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.

Analysis: Monkey In The Middle Of Selfie Copyright Dispute

The recent case of a monkey selfie that went viral on the web raised thorny issues of ownership between a (human) photographer and Wikimedia. Two attorneys from Morrison & Foerster sort out the relevant copyright law.


Latest Comments
  • are you aware that within the photographic industr... »
  • A VPN is a virtual private network, which generall... »

  • 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 Committee To Decide Fate Of Treaties To Protect TK, Genetic Resources, Folklore

    Published on 23 July 2013 @ 1:56 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Intellectual Property Organization committee members will decide by tomorrow whether to recommend WIPO move to final high-level negotiations on the protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore.

    The 25th session of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), taking place from 15-24 July.

    All delegations taking the floor in a 22 July WIPO committee meeting appeared to support the continuation of the work of the committee for another two years. But only developing countries insisted on the binding character of the instrument or instruments being discussed in the committee, and the need to set a clear date for a high-level meeting (diplomatic conference) during the next biennium.

    After a week described as difficult by delegations, WIPO members on 22 July launched into a three-day stock-taking exercise to evaluate progress made, identify areas of specific concern, and future work on the protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore (traditional cultural expressions).

    This IGC session has a double purpose. One was to advance work on a draft instrument protecting specifically traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) during the first five days (IPW, WIPO, 18 July 2013).

    The other is the stock-taking of TCEs, and – based on earlier meetings this year - genetic resources (GR) (IPW, WIPO, 8 February 2013), and traditional knowledge (TK) (IPW, WIPO, 28 April 2013).

    Last week on TCEs, efforts to clean the draft text of brackets were laborious. A first revised version of the draft text was issued on 17 July, and a second revision [pdf] of the text was released on the last day (19 July), with the plenary agreeing to transmit it to the WIPO General Assembly in September.

    Diplomatic Conference in 2014-2015 Biennium?

    Algeria, on behalf of the African Group, said the IGC is of particular importance for the African continent and the conclusion of the IGC would lead to an increase in development and wealth of its population.

    In the three draft texts, the issues are clearly set, the delegate explained, citing the subject matter of protection, the beneficiaries of the protection, the scope of protection, and exceptions and limitations.

    As a way forward, the African Group asked that the mandate be renewed and that a clear time line be established, with a number of sessions of the IGC determined so that the texts are ready for a diplomatic conference. The need for thematic sessions and cross-cutting sessions of the IGC should be recognised, the delegate said.

    This was supported by a large number of developing countries, such as the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), and a “like-minded group,” represented by Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt, India, and South Africa, who said it is “quite evident” that some member states are showing a lack of political will. Many developing countries who took the floor deemed the texts mature enough to plan for a diplomatic conference.

    Belgium, on behalf of the Group B developed countries, said the group is seeking a balanced outcome for protection of TK, TCEs and GR. The result, the delegate said, should be a solution that provides clarity, legal certainty and flexibility for all stakeholders. Despite progress on the texts, outstanding issues remain, he said.

    “We do not find that our discussions have yet resulted in outcomes that lend themselves to be the basis for an instruments, or instruments of a legal nature whether binding or non-binding,” the Belgian delegate said. He added that Group B continues to believe that successful outcomes are achievable but that any outcome mutually decided should acknowledge that the protection of TK, TCEs and GR should not adversely affect creativity and innovation.

    The United States said that within WIPO, the topic of IP has different levels of support with some strong supporters of IP protection and others in favour of a weaker protection, some promoting harmonisation of systems while others promote exceptions and limitations to IP rights. It is thus not surprising that developing consensus on issues addressed in the IGC is time-consuming, it said.

    “We would like to avoid any commitments that would prejudge the outcome of our work,” the US delegate said.

    Detailed discussions of facts and a meaningful technical discussion have been lacking in the process he said, calling for studies on the use of a mandatory disclosure requirement in patent applications, which would be helpful to the debate. With room for discussion of specific examples and the opportunity to be informed by studies, “the US can support the extension of the IGC mandate,” he said.

    TCEs “Most Frustrating Meeting of the Year”?

    Australia delivered a stern statement saying that last week’s discussions on the TCEs text had been “perhaps the most frustrating of our meetings this year,” in contrast to the progress achieved on GR “with disclosure proponents agreeing on an administrative approach to disclosure rather than substantive examination, this was a significant shift in position from a number key countries.”

    Although TK did not achieve such progress, discussions were conducted in a very positive spirit with robust but respectful discussions, he said. He called for delegations, as a way forward, to better capture the spirit of these meetings than last week.

    He also asked that delegations come to the IGC “prepared to discuss core policy issues of substance and engage collaboratively with each other, and not use the excuse ‘I must contact capital’.” At this stage, the delegate said, “Australia would hope member states are appropriately represented by capital of Geneva-based staff of sufficient seniority, technical and policy competence, and authority to negotiate, based on a clear negotiating strategy in good faith.”

    He also called for delegations “not divide our negotiations into a north-south debate,” stating that Australia was considered as a developed country but “has much in common with developing countries.”

    Australia aligned itself with Group B and said more work is needed, supporting the extension of the IGC mandate.

    Mandatory Disclosure, Public Domain

    A number of developed and developing countries said a critical issue blocking progress in the GR discussions is in relation to the mechanism requiring disclosure of origin of genetic material. On this subject, Australia noted that “many arguments against disclosure reflect a dated position not based on what is on the table, an administrative approach not based on substantive examination.”

    The EU said the disclosure requirement would create legal uncertainty and there is still disagreement whether disclosure should be included in the instrument or not. The EU also said that it was important on TK and TCE to make sure material to be protected was not already in the public domain. This concern was shared by several developed countries, such as the US.

    Developing countries are strong proponents of mandatory disclosure.

    The indigenous community called for the committee to take into account other international instruments, in particular human rights laws. The representative of the Tulalip Tribes said the public domain is a copyright concept.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.83.243.241