The Centre on Knowledge Governance recently hosted a webinar to prepare delegates and stakeholders for the upcoming World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) meeting. Attended by over 70 participants—primarily SCCR delegates—the event provided a forum to discuss the advancing global agenda surrounding copyright limitations and exceptions (L&Es). Following a 2012 General Assembly mandate to develop instruments for libraries & archives, museums, research and educational institutions, and people with disabilities, the committee now faces an important juncture. Member states must evaluate three distinct sets of proposals—put forth by the United States, the African Group, and the SCCR Chair—to determine the foundation for future text-based negotiations. Our expert panel provided insights into the content of the various proposals, exploring the historical evolution of international copyright exceptions, evaluating the practical impact of the specific provisions within the current drafts, and examining how these frameworks align with human rights principles, technological advancements like AI, and existing domestic laws. The panel featured: Below is the video of the event followed by a summary of the inputs. A PDF transcript will be provided shortly. Summary of Main Points (with linked headings) Sean Flynn: Contextualizing the Agenda Sean Flynn, Director of the Centre on Knowledge Governance, opened the session by outlining the historical trajectory of the L&E agenda. He noted that the push for minimum standards is not a new phenomenon, with proposals dating back to 2004 and evolving through milestones like the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty. Flynn also highlighted our ongoing preparatory work to inform these negotiations, pointing attendees to newly published empirical studies that demonstrate the positive or neutral market impacts of well-crafted L&Es. Furthermore, he directed participants to our blog for historical timelines, side-by-side document comparisons, and analyses of WIPO’s recent guides on open exceptions and the three-step test. Jonathan Band: Comparative Document Analysis Jonathan Band, Counsel for the Centre on Knowledge Governance, provided a structural comparison of the active proposals currently before the committee, clarifying that the US submitted two formally separate but conceptually overlapping documents covering education and libraries. He explained that all current texts draw upon earlier member submissions and SCCR consolidation charts developed between 2013 and 2017. Band distinguished the practical utility of each framework, noting that the Chair’s text serves primarily as a structural outline, while the US texts offer high-level guiding principles. In contrast, he emphasized that the African Group’s proposal is the most mature text available, offering treaty-like language alongside specific provisions addressing contractual interference and the three-step test. James Love: The Evolution of the Berne Convention James Love of Knowledge Ecology International traced the historical evolution of exceptions within the Berne Convention, which underwent regular revisions up until its final major update in 1971. He detailed how these early iterations adapted to technological changes, progressively expanding access rights for quotation, public affairs, and teaching. Love explained that the three-step test was only introduced in 1967 as a counterbalance to the newly recognized reproduction right, and was not originally intended to restrict the specific exceptions already codified in the agreement. He argued that WTO jurisprudence supports the view that specific Berne exceptions stand on their own merits and are not subjected to the overarching shadow of the three-step test. Faith Majekolagbe: Evaluating the African Group Proposal Professor Faith Majekolagbe of the University of Alberta Faculty of Law offered a review of the African Group’s draft instrument, noting its strategic alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and human rights frameworks. She highlighted that while the proposal seeks binding international obligations, it grants states the flexibility to fulfill these mandates through either general frameworks (like fair use) or specific statutory exceptions. Majekolagbe commended the instrument’s measures to shield lawful L&Es from contractual and technological overreach—an advancement beyond the scope of the Marrakesh Treaty. However, she also identified structural areas requiring improvement, suggesting that the scope of mandatory exceptions for cultural heritage institutions currently omits modern activities, such as e-lending. Christophe Geiger: Human Rights and Authorship Professor Christophe Geiger of Luiss University, Rome, discussed the African Group proposal’s approach to distinguishing between the interests of authors and those of derivative rightsholders—a nuance that is often lost in international copyright lawmaking. He emphasized that researchers and creators primarily seek attribution and broad readership rather than direct economic exploitation of their scientific works. Geiger also recognized the proposal’s grounding in human rights principles and its openness to statutory remuneration models that directly benefit creators. He urged policymakers to utilize existing academic literature, reminding delegates that research has debunked restrictive, step-by-step interpretations of the three-step test. Margaret Chon: AI and Scientific Translation Professor Margaret Chon of Seattle University School of Law presented her ongoing research into how generative AI could be leveraged to overcome language barriers that restrict equitable access to global scientific knowledge. She pointed out a clear disparity: while over 90% of current scientific literature is published in English, fewer than 25% of the global population is proficient in the language, creating a knowledge bottleneck for innovation. Chon argued that existing copyright frameworks, which strictly treat translations as controlled derivative works, fail to incentivize scientific publishers to translate materials for lower-income or minority-language markets. She suggested that modern AI translation tools provide an opportunity to bypass older mechanisms like the 1971 Berne Appendix, provided that international L&Es are updated to legally permit such public-interest uses. Luis Villaroel: Navigating the Three-Step Test Luis Villaroel of Innovarte, Chile, shared his perspective as a former government official, describing the three-step test as a source of complexity that deters developing nations from adopting public interest exceptions due to the fear of trade sanctions. He stressed the difficulty in achieving legal certainty when interpreting the test’s ambiguous standards. Building on the legislative history of the 1967 Berne revisions, Villaroel advocated for the “specialty principle,” asserting that specific exceptions with their own agreed-upon standards must prevail over the general constraints of the three-step test. He recommended amending the African Group proposal to explicitly reject narrow interpretations of exceptions and
