Tag Archives: WIPO

Support for copyright limitations & exceptions strong at the WIPO General Assembly

On July 15 & 18, the Standing Committee on Copyright & Related Rights (SCCR) presented the outcomes of its 42nd meeting (SCCR/42) to the WIPO General Assembly. IFLA was there to reiterate support for strong limitations & exceptions (L&E) for libraries. We were joined on-site by other organizations – including EIFL – and national delegates – including those from South Africa, Iran, Malawi, Brazil, and Uganda – who spoke of their support for strong L&E’s and the WIPO African Group’s proposal that was adopted into a workplan at SCCR/42 two months earlier.

At SCCR/42, members agreed to move ahead with the African Group’s plans for presenting a toolkit for countries to develop preservation exceptions & limitations to copyright for libraries, archives and museums; a report on cross-border factors in copyright law; and a scoping study on research exceptions for such uses as data mining.

Speaking to the interests of the Assembly, IFLA representatives noted that strong L&E’s underlie other rights to culture, education, and research and in turn support IP innovation in multiple sectors, including for the benefit of society, as well as the preservation of records that tell the story of how we got to where we are now.

At the same time, IFLA expressed fear of limited urgency from the group as a whole to support limitations & exceptions and facilitate international collaboration. As the pandemic and climate change have demonstrated, overly-restrictive IP policies create confusion around whether libraries can offer digital access to material when crises force temporary physical closures of facilities, and natural disasters risk regrettably destroying facilities permanently – and with them, potentially, the only copies of materials if clear exceptions do not allow backups to be made and made accessible.

Crucially, cross border factors cannot be addressed by any nation alone, and WIPO as an agency is equipped to address them.

Crises will happen. Innovations happens because people can work with and reuse materials protected by intellectual property. We need to mitigate challenges and seize opportunities with a flexible copyright system that ensures that researchers and the public are not stalled by overly-restrictive licenses and laws such that when buildings temporarily close, we cannot access digital content, or when a flood or fire destroys an archive, that material is lost forever because there is no backup. If these happen, the lost IP can benefit no one.

IFLA looks forward to continuing to speak to the interests of libraries at WIPO at next year’s SCCR/43 and future General Assemblies!

[this blog post was adapted from the statement IFLA delivered at WIPO GA 63)

Beneath the surface: reflections on some of the themes underpinning debate at SCCR42

Last month’s 42nd meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related rights (SCCR) was, at the same time, a breath of fresh air, and a return to the norm.

It was certainly welcome to be able to engage, once again, with delegates in person. Fora like WIPO offer great opportunities to interact with government representatives in order to understand more clearly their priorities and concerns, and to share the experiences of libraries.

There was also, thanks to the initiative of the African Group, the first Member State-led effort in many years to define and drive forwards the agenda on exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries, archives, museums, education and research.

While only a part of the proposals made it through this time around, it is very positive news that libraries and their users can count on some governments at least to defend their interests.

This same point is, at the same time, also a reason for some disappointment. Despite the extreme caution in the proposals to adhere to consensus positions previously stated in the Committee, some groups – notably richer countries, continued to look to emaciate any effort to move SCCR in the direction of work that would bring benefits to libraries and their users.

While the rest of the African group proposal remains on the table for the next meeting, it was only a proposed information session on cross-border working, as well as a toolkit on preservation that had already been in the works, and a scoping study on a research toolkit that made it through this time around.

In their resistance to progress, developed countries could cite the support of rightholder organisations that looked both to warn against any extension of limitations and exceptions (L&Es), and which suggested that the status quo – at least as concerns L&Es – is adequate.

So why was this the case? This blog looks to explore some of the underlying themes which can help explain this situation.

We are not always talking about the same thing when we are talking about copyright: during exchanges between Member States, observers and experts, it became clear that two definitions of copyright were in use.

The narrower one sees copyright as being only about the exclusive rights given to rightholders, for example to reproduce, translate, or use works. The wider one – used for example by Professor Raquel Xalabarder – looks at copyright as a wider system, incorporating both rights and exceptions and limitations to them.

The argument for a latter approach is based on the core goals set out in texts such as the Berne Convention and beyond – i.e. that copyright should serve to support the production and dissemination of new ideas. Given how important access to and use of existing works is to the production of new ones, it makes sense that copyright needs to be seen as including the L&Es that allow this.

This wider approach is welcome, representing a more enlightened and constructive approach that of course takes account of the contribution of libraries. It also helps us get beyond the tired and blinkered cliché that any non-remunerated use of works is tantamount to stealing.

There remains, in some quarters, a refusal to accept that the public interest should be considered: a revealing statement was made by one observer from a rightholder lobby during discussions, when he argued that the public interest should never come at the expense of that of rightholders. This explicit argument for an unbalanced copyright system is something that you rarely hear spoken out loud.

This highlights the need for spaces like WIPO where governments can indeed take into account arguments from different perspectives on the way in which copyright systems should be designed, if they are to achieve their goal of delivering the best outcomes for societies as a whole.

This is not of course to say that protection of the interests of rightholders is not in the wider public interest. It is, up to a point. However, when the marginal benefits of protecting these private interests are outweighed by the costs to society of denying access and usage possibilities, governments need to act.

There is an assumption that while access concerns should be balanced by rightholder concerns, rightholder concerns should not be balanced by access concerns: closely linked to the previous point, the structure of the research report presented during the information session on the first day of SCCR is telling.

The first half of the report focused on the experience of rightholders during the pandemic, and how in particular the shift to digital had impacted the revenues of different categories of creator and intermediary. This underlined the hardship that many in the book sector had studied, but then presented, uncritically, the steps taken by some publishers at least to facilitate access.

The second half talked about libraries, archives, museums, educators and researchers. Beyond a tendency to indicate that the real problems lay outside of copyright, for example in funding (a point which is partially true, but does not take away from the need for copyright reform), the report felt the need to suggest that enabling libraries to do their jobs better in a digital world nonetheless should not come at the expense of rightholder interests.

This is revealing, sadly underlining a presumption – a prejudice even – that somehow the interests of libraries and their users need to be balanced, but those of rightholders do not.

There is a challenge around the supply of digital content, but is freezing work on L&Es the answer?: a fundamental question raised by both ‘sides’  of the debate – and which the WIPO Secretariat to their credit has certainly recognised – is that an key underpinning issue is the fact that there simply isn’t enough affordable, accessible, digital content out there.

Given the size of the internet, this may seem like an odd claim, but for many in schools and research centres, it is the case, with materials either stuck behind unscalable paywalls, not available in relevant languages, or simply not existing on topics and contexts that matter.

Advocates for rightholder organisations suggest that a key factor in this undersupply is a fear that if works are made available in digital format, they will be pirated, and demand for them will evaporate. As a secondary argument, they also claim that digital-adapted L&Es will also suppress the market.

Of course, the first question is one of enforcement, not basic copyright laws, while the second goes back to the arguments above about the degree to which the work of libraries strengthens or weakens markets for books and other materials.

The counter-argument here of course is that libraries offer an excellent means of providing access to digital content in a way that can be better controlled, using effective tools, and of course that the work of libraries represents a guarantee of research, innovation and creativity in the future, not a threat to it.

Indeed, we can argue that this is rather a failure of the market to respond to demand, driven perhaps by a lack of capacity, but also perhaps by fear and uncertainty among actors who more or less control the market.

This is not the first time that WIPO has addressed the issue of the under-supply of content in formats that work for readers. It’s exactly the challenge that the Marrakesh Treaty looked to overcome.

While international legal action around L&Es remains only one of the options on the table for now to resolve this failure (although arguably, there’s no other way of dealing definitively with challenges around cross-border working), it would undoubtedly have a strong triggering effect on national legislation.

 

This blog has looked to provide insight into some of the assumptions and understandings that explain position taken, and outcomes achieved, at SCCR. Addressing them, and finding solutions, will need to be part of any ongoing strategy to achieve progress.

As a final point, of course, it is worth noting that copyright can of course tend to polarise, whereas on most issues, the interests of rightholders, libraries and their users converge. Setting aside pure profit motives, we all, deep down, work towards a situation where there is a rich production of relevant materials, and literate, curious populations that are eager to read and apply knowledge. Despite the various points of disagreement in fora like WIPO, it is good to remember that we are all there for the same ultimate purpose.

WIPO SCCR/42: Why broadcast matters

This 9 – 13 May, I attended the 42nd meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related rights (WIPO SCCR/42 for short). For a week, national delegates, expert panels, and observing civil society organisations (CSOs) like IFLA and rightholder groups discussed the impact of COVID-19; the WIPO African regional group’s proposal for a workplan on limitations and exceptions; broadcast rights; and other odds and ends for some 40+ hours’ worth of meetings, coffee breaks, and side discussions. Conversations advanced and  some commitments were made – including items on studies and toolkits on copyright limitations and exceptions.

It was my first trip to Geneva, so it was the first time I experienced the process. WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization, and indeed ‘IP’ is the general framing of Why We’re All Here. Creative outputs and patents are primarily considered valuable because they’re monetizable. The affective dimension (whether you ‘like’ a book) or the work’s value for humanity as a whole occasionally peaks through when civil society organisations (CSOs) or expert panels re-frame the issues, or (as happened twice, by my count) one of the invited artists on a panel delivers an a Capella performance.

By contrast, imagine a framework that began with ‘art and information are good, and people should have better access to those things’. It would be a very different conversation, for example, than that presented by WIPO’s expert report on how COVID-19 affected rightsholders and cultural institutions. There, the ‘Cultural Heritage Institutions, Education and Research’ section contained language about balancing access with rightholders’ interests that were largely absent the other way around from the rightholder sections.

In the observer section of the main room, CSOs sit alongside industry organisations. We’re there to represent our constituents’ interests and have our views heard, but it’s up to the delegates to make the votes.  The ‘rightholder’ side tends to represent publishers, record labels, and other aggregators and content distributors moreso than creators directly. The tension could be felt, for example, during Thursday’s presentations on streaming music in which expert presenters underlined that compensation was scarce for non-featured artists.  This tracks with online discussions I’d followed, along with standard-issue rock-n-roll lore about bands’ conflicts with their labels.

This is all also to say that delegates are engaged in a delicate push and pull between interests, and from the rightholders (and to some extent, us CSOs), like shoulder angels and devils, there can be an adversarial tendency to avoid wanting to lose any ground. So, with regard to limitations and exceptions to copyright – which enable libraries and individuals to lend, share, and make use of all kinds of material – the ‘opposite side’ can sound a bit like Groucho Marx laying out his platform on ascending to the university presidency in Horse Feathers – ‘whatever it is, I’m against it.’

(Side note: while I was unable on a quick search to locate the copyright status of Horse Feathers, the Marx Brothers were once themselves fined $1,000 for copyright violations; Groucho also responded to Warner Brothers’ fears that the then-forthcoming A Night in Casablanca [1946] would infringe on their film Casablanca [1942] by jokingly threatening a counter-suit over the word ‘Brothers’. Copyright has never been easy to sort out, or straightforward.)

Back to the Statute of Anne (1710), the first copyright law, copyright was intended to be a broad ecosystem that protects rightsholders’ right to compensation, and the public interest in having access to and working with materials. This includes the right to quote (on an obligatory basis), as well as possibilities to make a copy of a chapter, to use in the classroom, to offer commentary, to remix in ways not in competition with the original work. A robust copyright system enables different interests to be represented.

In respect to these positions, there are many good reasons for strong limitations and exceptions – including with respect to the broadcast rights, which came to the fore on the Tuesday and Wednesday in discussion of the Broadcast Treaty, which aims to protect broadcast signals (the medium, not the content). It has been under discussion since the late 90s.

Going forward, IFLA plans to highlight the importance of limitations and exceptions to preserve the right to archive and preserve broadcasts. Preservation shouldn’t have to be the sole responsibility of increasingly conglomerating commercial entities most immediately concerned with short-term profits. Cultural institutions are well equipped to collect, curate, and make available – if they don’t face dissuasive economic and administrative barriers to doing so. Here, archives and rightsholders have slightly different, but complementary & related interests. A key question, if you’re making content is: do you want your work to be accessible a few decades down the road?

One need only look to how much things have changed SINCE the broadcast treaty entered onto the agenda in the late 90s. For consumers,staring at screens in their homes, this period saw changes from standard definition to high definition, and from VHS to DVD (with detours into VCD in Asia) to Blu-Ray to streaming. Once-ubiquitous CRT monitors are currently a fad for retro gaming, as graphic designed for their slightly blurry displays and can look disconcertingly jagged on a modern 4K OLED, where every single one of the 8,294,400 pixels can show a different colour from its neighbour. Radio stations consolidated or went out of business. Long-running shows end, inevitably – and have to find archival homes for their collections or junk them. You’re lucky today to find equipment today that plays old consumer, professional and semi-professional storage formats, or to access files on the editing hardware and software from eras past.

This is all living memory, and underscores how difficult it is for people to  ‘watch’ TV like they did 25 years ago. To preserve that content and experience, archives play a key role – and need broad flexibility to capture, store, back up, and engage with content amid these changes. Sometimes, cool discoveries are made – like the recent find of a Minnesota TV station in their archives of a video of the musician Prince, at age 11. We can share that this discovery happened, beyond a local TV station, in part due to broad access rights.

As these discussions continue, support libraries! Please don’t create new barriers to preservation through new rights and impositions, but rather support proper exceptions and limitations to help libraries, archives and other institutions do their jobs preserving content and making it accessible.

Matt Voigts, Copyright & Open Access Policy Officer

COVID-19 Impacts on Cultural Industries and Education and Research Institutions: Key Questions from the WIPO Report

Tomorrow, the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will hold an information session on the impact of COVID-19 on the cultural and creative industries, on the one hand, and on education and research on the other.

This follows requests from Member States at the previous meeting, conscious of the need to make sense of the experience of actors affected by copyright – either as owners, or as users, of relevant materials. While the meeting formally takes place outside of the SCCR agenda, its place at the beginning of the week will mean that it has the potential to shape discussions over the following days.

To support this, WIPO has published a commissioned study, based both on a series of responses to a call for evidence, and interviews with experts in different countries. The terms of reference for the study have not been shared, but it looks both to tackle the broader question of experiences (as mandated by the last meeting), and to cite case studies of initiatives taken (which goes beyond the mandate).

Ahead of this session – which will be available on WIPO’s webcasting service – this blog looks at some of the questions and issues raised by the report (intentionally or otherwise), and which the meeting tomorrow can hopefully address.

 

Public spending needed… but on what terms?

A consistent message from the report is the sense that governments need to step in to provide financial and other support, to institutions, businesses and individuals working with copyright where these would otherwise risk disappearing or disengaging. The report underlines in particular that the pandemic has represented a major shock to those actors depending on in-person engagement and activities, such as concerts, author events, or museum visits, as well as events where much business is done, such as book fairs.

Some – but not all – governments have of course taken action to help otherwise viable businesses from failing. The report underlines that more could and should have been done however, with independent authors in a particularly tough situation.

Looking forwards, however, this does raise the question of how to ensure that this support has maximum positive impact. Beyond the preservation of employment, how can this serve to support public interest goals, such as access to education, research and culture?

 

Digital here to stay, but how?

The report is clear about the fact that the shift to digital is going to be a lasting phenomenon, raising the question of how to ensure the sustainability of digital activities. It underlines components of a response, including efforts to get more people online, training and support for digital maturity, and new policy approaches in general.

A crucial point made is that libraries themselves have invested significantly in digital content – often paying again for the same material that they had already bought in physical format. Clearly, it cannot be sustainable for libraries to pay twice for the same things.

In terms of recommendations, the report does highlight the need to ‘provide clarity to institutions and organizations regarding the copyright implications of moving towards a digital world, and to evaluate appropriate means and innovative ways to make digital uses easier’.

Of course, this could be read either as a case for providing more flexible exceptions and limitations that adapt to needs, or for facilitating licensing. It is to be hoped that COVID will not be used as an excuse to extend the reach of licensing at the expense of the sort of free exceptions that libraries have traditionally relied on extensively, draining their resources.

More worrying is the suggestion that copyright for digital works should be tighter than that for physical ones (i.e. have weaker limitations and exceptions) in order to protect investments. This is to argue that there is less need to protect possibilities for education, research and cultural participation online than in person.

This of course flies in the face of the argument that rights offline should also be protected online, and indeed the case made by the UN Secretary-General that more effort is required to ensure that it is not only the decisions of private companies that should determine what we can and cannot do digitally.

 

An under-supply of digital content

A persistent issue is the lack of digital content available, especially in developing regions. The report suggests that this is sometimes due to a lack of capacity, but can also be the result of a conscious choice by rightholders not to make works available in digital form, for example due to apparent fears of piracy.

This raises a serious issue about the functioning of markets, and whether it really serves societal interest for works not to be sold in a form that works for people who may not be able to access libraries or bookshops, or even work with physical copies of books. The report suggests more licensing, but this has been a possibility for a long time, and does not seem to have delivered.

Instead, it’s worth remembering that it was the under-supply of accessible format works that underpinned the Marrakesh Treaty, which opened up the possibility to carry out format-shifting of works to make them accessible.

A parallel argument is that the ability of creators themselves to use digital platforms could be a useful area of focus. This is an area where libraries, through providing public access, can indeed help, although to do so need to have the necessary resources to offer such services.

 

Impacts are varied

At least terms of market impacts on different sectors, the story varies. For example, while extensively citing European research suggesting that the publishing sector there suffered strongly, it notes that publishing in the United States continued to grow. The US of course is characterised by a very flexible copyright regime – fair use – while another country whose model is celebrated, Canada, is also under regular attach from rightholders for the flexibility of their education exceptions.

In addition, the pandemic is reported as having been particularly hard for authors who, in addition to the impacts of falling sales (where sales actually fell), also missed out on other opportunities to earn, such as book fairs and signings. The same goes for performers, and people working as freelancers or on temporary contracts. This does raise questions about terms of employment, and what can be done to ensure fairer distribution of revenues to those missing out.

 

Anecdotes and rules

A point alluded to in the title is that the focus on examples of initiatives in the report goes beyond what was in the mandate proposed by Member States. This is of course valuable in terms of providing illustrations, but can also lead to the impression that everything is going well.

Furthermore, the report fails to reflect the view of many libraries that these initiatives, while welcome, were often hard to implement and were withdrawn well before the end of the pandemic – see IFLA’s own report on libraries, copyright and COVID-19 for more. Indeed, there is the argument that they were often intended as marketing exercises, aimed at building use of and reliance on services which could then be charged for.

The more systematic examples come the US, where the flexibility provided by fair use is underlined as having enabled initiatives like the Hathi Trust Emergency Temporary Access Service. These arguably provide better pointers for how to build resilience than individual stories that may depend on a wide variety of other factors which are potentially not replicable.

 

And an old cliché about lending and sales…

The report does touch a number of times on the relationship between library activities and sales. There are unsubstantiated claims about the impact of higher levels of library lending and use. The one reference given is to a speculative conclusion in a German study about future impacts of eLending. This same study also underlines that cutting back on library lending is unlikely to lead to any increase in the purchasing of eBooks.

These arguments also do not sit well with the report’s conclusion that increased spending by libraries on digital content raises sustainability concerns for our institutions. In this case, the question needs rather to be ‘where is the money’?

Going further, unfortunately, it also repeats old tropes implying that the work of libraries is not significantly different to copyright piracy. These betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is about and how limitations and exceptions work. It also suggests an inability to differentiate between the interests of one particular lobby group, and of society as a whole. It is of course a shame that such claims are repeated in a WIPO-branded report.

 

Follow the discussion on WIPO’s webcasting service, from 11:30-16:30 Geneva time, for more!

Hammer Time (or not): Breaking Free from the Law of the Instrument at WIPO

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This – the law of the instrument, or Maslov’s hammer – refers to a situation where someone’s actions are more determined by the tool that they have at hand than by consideration of what the best response might be.

The consequence is likely to be ill-suited solutions to problems faced, or even leaving things more broken than when they started. This can be the case at any level, from the individual to the governmental.

The response, of course, is to take the time, when facing an apparent challenge, to reflect first on which tool from a selection may be most effective.

How is this relevant to the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization?

Many of those engaged in discussions at WIPO, and in particular in its Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) spend their time focusing on creating, managing, or enforcing intellectual property rights.

When this is what you are used to, it is perhaps normal that, when you are faced with a new situation, the automatic response is to think about how you can create a new right.

Currently on the agenda of SCCR are new rights for broadcasters, theatre directors, authors (for public lending), and potentially though work on copyright in the digital environment, streaming.

This of course will make sense for anyone involved in managing rights. But are these all situations where more rights really represent the most effective way of achieving stated goals? What risk is there that they, in fact, end up doing more harm than good?

 

Maslov’s hammer at work: the proposed study on Public Lending Right

A first example of a drive to push new rights as a response to a challenge is the proposed study on public lending rights (PLR). This document, in summary, calls for an investigation of the benefits of PLR (disregarding potential costs), and effectively mandates work to set up a road map for rolling this out in developing countries.

IFLA of course has a strong position on PLR in developing countries, where libraries are often poorly funded, if at all, and the need to build literacy and reading culture is high. Yet at the same time, it is undeniable that many authors incomes that are barely, if at all, sufficient to support them in their work.

Therefore, before (uncritically) doing work in support of PLR, there is a case for avoiding the law of instruments, and thinking first about what tools are available, before then exploring which ones might work best.

For example, the European Union, in the Digital Single Market Directive, introduced both new provisions on fair remuneration, transparency around revenues, and the potential for rights to revert to authors after a period of time.

In Australia, The Author’s Interest has also underlined the potential of rights reversion as a way of empowering authors.

Meanwhile, the Racine Report in France set out 23 recommendations, highlighting the importance of direct and indirect support for authors, as well as social security. Importantly, it highlights imbalances in the relationship between authors on the one hand, and intermediaries and collecting societies on the other. Indeed, the report does not mention exceptions to copyright at all.

In short, this suggests that any sincere effort to address the incomes of authors – in particular in the case of developing countries where public resources are scarce – can draw on a wide variety of experiences. Simply looking at just one solution – without considering its merits in relation to others – offers a poor service to governments. And for authors themselves, the uncertain promise of PLR money may offer less of a support than more meaningful solutions to support incomes.

An open question: understanding the impact of COVID on the copyright sector

As hinted on the first day of SCCR, there is the possibility that WIPO will launch discussions on the topic of the impact of the pandemic on the copyright sector.

The question is a fair one, given the intensification of the shift to digital tools for sharing and accessing culture. There has, undoubtedly, been a huge impact on performing artists, hit by the closing of venues, as well as for bookshops.

In the meanwhile, those able to operate online have done a lot better. This includes not just streaming platforms, but also those able to sell physical goods such as books over the internet. Clearly, of course, platforms have benefitted in particular from higher numbers of users and so of data gathered.

This situation has accentuated questions about the division of revenues from such services, not least as concerns whether compensation from streaming and other uses on digital platforms is fair – the ‘value gap’. This is the same concern that underpinned the drive for Article 17 of the EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

How to address the challenges faced is a great example of an opportunity to think hard about the different tools available, rather than immediately reaching for new rights.

For example, the traditional means of addressing situations where one player is in a much stronger position in a negotiation than another is through competition law. It may also be possible to use contract law, especially in the case of individuals, which of course may also help ensure that authors receive a higher share of any revenues earned.

Fully considering these alternative options would make it easier to assess whether rights – which are likely to be best used by those with the resources to make the most of them – are the best response.

 

A clear case for action: cross-border exceptions

There is one situation at WIPO, however, where there is more clarity – the need for an international instrument to allow for cross-border cooperation for preservation, education and research.

Meetings held throughout 2019 explored various options for supporting these activities (see the report), but no credible alternatives to action emerged.

For example, while cross-border licensing is possible, there is no justification for obliging a user (or an institution supporting users like a library) to pay to do something across borders which they can do without compensation or permission at home.

Preservation is a perfect instance of this – a clear public interest activity for which few would argue for compensation domestically. Yet without an international instrument making clear the possibility to share works and copies – for example through preservation networks, or to allow for cloud storage of copies, there is no other solution giving legal clarity.

The same goes for core forms of access – for example to supply documents on an ad hoc basis, for text and data mining, or to support basic teaching activities. While more extensive uses may of course justify licensing solutions, minimal (or purely technical) ones do not.

Without a clear possibility to work across borders, learners, educators and researchers face uncertainty and frustration. This is an area where the other available tools have been reviewed, and the value of an international instrument is clear.

 

As argued in this blog, the law of the instrument provides a good analogy for an approach that sees new rights as a response to emerging challenges. While in some cases, they may be appropriate, in many cases they are not.

Indeed, the accumulation of new rights (i.e. offering someone a share of potential success, rather than simply offering those involved in the creation of a work a decent contract) causes significant challenges to those who need to clear them. While the work of collective management organisations does allow a simplification of the process, simpler still would be to seek alternatives which avoid this complexity in the first place.

In their work this week, we hope that delegates will break free of the law of the instrument, and be ready to consider the whole toolbox.

Digital Isn’t Different: Learning the Lessons of the Pandemic at SCCR

This week’s 41st meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related rights (SCCR) will take place in hybrid form.

With all but a few delegates attending online rather than in person, we are likely to see little in the way of concrete decision-making.

However, as the only meeting of the Committee this year, there is nonetheless the opportunity to deepen understanding of the situation that copyright law-makers – and those affected by their decision – face today. Through this, they can help lay the foundations for more normative work in future.

Crucially, as this blog suggests, the experience of the pandemic suggests that, more than ever, digital isn’t different, or at least shouldn’t be.

Analogue, but only by omission

Unfortunately, copyright laws have traditionally been designed in ways that do not take account of how digital technologies work. For example, when reading a physical book, copyright does not come into play. However, when you read it on your computer, a local copy is being made, and so copyright.

The same can go when delivering a copy of a book to someone, for example to support research or the right to participate in cultural life. Digital delivery raises many more questions under copyright than physical.

Storytimes too have raised the same concern. Reading to children aloud in a library is, in most countries, uncontroversial, accepted as a key part of promoting reading and intellectual development. However, filming a storytime for remote access implies rights of performance, and communication to the public or making available if put online. Technological measures exist to prevent the widespread sharing of works, allowing

It is by no means clear that the additional complexity associated with digital uses – especially by public interest institutions such as libraries – was intended. Rather, simply, the way in which digital technologies function was not imagined when laws were created.

And given that it can take time and effort to change these laws (and that copyright rarely wins or loses elections), they have all too often stayed the same.

The costs of inadaptation

For as long as physical access to library collection and services was possible, the costs of not adapting laws to allow for digital uses fell mainly on only the share of the population who would struggle to travel.

This of course already had a strongly discriminatory effect against people living far from major institutions, or persons with disabilities.

With the pandemic, and the obligation on libraries to shut-down physical services, whole populations have found themselves in this situation. Access to research, to storytimes, to educational materials needed to take place digitally, or not at all.

Yet copyright laws have not always permitted this, for the reasons set out above. As such, libraries have been prevented from letting their communities use works in the ways they are used to, for example to help students prepare for examples, researchers review existing knowledge, or others seek wellbeing in books.

The brightest spots have been in those countries with more flexible copyright laws, such as in the United States. Elsewhere, there has been some welcome flexibility from rightholders, but this is often uneven, and arguably the ability of libraries to carry out core functions should not depend on goodwill alone.

A bad good idea

Increasingly intensive use of digital technologies has, by bringing about situations of a lack of clarity, opened the door to new efforts to offer licences which ‘give’ the right to make uses of works, such as those set out above.

Licences of course do arguably have a place in giving original access to many digital works, as long as this is not under unduly restrictive terms. For example, a licence that imposes high costs, limited possibilities to grant access, or prevents preservation should be questioned.

However, elsewhere, just because it is possible to offer a licence, it doesn’t mean that this is necessarily the right thing to do from the perspective of maximising public benefit. In other words, in the case of many library activities, these are rights that should – arguably – be given by law, not by whoever manages licences.

For example, licensing storytimes, text and data mining, or ad hoc resource sharing can end up excluding many, leading to a much higher cost to the public interest than gain to whoever is managing the rights.

 

What does this mean for SCCR? Already, work in 2019 (pre-COVID), summarised in a report published last year, underlined the challenge that an inadaptation to digital technologies posed to the ability of copyright laws to achieve their goals.

COVID has only underlined the need to move towards action here, offering libraries and their users a situation that is not only clear, but also fair. An obvious solution is to promote technological neutrality in laws, ensuring that regardless of whether a use is analogue or digital, as long as it takes place under the same terms, it should be treated in the same way.

We hope that, in the case of core library functions, from preservation to the provision of access for education and research purposes, the committee will accelerate its work to provide the legal frameworks and guidance governments need to be able to bring laws into the digital age.

Libraries mean Business : IFLA to celebrate World IP Day on 26 April

In four weeks’ time, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is inviting representatives of governments and civil society to celebrate World Intellectual Property Day, under the theme “Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: take your ideas to market”.

IFLA will be taking the opportunity to celebrate the importance of the work done by library professionals to support and accompany small and medium-sized businesses.

Whether they are family businesses, start-ups or otherwise, small and medium-sized enterprises often have limited resources, and do not always have the opportunity to receive professional and strategic advice on how to work with intellectual property.

As a result, access to curated information, resources and services such as coaching, training and guidance provided by library professionals can be crucial for these businesses. This can help them understand how to support the development of a business model related to intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks, trade secrets or copyright.

As OCLC has reported, in the United States alone, public libraries were used 2.8 million times each month to support small businesses.

On World Intellectual Property Day 2021, IFLA and its partner EIFL are therefore pleased to present a webinar on 26th April at 16:00 CET entitled: Libraries mean business.

This webinar will allow us to highlight the work of three library organisations working to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular on intellectual property issues, through three speakers:

Jeremy O’Hare, Information Expert: Intellectual Property, Business and IP Center, British Library in United-Kingdom.

Tara Radniecki, Head of DeLaMare Science & Engineering Library, Patent and Trademark Resource Center Librarian, University of Nevada, in the United-States of America.

Bernadette Cogan, Divisional Librarian, Central Library Services, Dublin City Council, in Ireland.

If you are interested in this event, join us thanks to the registration link.