Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 48
This note provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues in the agenda for the 48th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, May 18-22, 2026. To view this document as a PDF for downloading and printing, click here. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has long focused on two long-standing agenda items: the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcast Organizations (since 1998) and Limitations and Exceptions for libraries, archives, museums, education, research, and persons with disabilities (since 2004, SCCR/12/3). The SCCR has also been considering various initiatives around copyright in the digital environment since its inception in 1998. Several other matters have been introduced to the agenda over time, including consideration of resale royalty rights for artwork, the rights of theatre directors, and “public lending rights” — which refer to charging libraries for lending public copies of copyrighted works. I. Protection of Broadcast Organizations A. Background B. Current Issues II. Limitations and Exceptions A. Background B. Current issues III. Other matters A. Copyright in the Digital Environment B. Resale Royalty Right C. Rights of Theatre Directors 10 D. Other Studies 10 I.Protection of Broadcast Organizations A. Background The negotiation of the rights of broadcasters was included on the SCCR’s agenda at its founding in 1998. It follows and extends a history of WIPO treaties on broadcasting dating to the Berne Convention’s protection of the rights of authors to their broadcasts in 1928 (Art 11bis), recognition of the rights of broadcast organizations to control uses of wireless broadcasts in the Rome Convention of 1961, and recognition of duties of countries to control unlawful interception of satellite signals by any means in the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (1974). The Broadcast Treaty is being drafted according to the GA Mandates of 2006 and 2007. The central question for the Broadcasting Treaty, in line with the 2007 General Assembly Mandate, is whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” to warrant a recommendation for a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The 2006 GA mandated that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006). B. Current Issues The changes in the latest draft are minimal. The SCCR 45 Chair’s Summary described the general zone of consensus on the committee on its objectives, scope, and object of protection: “[w]ith respect to objectives, there is common understanding … that the treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy, should not extend to any post-fixation activities and that it should provide member states with flexibility to implement obligations through adequate and effective legal means” and “that the object of protection (subject-matter) of the treaty is related to programme-carrying signals linked to linear transmission”. Some of the provisions in the Chair’s draft appear to extend beyond the bounds of the consensus described in SCCR 45 and in the GA mandates from 2006 and 2007. Some of the major issues include: Are fixation and stored programs rights “signal-based”? The GA mandates require that the Broadcast Treaty follow a “signal based approach.” The Rome Convention uses a “rights-based” approach — i.e., giving broadcasters exclusive rights such as transmission and fixation. The Brussels Convention follows a “signal-based” approach, requiring prevention of signal theft by any regulatory means, without requiring or promoting exclusive rights. There appears to be a consensus on the Committee that, at least in principle, the inclusion of article 10’s flexibility to use other regulatory means combined with some optional exclusive rights (arts. 6-9), in what has been called a “hybrid” approach, can meet the GA requirement that it be “signal-based.” But some countries have opposed articles 7 (fixation) and 8 (stored programs) as being beyond the GA’s mandates. a. Fixation (Art. 7) Extending the treaty to a right of fixation (Art. 7) essentially means that a user would have to get permission from a broadcaster to make a copy of broadcast content, even if that content was lawfully received (e.g. by a subscriber). That could enable broadcasters to charge subscribers extra for the right to record content, even for uses that copyright law normally permits. For example, a broadcaster may be enabled to demand additional license fees to use private recording devices to enjoy content at a different time or on a different device. Or broadcasters could require licenses to make recordings for any use not included in limitations and exceptions, such as recordings for educational, research, or preservation uses by cultural institutions. b. Stored Programs (Art. 8) Extending protections to uses of stored programs could enable broadcasters to exclude uses of third-party recording devices and thereby obtain market power for such services. The right to record broadcast material for personal time or device shifting dates to the introduction of video cassette recorders in the 1970s. There are often markets for third party digital recording devices for broadcast material, such as the TIVO device that was popular in the US for many years. Some countries may want to authorize more sophisticated third-party recording, such as the system that was held in the US to violate broadcaster rights in American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (2014), which ruled that Aereo’s service—which allowed subscribers to view live, over-the-air television broadcasts over the internet—violated copyright laws. 2. Should limitations and exceptions apply to all uses permitted by copyright? Public interest groups have frequently opined that the limitations and exceptions to any broadcasting organization’s right should extend at least to all uses permitted by copyright, for example, by changing the use of “may” to “shall” throughout Article 11. Otherwise, a public interest user may have to clear broadcast rights even for a use permitted by copyright. 3. Are internet streaming companies “traditional” broadcasting? The GA mandates require
