Study Of Public Domain, Copyright At WIPO Offers Recommendations 26/11/2010 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 9 Comments Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)A better definition of the public domain is needed, but copyright and public domain are not antagonistic, said a study commissioned by the World Intellectual Property Organization presented this week. Also this week, a book on the role of copyright in access to knowledge in Africa was launched. The study was presented in a side event to the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), which monitors the implementation of the 45 recommendations of the WIPO Development Agenda and is meeting from 22 to 26 November. Among those recommendations, some are specifically targeted towards the preservation of the public domain. The public domain is an important part of copyright and IP in general, said study author Severine Dusollier, professor at the University of Namur (Belgium).The study was completed in May, and commissioned by WIPO as part of a series of studies and surveys to address concerns raised under recommendations 16 and 20 of the WIPO Development Dusollier presented the study during the side event and at the plenary on Tuesday. Recommendation 16 asks to “consider the preservation of the public domain within WIPO’s normative processes and deepens the analysis of the implication and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain.” And Recommendation 20 asks to “promote norm-setting activities related to intellectual property that support a robust public domain in WIPO’s member states (…).” There is no antagonism between copyright and public domain, Dusollier said. The role of the public domain is to promote cultural heritage, and make it available. It allows low-cost access to works and can even give “a new life” to works out of copyright, and new interest from the public, she said, giving the example of the work of Freud which went into the public domain in Europe last year. In only the first six month of 2010, a number of new editions of Freud’s work were released, she said. One of the main problems of the public domain is a question of definition, she said. It is by default defined by elements not protected by copyright. However, there is need for a more positive definition, not only the inverted image of copyright, she said. This leads to a situation where there is no protection of the public domain as such and no fixed boundaries as the public domain is linked to variations of copyright laws. The difficulties related to the public domain definition also come from the principle of territoriality which makes it very difficult to identify the public domain in a cross-border project for example. The temporal scope of the protection also varies widely from one country to another, she said. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works gives 50 years minimum protection but most countries have 70 year term of protection, up to 100 years in Mexico. A number of countries have repeatedly extended copyright term, which has led to increasing criticism from civil society. The study offered a set of recommendations. To address identification issues, the rule of territoriality should be discussed, said Dusollier. Also, work should be done on the validity of the relinquishment of copyright, such as the publishing of works under a Creative Commons licence, and some international effort should be put into developing infrastructures for data. On availability and sustainability, the study recommends an enhanced role of cultural institutions such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and libraries. Work should also be undertaken to assess the effect of any extension of copyright on the public domain, Dusollier said, adding that renewed exclusivity in public domain material by IP rights or technical measures of protection on this material should be prohibited. Dusollier made a personal recommendation to pay special attention to technical protection measures, which have been applied to music because music is not protected by neighbouring rights, but could prove problematic if applied to other areas such as e-books. A new Shakespeare edition with two new introduction pages could be copyrighted for those two pages and have technical protection measures preventing access to the rest of the text, though it is in the public domain. Access to Knowledge in Africa and Copyright Separately, on 23 November, Geneva-based think tank IQsensato and the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge Project (ACA2K) launched a book entitled, Access to Knowledge in Africa: The Role of Copyright. The book aims to provide readers with a clearer picture of the legal and practical issues created by copyright for access to learning materials in Africa and provides information on best policies and practices that would enable a wider access. The book is based on the work of ACA2K and focuses on access to knowledge in eight African countries: Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda. Licensed under creative commons, the book can be downloaded here. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Related Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch."Study Of Public Domain, Copyright At WIPO Offers Recommendations" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Crosbie Fitch says 26/11/2010 at 10:20 am The public domain is all published works. So, I’d agree, unlike others, that the public domain does not exclude copyright protected works. However, to say copyright is not antagonistic to the public domain is pure newspeak. Copyright is a cultural pollutant; it impedes and imperils cultural intercourse and progress. The Corruption of Our ‘Public Domain’. Reply
john e miller says 28/11/2010 at 2:32 am Mr. Fitch quotes on his linked website: Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I’m a dreamer From Imagine by John Lennon … maybe he could start with Yoko Ono who doesn’t seem to share Mr. Fitch’s opinions. Reply
Crosbie Fitch says 29/11/2010 at 1:10 pm @john e miller, The thing is, it doesn’t matter what the author, their kin, or heirs thinks. The privilege is in the hands of the copyright holder (who is usually an immortal publishing corporation as opposed to the aforementioned mortals). Concerning ‘Imagine’, who indeed possesses the privilege to prosecute others for: printing copies of the lyrics speaking the lyrics in public singing the lyrics in public recording the singing of the lyrics preparing a derivative of the lyrics printing copies of the music notation to the song publicly performing the tune to the song … ad nauseum? Once upon a time, before a wicked Queen made a dreadful bargain, people were free to sing each other’s songs. And three centuries later, bankruptcy or jail awaits the delinquent youth who dare offend those privileged with the suspension of their cultural liberty. Copyright to John Lennon’s work may well be a matter now out of Yoko’s hands. Either government abolishes this instrument of injustice, or the people will. Whereas an individual’s conscience may pang them to restore the public’s liberty, publishing corporations lack all such compunction – monopolies are as crack cocaine to these immortal entities. Reply
john e miller says 29/11/2010 at 11:48 pm courtesy BusinessWeek.com 16NOV2010 re: mortals — Ownership of the Beatle’s music catalog rests with various parties, including surviving members of the band Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, as well as Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison. The band’s record label EMI Group Ltd., Sony Corp. and the estate of Michael Jackson also control some rights. “The Beatles music is one of the most complex sets of copyrights and ownership situations in the entire history of the music industry,” said Aram Sinnreich, a media professor at Rutgers University, who follows the music business.” Note that John Lennon’s solo work is still (most likely) controlled by his estate…If Yoko Ono were to ‘pang’ maybe someone will listen. Reply
Crosbie Fitch says 30/11/2010 at 10:42 am @john e miller, Quite. In terms of our cultural liberty, it is always the ‘copyright holder’ who holds it (until it expires after a century or however long copyright’s term is extended). The artist is often quickly divested of this privilege when they sign to a record label. The situation is now beyond persuading copyright holders to relent. Musicians and their fans are today having to reject the entire disreputable edifice of copyright and just share & remix, e.g. Grey Album. The bankers have seen to it that people aren’t much worse off bankrupt anyway, so this penalty for taking liberties isn’t too terrible a prospect. It is possible that Beatles fans would be emboldened by Yoko’s endorsement of them taking back their liberty to share and build upon the Beatles’ work, but then she is no doubt under extreme pressure to toe the corporate line, and denounce anyone who dares to even imagine sharing all the world. Reply
john e miller says 01/12/2010 at 2:26 am U.S. Shuts Down Web Sites in Piracy Crackdown http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?scp=3&sq=torrent&st=cse Reply
William New says 01/12/2010 at 5:14 pm on US website crackdown, see also the IP-Watch report here: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/29/us-counterfeit-crackdown-has-industry-beaming/ Reply
[…] According to WIPO, during the last session of the CDIP, member states decided to follow a recommendation by the secretariat to commission a study on voluntary copyright relinquishment. This follows one of the recommendations of a scoping study on copyright and related rights and the public domain [pdf], carried out by Séverine Dusollier, professor at the University of Namur (IPW, WIPO, 26 November 2010). […] Reply