Monthly Archives: November 2018

Here, but Not Evenly Distributed: Libraries, Innovation and the Right to Science

Every innovation with global impact nonetheless starts somewhere. The World Wide Web was conceived of at CERN in Geneva. Radio in Bologna, Italy, block printing in China.

Between the moment of invention – or discovery – and worldwide uptake, there is a more or less rapid spread, through communication, trade, and imitation.

Who is able to benefit from the results of scientific research and innovation (and when) has a major impact on development. A key example today is still the internet, to which only half of the world’s population currently have access.

This situation provides a reminder (if one was needed) of William Gibson’s quote about the future, which he described as ‘here, but not evenly distributed’.

It also provides a reminder (much more necessary, most likely) of Article 27a of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which underlines that ‘everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits’.

What was written in 1948 is as relevant as ever today. The need to support the spread of new technologies to developing countries features in the UN’s 2030 Agenda (SDG 17). In line with the overall objective of the Agenda, no-one should be left behind for want to access to existing ideas.

This is not just a question of luck or economics, but of fundamental rights. We need to make the road from invention and discovery to global application as short as possible.

What stands in the way?

A key issue highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights in her 2012 report is excessive privatisation of knowledge. There always needs to be means of giving access to science, of finding a balance between incentivising creation and giving everyone a chance to benefit. When the cost of articles, books or other materials is too high, people are excluded.

Libraries provide a key response to this. Through their own collections – and collaboration across borders – they have a major role in the spread of innovation and research. At the same time, they access content legally, and make a major contribution to the creation and publishing of knowledge.

In this same spirit, libraries have also been at the heart of the Open Access movement – trying to find a model of sharing knowledge without any financial barriers. Open Access also features among the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur.

The broader Open Science movement offers further possibilities, ensuring that it is not just the results of innovation, but the process itself that is as inclusive and effective as possible.

 

A focus on sharing not just technology, but all forms of knowledge, is arguably missing from the UN 2030 Agenda. And there are questions – around expanding internet access, and finding sustainable models for Open Access. Yet the key elements of any future drive in this area are in place in the shape of libraries.

Clearly we are still some way from delivering the right to science, but the Universal Declaration reminds us that the effort is worth it.

Reflexiones tras el webinar con FEBAB: la IFLA ante la OMPI y perspectivas ante la Unión Europea

[Versión en inglés disponible aquí]

Hace unos días participé en un webinar organizado por comisión brasilera de derechos de autor y acceso abierto FEBAB, la Federação Brasileira de Associações de Bibliotecários. Es el primero de cuatro webinars, una serie que busca acercar al sector bibliotecario al ámbito del derecho de autor en Brasil y a nivel internacional. Fue moderado por Sueli Mara Ferreira, de la Universidad de Sao Paulo, y contó con la colaboración de Anderson de Santana, también de la Universidad de Sao Paulo, y de Walter Couto, doctorando en ciencias de la información en la misma institución.

Centré la presentación alrededor de la actividad de la IFLA ante la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) y de los cambios en materia de derechos de autor que están teniendo lugar en la Unión Europea. La OMPI es una agencia especializada de las naciones unidas a cargo de patentes, marcas, derechos de aturo y otros temas relacionados. La IFLA está representada desde hace años en su comité de derechos de autor, el SCCR (siglas dadas por su nombre en inglés, el Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights), como organización no gubernamental. En este foro, la IFLA defiende la necesidad de avanzar hacia un instrumento internacional que garantice excepciones y limitaciones al derecho de autor adecuadas par el funcionamiento de bibliotecas, archivos y museos.

No estoy segura de si el webinar fue interesante para los participantes (¡aunque espero que sí!) pero ciertamente lo fue para mí. Hubo diversas preguntas muy interesantes que invitan a la reflexión. Las preguntas muestran la clara preocupación del sector bibliotecario por la falta de adaptación del derecho de autor al trabajo de las bibliotecas. No se trata de pequeñeces, y ya ni siquiera de adaptar la ley al mundo digital. Se trata de aspectos fundamentales como la preservación o el préstamo público. Mientras que determinados países cuentan con excepciones y limitaciones al derecho de autor que autorizan expresamente este tipo de usos de interés público, la ley de derecho de autor en Brasil no cuenta con ninguna excepción ni limitación al derecho de autor.

Esto deja a los bibliotecarios en un estado de indefensión y preocupación constante sobre los usos que se hace de las obras en bibliotecas. Aún y los muchos esfuerzos que hacen los bibliotecarios para explicar al usuario final cómo utilizar las obras, es incontrolable. Sin ninguna garantía, las bibliotecas temen ser responsables de malos usos por falta de información, especialmente dado que se puede llegar a discutir que todo uso lo puede ser, incluso siendo de interés público, sin una ley de propiedad intelectual adaptada que lo ampare.

Los avances ante la organización mundial de la propiedad intelectual dan cierta esperanza al sector bibliotecario en los países en los que los cambios no están teniendo lugar por falta de iniciativa a nivel nacional. El tratado de Marrakech y su rapidez en ser ratificado o adherido por los estados miembros de las naciones unidas es un muy buen ejemplo del efecto que tienen este tipo de instrumentos. Estos estados han debido hacer cambios a su legislación nacional que de no ser por el tratado probablemente no habrían tenido lugar. El mismo Director General de la OMPI Francis Gurry señaló en la última asamblea general de la OMPI que el tratado de Marrakech se estaba moviendo a una rapidez que excedía la de cualquier otro tratado de la organización.

A continuación intento responder a dos preguntas, en mi opinión muy relevantes, que planteó Walter Eller do Couto durante el webinar:

1. El Convenio de Berna establece el principio del “trato nacional”, según el cual los países deben aplicar su legislación a los extranjeros. Esto puede dificultar el trabajo del bibliotecario, que necesita conocer el derecho de autor de varios países. ¿Es posible vislumbrar algo parecido al Tratado de Marrakech en relación a las otras limitaciones excepciones para facilitar este tipo de actividades transfronterizas?

La IFLA ha venido insistiendo en la necesidad de un tal tratado precisamente para hacer frente a la difícil aplicación del derecho de autor de forma transfronteriza si no existen unos estándares mínimos a través de fronteras (perdiéndose muchas posibilidades de colaboración e intercambio cultural), y a la vez para forzar el cambio legislativo en países que de forma individual no están tomando la iniciativa, aunque sea posible bajo el Convenio de Berna.

Sin embargo, en el seno de la OMPI, determinados países se oponen (principalmente la Unión Europea, lo cual es sorprendente dado que ya cuentan con excepciones y limitaciones al derecho de autor para instituciones del patrimonio cultural e incluso las están adaptando al mundo digital). Alegan que los países ya tienen libertad para legislar, y no están a favor de un instrumento internacional con efecto vinculante.

El comité de derechos de autor de la OMPI ha definido un plan de acción, que tras varias reuniones regionales y un ejercicio de intercambio de ideas, finaliza con una conferencia internacional. Ésta tiene como objetivo “tomar en consideración los frenos y contrapesos de las distintas soluciones internacionales destinadas a hacer frente a los desafíos reconocidos, por ejemplo, arreglos contractuales, recomendaciones conjuntas, tratados u otras formas, según corresponda”.

2. Hablando de asumir riesgos, la historia del derecho de autor tiene casos de bibliotecas que desafían la legislación, asumiendo riesgos para poder hacer su trabajo. Un ejemplo es el nacimiento de la Sección 108 en la legislación estadounidense, que surgió tras una disputa judicial entre una editorial y una biblioteca. ¿Cómo es el posicionamiento de la IFLA en relación a conductas de bibliotecas que desean asumir riesgos incluso sin salvaguardias legales?

La IFLA no tiene posición oficial al respecto, y es claramente una situación muy delicada. Sin embargo, recientemente la IFLA adoptó una posición sobre alfabetización y educación en materia de derecho de autor. Esta declaración insiste en la necesidad para el sector bibliotecario de tener un mínimo de conocimientos sobre el derecho de autor y hace una serie de recomendaciones. No resuelve el tema que plantea la pregunta, pero reconoce que la falta de conocimientos en este ámbito, y sobre todo la falta de legislación adaptada, puede ser muy problemático. Por otro lado, anima a más conocimiento como un primer paso para que el sector entienda de forma global la necesidad de cambio legislativo, y lo impulse.

Los bibliotecarios hacen esfuerzos para asegurar el cumplimiento de la ley, pero en algunas ocasiones, ésta está tan lejos de la misión principal de las bibliotecas de preservar y facilitar acceso al conocimiento, que se plantean situaciones imposibles de resolver a no ser que los bibliotecarios actúen sin tener la completa seguridad de estar dentro de la legalidad. Hay claramente una necesidad urgente de cambios a nivel legislativo.

Para más información, el webinar completo está disponible en la página YouTube de FEBAB.

Thoughts after the FEBAB webinar: IFLA’s work at WIPO and current perspectives in the European copyright reform

[Spanish version available here]

A few days ago, I took part in a webinar organised by the copyright and open access committee of FEBAB, the Brazilian Federation of Library Associations. It was the first of four webinars that seek to inform the library field about copyright in Brazil and at the international level. It was moderated by Sueli Mara Ferreira, from the University of Sao Paulo, and was co-hosted by Anderson de Santana and Walter Couto, from the same institution.

My presentation focused on IFLA’s advocacy work at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and on the European copyright reform. WIPO is a United Nations specialised agency in charge of patents, trademarks, copyright and other related matters. Since several years, IFLA has been represented in this institution’s copyright committee, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), a forum in which IFLA defends the need to advance towards an international instrument that guarantees exceptions and limitations to copyright suited to the functioning of libraries, archives and museums.

I am not entirely sure of whether the webinar was helpful to participants (although hopefully it was!) but it certainly was to me. There were many interesting questions that referred to key challenges for the library profession around copyright. These questions show the struggle that librarians face when dealing with outdated copyright laws in their work. And by outdated I do not only mean that they are not adapted to the digital world: in some cases, they simply do not allow for fundamental activities such as preservation or lending. While some countries have exceptions and limitations to copyright that expressly allow some public interest activities, copyright in Brazil, for instance, has no exception at all.

This puts librarians in a very difficult position, having to constantly worry about copyright law infringement. Also, even if librarians are careful in guiding the user in how to use works, they cannot control all their actions. With no guarantee, librarians are worried that they might be considered guilty of infringements by users, especially under a legislative framework where any use, even when it is part of public interest activities, can be considered an infringement.

Progress at WIPO gives hope to the sector in countries in which the necessary change has not taken place. The Marrakesh Treaty and its numerous ratifications and accessions by United Nations member states is a very good example of the impact of an international instrument. Changes are happening at the national level that wouldn’t otherwise have taken place.

Two particular questions raised at the webinar are worth exploring in this blog:

  1. The Bern convention establishes the principle of “national treatment”, according to which countries need to apply its own legislation to third party nationals. This may make librarians’ work difficult, as they need to figure out what copyright laws say elsewhere when working across borders. Would it be possible to adopt something similar to the Marrakesh Treaty regarding other exceptions and limitations that can facilitate cross-border work?

IFLA has been advocating for the need of an international instrument, precisely to face the difficulty in applying copyright law across borders where no minimum standards exist. This would also encourage legislative change at the national level.

However, several WIPO member states oppose such an instrument (mainly the European Union, which is surprising given the fact that it already has exceptions and limitations to copyright for cultural heritage institutions and that it is now adopting them to the digital world).

Given the lack of consensus, the SCCR has defined an action plan to advance discussions on the topic, which among other things, establishes several regional meetings, a brainstorming exercise, and finalizes with an international conference whose goal is “to consider the opportunities and challenges provided by various international solutions including soft law, contractual/licensing and normative approaches, as appropriate”.

  1. In the history of copyright, there have been cases in which libraries challenge legislation and assume risks in order to do their work. An example is at the origin of the creation of Section 108 in US legislation, which was created after a legal dispute among a publishing house and a library. What is IFLA’s position regarding libraries wishing to take risks to do their jobs even with no adequate legal guarantees?

IFLA has no official position on that matter, which is clearly a delicate situation. However, IFLA recently adopted a Statement on Copyright Education and Copyright Literacy. The document insists on the need for librarians to have a minimum knowledge of copyright and also makes a series of recommendations. While it does not solve the question, it recognises that the lack of an adequate legal framework in this area can be very problematic. It also encourages more knowledge as a first step for the library field in order to understand the need for change in copyright law, and to advocate for it.

Librarians make efforts to ensure that copyright law is respected, but in some occasions the legal framework is so far away from their public interest mission that they are put in difficult situations. There is clearly an urgent need for change in copyright legislation.

For more information, check the full webinar (in Spanish and Portuguese) on FEBAB’s webpage.

 

An Internet of Trust vs an Internet of Confidence

While the optimism and ambition that helped create the internet are still plentiful, recent years have seen a rise in the feeling that it has brought both good and bad.

Fortunately, and despite dramatic headlines in newspapers and speeches by politicians, it seems that for now it is realism rather than fear that is taking hold. Recent research from the Pew Internet Centre has indicated that numbers of people seeing the internet as a bad thing for society have in fact fallen.

Nonetheless, the pressure created by the internet-pessimists does create a sense that ‘something must be done’, if only to to build a more positive image of the Internet and prevent a drift to over-regulation. This is easier said than done.

In the past, when action was required, there were governments who could act within their borders to make things happen. The connection between government action, and real-world reaction, was simpler. This is less obvious in a digital world. It raises the question of who should be doing what to rehabilitate the Internet.

 

Used car salesman asking for trustCentralised Trust vs Decentralised Confidence

The focus of this year’s Internet Governance Forum, ‘an Internet of Trust’, implies a desire to take on this challenge. Addressing the issue in an international, multi-stakeholder forum is welcome, creating a possibility to seek ideas and commitments from all relevant actors.

However, the focus on ‘trust’ itself raises questions, not least because the French version of the theme – un Internet de confiance – could also be translated as an Internet of Confidence.

Is there a difference here? Arguably, yes.

Trust implies that certain actors or processes are certified as being ‘trustworthy’. It is an argument often used by established players to defend their own interests (and market shares), distinguishing them from newcomers (in particular digital ones).

Such claims – or demands – imply a centralisation of decision-making about which bits of the internet are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It risks taking us towards a ‘walled garden’ approach to the Internet of the 1990s, or the filter bubbles talked about today where algorithms help ensure that you only see sources that you agree with (and so are more likely to trust) on your social media feed.

Confidence, in comparison, focuses on individuals – consumers, readers, users. Instead of being instructed to trust one site, product or service over another, they have the skills and positive attitudes to make choices themselves.

Not to believe that everything is lies, but rather to value the truth and apply common sense in order to find it. Not to be a passive consumer of other people’s content, but rather an active player, creating new ideas, products and services.

 

Implications for Action

The risk with an approach based on trust is that responses also tend to be centralised. Governments try to regulate for trust, often clumsily. Standards emerge that tend to benefit the biggest players over newcomers, consolidating their position. Individuals are channelled towards a limited number of sources, believing that anything outside is dangerous.

A focus on confidence starts with education. This is a process that begins in school, but, given the progress of technology, inevitably needs to be refreshed throughout life. Knowledge can be shared, and the skills and reflexes developed. This is where libraries come in.

Where they are connected to the internet, and properly resourced, libraries are a key part of the infrastructure for building an internet of confidence. With a long experience in giving people the skills to look for analogue information, they have embraced their role of helping users do the same online.

In doing so, they have helped make for skilled and confident internet users, from building media literacy among teenagers to giving older users the support they need to interact with eGovernment services. They are a key part of any effort to ensure the fulfilment of the potential of the internet for development, from the personal to the global level.

 

Governments are already investing significant effort in tackling online crime, and it is clear that activities that are harmful for individuals and society should be tackled.

However, just as in the real world, legitimate action against criminals should not turn into the creation of walled gardens where everyone else can feel safe. Efforts to build confidence are essential for innovation, creativity and the continued delivery of the progress that the Internet has permitted to date.

See you at IGF 2018!

Copyright discussions at the LIBER Bookfair: public lending, unwaivable right to remuneration and much more

Copyright and more

IFLA recently took part in a session during the LIBER bookfair held in Barcelona from 3-5 October. LIBER, organised by the Spanish Association of Publishers’ Guilds, is a biannual event that alternates between Madrid and Barcelona.

The panel discussion was organised by FESABID, the Spanish Federation of Societies of Archivists, Librarians, Documentalists and Museologists, and focused on libraries and intellectual property and imminent challenges. A crowd of librarians, but also publishers and decisionmakers, attended and participated in the session with interesting comments regarding the “struggle” that libraries go through in seeking to give access to knowledge under outdated copyright laws.

Discussions during the panel had a strong focus on two aspects: the European copyright reform and public lending.

The European copyright reform

The first one promises to update certain exceptions and limitations to copyright that should make the above-mentioned “struggle” for libraries softer. Although not all exceptions might become mandatory (see the Council and the Parliament’s new article on text and data mining, or the second part of article 4 on illustration for teaching in the Commission’s proposal), which is to the detriment of harmonization within the Union, they all seem like a step forwards in adapting copyright to the digital age.

Public lending rights

Meanwhile, public lending in Spain has a tumultuous history and is far from having reached a status where stakeholders are satisfied. Collecting societies still claim that the current system is so inefficient that it ends up creating more cost than benefit. Moreover, after the preliminary ruling by the CJEU in case C‑174/15 regarding e-lending, there was also some expectation on whether the European copyright reform directive would bring more legal clarity to the topic.

Currently, digital lending in Spain works under the eBiblio platform, accessible to all users with a Spanish public library card. Contrary to public lending of physical books, libraries do not buy and lend the works, but they are accessed through this government-established platform.

Collective management in Spain

This LIBER edition was held at an interesting moment for Spain, as the Government has recently amended its copyright law to transpose the collective management Directive and the Marrakesh treaty Directive.

Collective management organisations in Spain are given an important role under Spanish law. They are for instance in charge of collecting and distributing money for remunerated limitations to copyright such as the private copy limitation or public lending. Even though they have such a big responsibility, there are still claims regarding their lack of transparency and fraudulent activities on certain occasions.

The important role that collective management organisations (CMOs) play in Spain is also underlined by a specific provision regarding unwaivable right to equitable remuneration for authors, subject to compulsory collective management. It has been adopted not only for the provision that transposed the SatCab directive, but also with regards to the remuneration in the limitation for illustration for teaching (art. 32.4 TRLPI), the limitation to make private copies (art. 25 TRLPI) and the neighbouring right for press publishers (art. 32.2 TRLPI).

Such provisions have received a lot of criticism (from the Creative Commons community, and from the library community) for their negative impact on the free circulation of knowledge. Even if the “intention” is to ensure remuneration to authors, it means that cannot decide to share their creation freely.

The hurry to transpose this directive meant that the Marrakesh Treaty Directive, which was transposed at the same time, was adopted by Spain faster than expected. It opens up possibilities of cross-border exchange within the European Union and from the Union to third party countries that have ratified the Treaty. Given the large number of Spanish-speakers around the world, it is certainly very welcome news.

An hour was obviously too short to get into all these topics, which shows how there are a lot of areas that still require the library community’s attention. Their experience and engagement will be key in shaping the future of copyright law in the country.