of the Berne Convention/relevant international treaties and which, upon becoming a member if this treaty permits its authorized entities to re-distribute accessible format copies received pursuant to Article D shall ensure consistent with its own legal system and practices that it does so only in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author/right holder.”

    According to the source, the text that was subsequently agreed upon is very close to the African Group proposal, and even provides a better deal. “We are thrilled,” said the source.

    During a plenary meeting on 23 June, the chair of the main Committee I, Ambassador Selim Kuneralp of Turkey, presented a general summary of the work of the committee, and asked Martin Moscoso of Peru, the vice-president of Committee I, to summarise the work on the specific topics under discussion. It was confirmed that delegates had reached “a full consensus” on both the three-step test and the Berne gap, without any brackets, although the text was not available to most yet. Moscoso said this has changed the spirit of the discussions and there was hope to reach similar achievements on other issues.

    Delegates are expected to deliver consensual text to the drafting committee, which is supposed to start work tomorrow. Moscoso said delegates had been discussing technological protection measures (TPMs) on 23 June with a tentative text still under full brackets, being circulated and needing more discussions. He said delegates were “on the brink of a solution.”

    The placement of the text on the three-step test and the Berne gap, and the one that might be issued on TPMs, is not clear at the moment, he said. According to some sources, the text has not been formally released because it is part of a “package” including other remain issues, such as commercial availability.

    The new agreed text on the Berne gap and the three-step test was also welcomed by non-governmental organisations and industry, as an important step forward.

    [Update:] A new version of the daft treaty text was issued on 24 June, and shows the latest language on three-step test and Berne gap. The text reads as follows:

    Article 5.4 – “When an Authorized Entity in a Contracting Party receives accessible format copies pursuant to Article [D(1)] and that Contracting Party does not have obligations under Article 9 of the Berne Convention, it will ensure consistent with its own legal system and practices that the accessible format copies are only reproduced, distributed or made available for the benefit of beneficiary persons in that/its jurisdiction.

    The distribution and making available of accessible format copies received by an Authorized Entity in a receiving contracting party pursuant to Article [D(1)] shall be limited to beneficiary persons in that receiving contracting party unless the contracting party is a Member of the WIPO Copyright Treaty or otherwise limits exceptions and limitations implementing this Treaty to the right of distribution and the right of making available to certain special cases which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

    Nothing in this agreement shall be used to address the issue of exhaustion of rights.

    Footnote 13:
    Agreed statement concerning Article [D4]: It is understood that nothing in this Treaty creates any obligations for a Contracting Party to ratify or accede to the WCT or to comply with any of its provisions and nothing in this Treaty prejudices any rights, exceptions and limitations contained in the WCT.

    Footnote 14:
    Agreed statement concerning Article [D4]: It is further understood that nothing in this Treaty reduces or extends the scope of exclusive rights under any other treaty.” [end update]

    Industry Supportive of New Text, Question on Exports

    A representative of the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), told Intellectual Property Watch that on the language of the new text, there is significant progress as it addresses the issue of re-exporting copies of work received under the exception provided by the future treaty, but it does not however address the main issue for industry, that of the export of copies that are made in the country. However, he said, a solution is possible.

    Of concern for industry are for example larger developing countries such as Brazil or India, or others which are not part of the Berne Convention and in which companies could be hosted that engineer a large volume of accessible format works, the representative said. In no way against this role, he said, industry feels exports from those companies should be subject to the three-step test, as the re-exports currently are under the draft text.

    Issues Still on Table

    At the outset of the meeting, according to sources, some 37 issues were still pending, with four or five notable ones.

    A number of issues still remain to be solved before the drafting committee starts its work, such as commercial availability, the rights of translation, technical protection measures, and the exportation of accessible format copies of works to individuals. This is particularly important, a visually impaired observer told Intellectual Property Watch, in small African countries and poorer countries.

    Carlo Scollo Lavizzari, legal council for STM, told Intellectual Property Watch that all parties are interested in practical progress and all realise that exceptions are not the “be-all, end-all.”

    “Access on the ground will only be delivered if all stakeholders play their role and cooperate: private sector, public sector, governments, charities, and self-help organisations,” he said. “The right treaty would support rather than hinder this.”

    “Commercially available accessible works are the best way to get to equal access, rather than second-best files or ebooks where accessibility is retrofitted,” he said, adding, “ Having said that, publishers admit that there will always be legacy content and so there is a role for exceptions in the absence of commercial availability.”

    Another source from industry said commercial availability needs to be preserved as publishers are at the forefront of the solutions to provide accessible copies and distribute them, and in “no way a problem.”

    Visually Impaired Persons Keep the Pressure On

    Marcus Low, a blind member of the Civil Society Coalition, gave a pointed comment to Intellectual Property Watch on what he perceived the industry is doing in the negotiations. “It has become depressingly clear from the negotiations that the United States and European delegations are here primarily representing the interests of publishers and groups like the Motion Picture Association of America. While these delegations publicly pretend to care about blind people, it is a very different story once the doors of the negotiating rooms close.”

    “Simply having a treaty concluded might make some negotiators and politicians very happy, but it will not necessarily make a difference in the lives of blind people. A weak treaty will be of little or no value,” he said. “Whether or not we get a treaty that truly improves access to books for blind people depends on a number of technical issues in the text that at this point remain undecided.”

    Seeking to Raise Awareness about Negotiations

    On 24 June, in front of the Palais des Congrès where the diplomatic conference is taking place, the World Blind Union scheduled to hold a press event and happening, according their announcement. It said that “Blind groups and blind individuals will on Monday morning call on negotiators to stop stalling and playing politics with their futures.”

    Knowledge Ecology International has published on their website the answer from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they had filed on 7 May. In their request, KEI asked “that all correspondence sent to the USPTO from Disney, Viacom, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) or members of MPAA, regarding the WIPO treaty on copyright exceptions for persons who are blind for the time period 2013.”

    Subsequently, the USPTO identified 142 pages of related documents in which can be seen the concerns of industry about the treaty and proposed changes in the text that would alleviate those concerns, in particular the three-step test and the Berne gap. Emails in that document bear the names of regular WIPO observers and some are addressed to Justin Hughes, one of the US negotiators at WIPO and that diplomatic conference.

    Committees

    WIPO also issued the list of officials [pdf] who were elected to different committees (Credentials Committee, Main Committee I, Main Committee II, Drafting Committee), as well as the first report [pdf] of the Credentials Committee.

    According to a WIPO official, the Credentials Committee reviews the credentials of delegates to make sure they comply with the rules of procedure and determines which delegations have credentials to sign the final act and which ones have the credentials to sign the treaty.

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

     

    Comments

    1. Rachel Tenchin says:

      Glad WIPO is finally taking this important step!

    2. john e miller says:

      As mentioned above, KEI received an FOIA request of emails between industry representatives and US Government officials. In that 142 page document, there were eight references to the Munich Declaration which was the substance of the now withdrawn Article I.

      Withdrawn or otherwise, what is going on here may be that industry representatives and some Member States see the broader use of exceptions & limitations based on (as in the former Article I.) “human rights and fundamental freedoms” in other pending WIPO treaties and elsewhere as the focal point, rather than the minutiae as to how to deliver accessible copies around the world to appropriate Article B Beneficiary Persons — and to ONLY those persons.

    3. New Draft Text Shows Progress On WIPO Treaty On Books For The Print-Disabled | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] e miller on WIPO Negotiators Reach Breakthrough On “3-Step Test” In Treaty For BlindAs mentioned above, KEI received an FOIA request o… [...]

    4. USPTO responsAbility » Progress Made on Treaty for the Blind says:

      [...] This article from Intellectual Property Watch provides a good background of the treaty and details of the recent breakthrough. [...]

    5. Miracle In Marrakesh: “Historic” Treaty For Visually Impaired Agreed | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] e miller on WIPO Negotiators Reach Breakthrough On “3-Step Test” In Treaty For BlindAs mentioned above, KEI received an FOIA request o… [...]

    6. WIPO Treaty for the Blind Shows that Transparency Can Work (and is Necessary) » infojustice says:

      [...] uses of limitations and exceptions in national laws, that news was released to the public (enabling public news stories on it), along with the draft text of the agreement. There are now reports that a majority of the [...]

    7. Miracle In Marrakesh: “Historic” Treaty For Visually Impaired Agreed – infojustice.org | Morocco On The Move says:

      [...] After a difficult beginning of the week when progress was very limited on issues on which delegations stood firm, relief first came last Saturday when agreement was reached on the three-step test and the so-called Berne gap (IPW, WIPO, 24 June 2013). [...]

    8. WIPO Treaty For The Blind Shows That Transparency Can Work (And Is Necessary) | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] of limitations and exceptions in national laws, that news was released to the public (enabling public news stories on it), along with the draft text of the agreement. There are now reports that a majority of the [...]

    9. Miracle à Marrakech: un traité “historique” pour les déficients visuels | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] Après un début de semaine difficile pendant laquelle les délégations restaient sur leurs positions, les progrès s’avéraient insignifiants.  Samedi, c’est avec un grand soulagement qu’un accord était conclu sur le test en trois étapes et ce qui a été appelé le « Berne gap » (IPW, WIPO, 24 June 2013). [...]

    10. Copyright Week: WIPO Treaty for the Blind Shows that Transparency Can Work (and is Necessary) » Creative Commons U.S. says:

      […] uses of limitations and exceptions in national laws, that news was released to the public (enabling public news stories on it), along with the draft text of the agreement. There are now reports that a majority of the […]

    11. Copyright Week: WIPO Treaty for the Blind Shows that Transparency Can Work (and is Necessary) Copyright Week: WIPO Treaty for the Blind Shows that Transparency Can Work (and is Necessary) » Creative Commons U.S. says:

      […] uses of limitations and exceptions in national laws, that news was released to the public (enabling public news stories on it), along with the draft text of the agreement. There are now reports that a majority of the […]


    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 54.211.7.174