Author name: InfoJustice Eds.

Case Studies

Dams In the Infinite River: Limits to Copyright’s Power Over the Next-Generation of Generative AI Media

/

Can copyright effectively govern creative works in an age of infinite digital remixing? Is it possible—or even reasonable—to audit how creators use AI in their art? Should copyright law adapt to prioritize attribution and visibility over strict ownership? What new models are needed for artists to capture value in a world of mass, AI-driven content? Questions raised by Zachary Cooper in his presentation. Watch the video or read the transcript below. Zachary Cooper, a researcher at the Amsterdam Law and Technology Institute (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), delivered a provocative address at the recent User Rights Conference in Geneva in June 2025 entitled “Dams for the Infinite River.” Cooper’s talk challenged conventional debates in copyright law by spotlighting the seismic impact of AI on media creation. Instead of focusing on traditional authorship thresholds, Cooper urged legal scholars and policy-makers to grapple with deeper issues emerging as generative AI lets anyone remix, alter, and mass-produce creative content with unprecedented ease. His research was supported by the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin and the Copyright Society. Throughout his presentation, Cooper highlighted the profound difficulties facing rights holders in auditing creative works crafted with AI, questioning both the feasibility and ethics of tools like watermarking. He noted that legal frameworks around the world are ill-equipped to handle the blurred boundaries between human and machine authorship, which can vary dramatically from one country—or even one creative tool—to the next. As technology enables infinitely variable, interactive content, Cooper argued that copyright law is rapidly losing its power to define, control, and protect creative output. Cooper concluded by suggesting that copyright is akin to “a dam in an infinite river”—an increasingly obsolete barrier in a world defined by endless remix and transformation. He warned that unless legal and industry leaders embrace collective licensing models and prioritize attribution and visibility, platforms with massive network effects will continue to undercut the negotiating power of original creators. The talk raised urgent questions about the future of artistic value and legal protection in the era of generative AI. Cleaned-Up Full Transcript Below is the transcript, with minor clean-up for clarity, grammar, and removal of interruptions (for example, fixing sentence structure and omitting interjections like “Maybe some of you guys already know this song. Is it coming through? Oh, hold on.” unless directly relevant). I’ll also clarify some sentences and remove redundancy and filler where possible. Stage directions (music playing, technical interruptions) will be omitted unless needed for meaning. I’m Zach Cooper from the Amsterdam Law and Technology Institute at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This research has also been sponsored and supported by the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin and the Copyright Society. I’ve titled the presentation “Dams for the Infinite River.” What do I mean by that? I’ve been trying to reframe the conversation around what I believe are the actual challenges as AI dramatically changes the ways we consume and produce media in the 21st century. Instead of focusing on longstanding debates about authorship thresholds, I argue that a collection of unspoken challenges will more fundamentally shape the issues facing rights holders over the coming decade—some already present, others just emerging. As a cultural reference, I was encouraged to revisit Taylor Swift’s music, and her work offers a useful metaphor for my argument. With new technologies, it’s possible to change a song’s structure, lyrics, or style almost instantly. For instance, I was able to alter one of her songs for this presentation much faster than it took us to listen to it here. That example raises a fundamental question: Now that we can so easily transform any media, what role does intellectual property play? How can it govern such a fluid world? It’s become widely accepted that pressing a button to generate content isn’t the same as creating something as an artist. However, definitions differ worldwide. In China, a lengthy and detailed AI prompt might count as authorship. In the US, AI is considered a tool, but the boundaries between “human” and “AI-generated” work remain undefined. Europe has largely avoided the issue, though courts have denied copyright to works made by AI without human involvement. The problem with all these approaches is that they split copyright protection based on how much AI was used. In reality, professional creative software has countless generative and non-generative tools, and creators often use many in combination. At present, pressing one set of buttons might grant copyright; pressing another might not—yet how can we audit those choices? When people talk about “AI,” they imagine a single function, but AI can do anything: from mastering music to generating drumlines, altering instrument sounds, or even creating new genres. The spectrum of creative tools and applications is vast. And generative art isn’t simply “slop” made thoughtlessly; sometimes, the act of generation itself creates entirely new forms of art. Artists like Databots stream infinitely generated music, turning the process and the model itself into the artwork. Labeling something as “AI-generated” doesn’t reveal anything meaningful about the creator’s relationship to the work. Judges, copyright offices, and others cannot just ask whether someone used generative AI—they need to know exactly how it was used, down to the specifics of each prompt or button pressed. Currently, there’s no way to reliably track or audit these creative decisions. The available methods are either to trust creators to self-report their practices, which is unreliable, especially for older works, or to track every creative act—a solution that invades privacy and may stifle creativity. Watermarking is frequently proposed but is technically weak; watermarks can be stripped from images or audio files, and existing protocols like C2PA are dependent on metadata, which is easy to remove. Even with robust watermarking, creators could simply recreate works without relying on AI, bypassing any AI-detection entirely. Thus, the system is inconsistent and essentially unworkable. Current enforcement tries to assign rights based on the use of AI features that remain unauditable and poorly defined, never truly capturing the creator’s intent or involvement. Alternatively, we accept new creative models and ask: What are the real

Blog

An Open Letter to the ICANN Community: Not the Community Priority Evaluation We Intended

/

This post was originally published on CircleID by Kathy Kleiman To the ICANN Community, Today, I share a warning about serious changes to the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. They are not driven by public comment, but by a few voices within the SubPro Implementation Review Team—and they are very likely to lead to disastrous misappropriation of well-known community names, including those of Tribes, Indigenous Peoples and NGOs around the world. The reason why is that we (the ICANN Community) envisioned.CHEROKEE for the Cherokee Nation and other tribes, peoples and NGOs, not a group that loves their Grand Cherokee and Jeep Cherokee cars and jeeps. But the policy written by the SubPro PDP Working Group (2016-2020) and accepted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board recently was deeply changed—and replaced with a scoring system that eliminates the ability of well-known communities to stop unrelated groups, or a fraction of their community, or a group completely opposed to them from using the same name as a new gTLD, provided the applicant has some semblance of internal organization and activity. This change will result in the misappropriation of well-known community names and great harm that we never intended when we wrote the policy. The Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (meeting 2016-2020) was fairly balanced in its recommendations for both the applicant and communities that might oppose the CPE application. I share some of the language showing the independence of the Community Experts on the CPE panel to research and other communities and tribes to send comments and letters of opposition and raise concerns—all to be taken into account in the CPE evaluation. Final Report, 2020. Unfortunately and very recently, a few members of the SubPro Implementation Review Team (“IRT”), a group charged with implementing policy, not rewriting it, made change after change to the language, terms and scoring of the Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) rules. In April, they stripped out carefully negotiated policies and balances to create an unfair advance for applicants—including by new rules telling the CPE Panelists to greatly limit the use their expertise and independent research skills and not to weigh heavily external opposition and comments they may receive. The changes are buried in Module 4: Contention Set Resolution, 4.4 Community Priority Evaluation, pages 133-150, of the final draft of the Applicant Guidebook now out for public comment. If you look at the new CPE scoring system—called Community Priority Evaluation Criteria (Section 4.4.7, p.139 in draft AGB)—in the edited versions (“redlines” that I share from the IRT on April 14, 2025, and April 30, 2025, and a special redline combining both sets of edits that I created), you will see the hands of the CPE Panelists are newly “tied” and they cannot engage in the research and application of their knowledge that the adopted policy requires. Sadly, under the new changes: And these are just a few examples. Under this new language—newly shared with the community and not arising from public comment—self-identified communities will win CPE. What a prize for the applicant (no auction) and what a tragedy for the peoples, tribes and NGOs of the same name and for far longer than the applicant! Overall, if these rules are adopted, we can predict that letters and comments of heartfelt opposition against CPE applicants will pour into ICANN, only to be systematically ignored by the Panel because of these recent changes to scoring and evaluation criteria. As shared above, this April editing came not from accepted policy, but from a few strong voices on the SubPro IRT. I fear disastrous misappropriation of the well-known names of peoples, tribes and communities if recent changes to CEP text and scoring are not reversed, and the original language is not restored. If you agree, I ask you to write a small set of comments—and share you how to do it below—as it will make a different. Thank you for reading and caring, Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Constituency To Submit a Comment in ICANN’s Open Proceeding on the Final Draft of the Applicant Guidebook, due July 23rd. Thank you! Footnotes

Blog

Ethical Data Scraping for Research – Expert Workshop held in Amsterdam

/

A unique, expert-led workshop on ethical data scraping was organized by Professor Niva Elkin-Koren and Dr. Maayan Perel and hosted by the Shamgar Center of Digital Law and Innovation, Tel Aviv University. The workshop was made possible by the generous support of the Right to Research in International Copyright Law coalition at the American University, especially Professor Sean Flynn, the Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP). An interdisciplinary group of information law experts gathered in Amsterdam’s beautiful Volks hotel on July 2, 2025, to discuss data scraping for research and innovation and its ethical boundaries. The event aligned with the agenda of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which promotes public interest strategies, coordinated action, and research, and seeks to inform public policy on legal exceptions and limitations for researchers. Data scraping is an essential research tool for academics and scientists across a wide range of disciplines. It is also critical for training artificial intelligence (AI) models and developing innovative research methodologies. The legal boundaries of data scraping attract considerable attention, not only from academics but also from policymakers, governments, courts, technology companies, and data providers worldwide. The boundaries of ethical data scraping— often dependent on the type of data being scraped, the technologies being used, the purpose of scraping, and the applicable legal framework—remain unclear. Consequently, researchers are left to navigate the potential legal risks and changing technological barriers set by tech giants, such as Cloudflare (recently adopting a permission-based approach to data scraping). As a result, researchers may be deterred from engaging in lawful data scraping, at the cost of not engaging in research that can serve the public interest. Moderated by Dr. Maayan Perel and Professor Eldar Haber, the workshop aimed to bring greater clarity to what ethical data scraping is and should be. The workshop applied practical and technical insights from real-world data scraping, analyzed the legal implications of various transatlantic approaches, and proposed guidelines for promoting ethical data scraping for research and development. To obtain a better understanding of how data scraping models work in practice, participants explored a test case model from Bright Data, an international data scraping company, whose model was also discussed in recent litigation with X and Meta. In a stimulating presentation, Bright Data representatives described their publicly available data scraping technology, elaborated on their ethical policies, and presented their “data for good” initiative, which offers scraping opportunities for researchers as well as other stakeholders. To encourage a productive dialogue between academic and business participants, the discussion followed a “red teaming” approach. Red teaming, a concept we adapted from the cybersecurity realm, essentially aims to help organizations proactively identify weaknesses and strengthen their security posture before actual attacks occur. Applying red-teaming’s critical approach, the participants identified potential legal challenges in Bright Data’s data test case model from various perspectives, including intellectual property law, competition law, privacy law, and data protection law, while also identifying points of legal tension between the US and the EU frameworks. The issues highlighted included the legal application of copyright law to information copying and storage; questions of competition law arising from the dominant market actors’ ability to adjust behavior and match prices; and the scope of privacy protection in personal information that data providers voluntarily make publicly accessible.   Next, insights from Bright Data’s test case were used to draw broader observations about what constitutes ethical data scraping in practice, especially for AI training. Key issues included: The workshop concluded with a broader discussion of potential legal, technical, and institutional strategies to promote ethical data scraping for academic research and technological development. Participants identified the need to distinguish between questions of access to data and questions of the use of the data, as each raises different legal issues. Key suggestions included: Participants: Tanya Aplin, Mor Avisar, Balazs Bodo, Sharon Bar Ziv, Sean Flynn, Eldar Haber, Uri Hacohen, Bernt Hugenholtz, Aline Iramina, Matthias Leistner, Dana Mazia, Maayan Perel, Mando Rachovista, Pamela Samuelson, Martin Senftleben, Ben Sobel, Streffan Verhultz, Amit Zac

Blog, Trade Agreements & IP

Balanced Copyright Protection in the UK-India CETA

/

Jonathan Band             The full text of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the United Kingdom-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, signed on July 24, 2025, is now available for review. Overall, it is much more favorable to balanced copyright protection and user rights than previously released drafts and summaries.             The provision for copyright exceptions is the same limited language that first appeared in the UK’s proposed text for the IP chapter leaked in 2022. Article 13.68 Limitations and Exceptions 1. A Party may provide limitations or exceptions in its law to the rights provided for in this Section, but shall confine those limitations or exceptions to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of covered subject matter, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. 2. This Article is without prejudice to the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions to any rights permitted by the TRIPS Agreement and WIPO administered treaties to which a Party is party.             However, the Chapter contains other important language that promotes balance. Thus, Article 13.2(a), setting forth the Objectives of the Chapter, states: the objectives of this Chapter are … that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations….  (Emphasis supplied.)             The Chapter then sets forth Principles the Parties may follow in formulating amending their laws. First, the Article 13.3(1) provides that a Party may adopt measures necessary “to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to its socio-economic and technological development….” Presumably these sectors would include cultural heritage, research, and education.             Second, Article 13.3(2) incorporates language similar to TRIPs Article 40 that appropriate measures may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.             Next, Article 13.4 recites a list of Understandings in respect of the Chapter: [T]he Parties recognise the need to: (a) promote innovation and creativity; (b) facilitate the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, content, culture and the arts; (c) foster competition and open and efficient markets; (d) maintain an appropriate balance between the rights of intellectual property right holders and the legitimate interests of users and the public interest; (e) establish and maintain transparent intellectual property systems; and (f) promote and maintain adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights to provide confidence to right holders and users, through their respective intellectual property systems, while respecting the principles of transparency and due process, and taking into account the interests of relevant stakeholders, including right holders, service providers, users, and the general public. (Emphasis supplied.) The parties reached these Understandings “having regard to the underlying public policy objectives of their national systems, while recognizing the different levels of economic development and capacity and differences in national legal systems….”             As noted above, the Agreement does not contain detailed obligations concerning copyright exceptions. Nonetheless, Article 13.71 requiring each Party to provide adequate legal protection against unauthorized circumvention of effective technological measures does permit the Parties to take appropriate measures to ensure that beneficiaries may enjoy exceptions and limitations provided for them. Similarly, Article 13.103 requires each Party to maintain a system to limit the liability of Online Service Providers for infringements of copyright committed by users of their services.             Moreover, the language concerning Objectives, Principles, and Understandings provide both the UK and India with sufficient flexibility to adopt robust exceptions that effectively balance the interests of all stakeholders.

Blog, WIPO-SCCR

Excerpts from Delegation Statements on the SCCR at the 2025 General Assembly

/

Sean Flynn, Luca Schirru, Talia Deady  In a previous blog post, we analyzed the statements of regional groups and delegations during the 2025 WIPO General Assembly review of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). Here we share fuller excerpts of those statements, which may be useful to researchers and others closely following the Committee’s work.  Pakistan – APG “We reaffirm our support for the conclusion of a fair and inclusive broadcasting treaty. The group recognizes the need to narrow gaps and build consensus in line with the mandate of the Committee. We urge continued constructive engagement by all Delegations during upcoming SCCR sessions without prejudging whether the Committee is in a position to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.  The group reiterates its longstanding support for meaningful work on limitations and exceptions, particularly for libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. Ensuring the preservation of an access to knowledge remains a key priority for this group. The APG is of the view that the limitations and exceptions agenda is essential to enabling inclusive access to knowledge, education and culture, especially in developing countries. We welcome the consensus within the Committee to continue discussions on this important item and support endeavors to advance the implementation of the work program.  We reiterate the increasing relevance of discussions on copyright in the digital environment, especially the evolving implications of generative artificial intelligence on copyright. The group supports the continuation of information sessions and discussions in this regard. The APG also notes the interest expressed to discuss other topics at SCCR. While we remain open to dialogue, there is a need to ensure that the Committee’s workload is balanced and aligned with the needs of all Member States.” Japan – Group B “Group B would like to emphasize the importance of working towards progress in the discussions on the draft Treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations with a view to addressing the legal use of program carrying signals. In order to achieve a meaningful agreement within this Committee, sufficient time should continue to be allocated to this standing agenda item.  For the Agenda Item limitations and exceptions, it would be reiterated that the work under this Committee should follow the scope and parameters as identified in the work program adopted at SCCR 43. We are committed to engaging in further constructive discussions on this issue. Finally, Group B welcomes the informative exchanges held during the information session on generative AI as it relates to copyright. Given the rapidly evolving AI technology landscape, we consider balanced discussions among Member States and stakeholders covering both opportunities and challenges to be highly valuable. Accordingly, we look forward to the follow-up session at SCCR 47.” China  “This Delegation supports the SCCR in continuing discussing protection of broadcasting organizations, limitations and exceptions, and as well as other agenda items. [We support] reaching an agreement on substantive issues in terms of protection of broadcasting organizations to lay a foundation for the convening of a Diplomatic Conference. Relevant study should be carried out in depth to promote discussions on exceptions and limitations. On other agenda items, in particular Copyright in the digital environment including generative AI in relation to copyright, this Delegation will enhance communication with WIPO and other related parties.” Estonia – CEBS  “We would like to reiterate our firm commitment to advancing towards the conclusion of a meaningful Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting organizations. We support a Treaty that adequately reflects the technological realities of the 21st century and ensures appropriate and effective protection against signal piracy. The CEBS group has long supported the convening of a Diplomatic Conference and considers that we are now approaching a point of readiness for final negotiations. We remain committed to a future-oriented Treaty that meets the current needs of broadcasting organizations and accommodates the challenges posed by the digital environment and rapid technological developments. The CEBS group looks forward to considering the Chair’s revised text at the upcoming SCCR session. We hope this will pave the way for a robust and balanced legal instrument that also provides equal protection for transmissions over computer networks and supports the global fight against signal piracy. With regard to the Committee’s work on limitations and exceptions, the CEBS group continues to recognize the vital role played by libraries, archives and museums in the dissemination of knowledge, information and culture as well as in the preservation of our shared history. We also attach high importance to the work of educational and research institutions and to ensuring access to copyright protected works for persons with disabilities. As we have consistently stated, our group does not support pursuing an internationally legally binding instrument in this area. Instead we are open to exploring possible nonbinding instruments and best practice tools that can help Member States implement effective and context sensitive exceptions and limitations at the national level. We look forward to reviewing the document to be prepared by the Chair and Vice Chair and to continuing our constructive engagement in the discussions at the upcoming SCCR session. The CEBS group welcomes the continued exchange of information on the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. We appreciated the information session on generative AI held at the last session which provided valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities that AI poses to the copyright system. We are pleased that the follow-up information session will take place at SCCR 47.  With regard to other matters on the Committee’s agenda, the CEBS group would like to reiterate its view that should the SCCR agenda be expanded to include additional items in the future, the authors’ resale right would be a valuable and relevant topic to be considered as a standing item. We are also carefully analyzing the proposals put forward under the agenda item copyright in the digital environment and remain committed to engaging constructively in these discussions.”  Ecuador – GRULAC  “GRULAC reiterates the importance of the work of this Committee regarding

Blog, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

WIPO General Assembly Meeting on SCCR Expresses Consensus for Progress on Broadcast and L&E Instruments

/

Sean Flynn, Luca Schirru, Talia Deady The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held its General Assembly (GA) this week, including a review of the progress and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). The GA affirmed its mandates to the Committee to continue working on instruments on the protection of broadcasting organizations and limitations and exceptions (L&Es) for libraries, archives, museums, education and research institutions, and for people with disabilities other than visual impairments. Analysis of the statements of regional groups and delegations shows that there is a growing consensus for conclusion of the Broadcasting Treaty under a narrowed form and for pairing it with progress toward at least an instrument on L&Es. This article summarises and analyses the statements of delegations on the SCCR’s work. A companion article provides fuller excerpts of the statements quoted here.  Context   The GA is the apex decision-making body of WIPO. Among other work, at each meeting, the Assembly reviews and affirms or alters its mandates to Standing Committees on the ongoing work. The SCCR is operating under two sets of mandates from the General Assembly.  Decisions from 2006 and 2007 instruct the Committee to seek “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” on a basic text of a treaty for the protection of broadcast organizations (WO/GA/34/16, 2007) “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, 2006).  A decision from 2012 instructs the Committee to work toward an “appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)” on uses by libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14). In SCCR 43, the Committee adopted a Work Program on Limitations and Exceptions (SCCR/43/8), including a process to draft “objectives, principles, and options” for instruments. SCCR agendas regularly include work on a number of other agenda items, most of which have been approved in some form by GAs for SCCR discussions, but only Broadcasting and L&Es are subject to GA mandates for the drafting of international instruments.  Broadcasting Organizations Consensus for Concluding a Treaty There continues to be a consensus within the SCCR in favor of concluding the Broadcast Treaty, with many calling for more speed in reaching a conclusion. The groups and countries that spoke in favor of concluding a Broadcasting Treaty included the Asia Pacific Group (APG), Group B, Central European and Baltic States (CEBS), Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), African Group (AG), China, European Union (EU), Colombia, Iran, Russian Federation, Mexico, United States, Japan, India, Malawi, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cameroon, Botswana, France, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Algeria, and Samoa.  Several statements called for speeding progress toward the Treaty’s conclusion. France called for “the Committee to speed up in a constructive manner the work on the draft Treaty.” The Russian Federation called for the Committee “to step up work on the draft WIPO Treaty.” The African Group, Cameroon, Botswana, Kenya, and South Africa expressed concern on the slow progress of work of the SCCR on both broadcasting and L&Es.  Several speakers explicitly endorsed a Diplomatic Conference in the near term. These included both CEBS and the EU, which each mentioned their long-term support for convening of a Diplomatic Conference. China expressed a desire to reach “an agreement on substantive issues … to lay a foundation for the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.” Saudi Arabia specifically supported “holding two sessions in 2025 regarding protecting broadcasting organizations because this will bridge gaps among Member States and will pave the way in order to hold a Diplomatic Conference on this matter.” The Asia Pacific Group, however, urged “continued constructive engagement … without prejudging whether the Committee is in a position to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.”  Debate Over the Internet Provisions  The main sticking point on the Treaty has long involved the provisions that extend to Internet streaming.  The countries of the EU and CEBS, which support the Internet provisions, have supported convening a diplomatic conference on the current draft text. The EU expressed its support for a “worthwhile” Treaty “which responds to the technological realities of the 21st century.” Similarly, the CEBS group expressed support for a Treaty that “reflects the technological realities of the 21st century,” is “future-oriented,” “accommodates the challenges posed by the digital environment,” and “provides equal protection for transmissions over computer networks.” Many of the groups and countries signaled their opposition to the Internet provisions by calling for closer adherence to the 2006 and 2007 GA decisions.  The US was most explicit in its objections. It stated that the current draft text “exceeds the General Assembly mandate with its inclusion of articles that provide a new right of fixation and that protect signals used in making available to the public stored programs.” It called instead for the Treaty to be “limited to providing traditional broadcasting organizations with a single exclusive right to authorize simultaneous retransmissions to the public of their linear broadcast signals.” Referring to the terms of the 2007 GA’s prerequisites for the recommendation of a diplomatic conference, the US argued that there continue to be “significant questions and concerns … regarding the proposed instrument’s objectives, rights to be granted, and scope of protection.” Accordingly, it called for “much more work” on “these fundamental issues” to make the draft text “acceptable to all Member States.” Japan echoed the statement of the US in observing “different views among Member States on the fundamental issues” and opined that “a flexible approach is needed allowing each Member State to join the treaty while taking into account international and regional circumstances.”  The Asia Pacific Group, represented by Pakistan, recognized “the need to narrow gaps and build consensus in line with the mandate of the Committee.” Iran called for “moving the Committee closer to fulfilling the 2007 General Assembly mandate … limited to the traditional broadcasting organizations and based on a signal-based approach.” Mexico similarly called for an approach “focusing on

Blog

Tanuja Garde Appointed Director of WTO’s IP Division

/

In July 2025, Tanuja Garde assumed the role of Director of the Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division at the World Trade Organization (WTO). She holds a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Duke University and a Juris Doctor from the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. Before joining the WTO, Garde was Vice President of IP and Information Governance at Boeing (2022–2025) and an advisor to the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (2019–2025). According to the WTO website, the division is “responsible for the WTO’s work in trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), government procurement and competition policy,” and “also maintains and develops lines of communication with other intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, intellectual property practitioners and the academic community.” Garde succeeds Antony Taubman, who directed the WTO division from 2009 to 2024. Before that, Taubman was Director of Global Intellectual Property Issues at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2002–2009).

Artificial Intelligence, Blog

A first look into the JURI draft report on copyright and AI

/

This post was originally published on COMMUNIA by Teresa Nobre and Leander Nielbock Last week we saw the first draft of the long-anticipated own-initiative report on copyright and generative artificial intelligence authored by Axel Voss for the JURI Committee (download as a PDF file). The report, which marks the third entry of the Committee’s recent push on the topic after a workshop and the release of a study in June, fits in with the ongoing discussions around Copyright and AI at the EU-level. In his draft, MEP Voss targets the legal uncertainty and perceived unfairness around the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, strongly encouraging the Commission to address the issue as soon as possible, instead of waiting for the looming review of the Copyright Directive in 2026. A good starting point for creators The draft report starts by calling the Commission to assess whether the existing EU copyright framework addresses the competitive effects associated with the use of protected works for AI training, particularly the effects of AI-generated outputs that mimic human creativity. The rapporteur recommends that such assessment shall consider fair remuneration mechanisms (paragraph 2) and that, in the meantime, the Commission shall “immediately impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright” (paragraph 4). Such an obligation shall be in effect “until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted.” However, we fail to understand how such a transitory measure could be introduced without a reform of its own. Voss’s thoughts on fair remuneration also require further elaboration, but clearly the rapporteur is solely concerned about remunerating individual creators and other rightholders (paragraph 2). Considering, however, the vast amounts of public resources that are being appropriated by AI companies for the development of AI systems, remuneration mechanisms need to channel value back to the entire information ecosystem. Expanding this recommendation beyond the narrow category of rightholders seems therefore crucial. Paragraph 10 deals with the much debated issue of transparency, calling for “full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems”, while paragraph 11 asks for an “irrebuttable presumption of use” where the full transparency obligations have not been fully complied with. Recitals O to Q clarify that full transparency shall consist “in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training”—an approach that does not seem proportionate, realistic or practical. At this stage, a more useful approach to copyright transparency would be to go beyond the disclosure of training data, which is already dealt with in the AI Act, and recommend the introduction of public disclosure commitments on opt-out compliance. A presumption of use—which is a reasonable demand—could still kick in based on a different set of indicators. Another set of recommendations that aims at addressing the grievances of creators are found on paragraphs 6 and 9 and include the standardization of opt-outs and the creation of a centralized register for opt-outs. These measures are very much in line with COMMUNIA’s efforts to uphold the current legal framework for AI training, which relies on creators being able to exercise and enforce their opt-out rights. Two points of concern for users At the same time that it tries to uphold the current legal framework, the draft report also calls for either the introduction of a new “dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction” or for expanding the scope of Article 4 of the DSM Directive “to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI” (paragraph 7). At first glance, this recommendation may appear innocuous—redundant even, given that the AI Act already assumes that such legal provision extends to AI model providers. However, the draft report does not simply intend to clarify the current EU legal framework. On the contrary, the report claims that the training of generative AI systems is “currently not covered” by the existing TDM exceptions. This challenges the interpretation provided for in the AI Act and by multiple statements by the Commission and opens the door for discussions around the legality of current training practices, with all the consequences this entails, including for scientific research. The second point of concern for users is paragraph 13, which calls for measures to counter copyright infringement “through the production of GenAI outputs.” Throughout the stakeholder consultations on the EU AI Code of Practice, COMMUNIA was very vocal about the risks this category of measures could entail for private uses, protected speech and other fundamental freedoms. We strongly opposed the introduction of system-level measures to block output similarity, since those would effectively require the use of output filters without safeguarding users rights. We also highlighted that model-level measures targeting copyright-related overfitting could have the effect of preventing the lawful development of models supporting substantial legitimate uses of protected works. As this report evolves, it is crucial to keep this in mind and to ensure that any copyright compliance measures targeting AI outputs are accompanied by relevant safeguards that protect the rights of users of AI systems. A win for the Public Domain One of the last recommendations in the draft report concerns the legal status of AI-generated outputs. Paragraph 12 suggests that “AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined.” While some AI-assisted expressions can qualify as copyright-protected works under EU law —most importantly when there’s sufficient human control over the output—many will not meet the standards for copyright protection. However, these outputs can still potentially be protected by related rights, since most have no threshold for protection. This calls into question whether the related rights system is fit for purpose in the age of AI: protecting non-original AI outputs with exclusive rights regardless of any underlying creative activity and in the absence of meaningful investment is certainly inadequate. We therefore support the recommendation that their public domain status be asserted in those cases. Next steps Once the draft report is officially published and presented in JURI on

Blog

WIPO Report on UDRP lacks structural separation and data, and throws aside clear free speech protections in the global domain name system

/

Kathryn Kleiman Twenty-five years ago, the then-new Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) adopted a virtual dispute policy for domain names as its first “consensus policy” and that policy is now due to be reviewed. A comment filed last week by PIJIP professors and fellows Christine Farley, Kathryn Kleiman and Patricia Aufderheide, together with Rebecca Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Michael Karanicolas, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, and Mitch Stoltz, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, laid bare a deep set of concerns about the troubling role of WIPO in writing this report and key recommendations that it made. In this report , WIPO casts itself as the leader of the review of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, or “UDRP,” yet as pointed out in the PIJIP comments, the role of WIPO raises key structural concerns as WIPO is the world’s leading provider of domain name dispute services.  Specifically, the comment calls for structural separation: “[In 1999] WIPO became the first ICANN-approved generic top level domain (gTLD) domain name dispute providers, and changed its role from rule-maker to dispute forum. This changes the place of WIPO in the process – as a forum convener, not a rule creator… which means that it is difficult—if not impossible—for WIPO to ask hard questions about core structures and to make comparisons to other existing (NIC Chile) and possible systems.” The comment also questions the lack of comprehensive data analysis in the WIPO-ICA Review – analysis of data that after 25 years is available in abundance:   “After 25 years and over 64,000 UDRP cases brought to WIPO for domain names in the generic top level domain (gTLDs), we expected data: substantive, clear, neutral and statistically valid data. After all, as the first ICANN-approved UDRP dispute provider, WIPO holds this data from the very first UDRP dispute in December 1999 to current ones in June 2025… Yet, this WIPO-ICA Report defaults to the old method of anecdotal evidence: Interviews with the ‘usual suspects’ of well-known people who spend a considerable part of their lives thinking about the UDRP.” Further, the comment raises deep free speech concerns about a recommendation by WIPO to reveal the names of speakers without their consent. It calls for all UDRP Providers in the future to follow the current practices of WIPO (privately adopted) and disclose the names of domain name registrants against whom a UDRP is filed with very limited exceptions (data now redacted due to GDPR and other comprehensive data protection laws).  Our comment strongly disagreed on free speech grounds: “For the cost of a UDRP filing, currently $1500 for a single-panelist at WIPO, the report recommends that rules and ethics protecting privacy, anonymity and free speech be thrown aside. The identity of a person or party speaking, critiquing, or criticizing can be revealed to the complainant, even if the registrant is fully protected under their national laws and rights of free expression and privacy, including the right to anonymity and pseudonymity.” This is only the first volley in UDRP review that is likely to take place over the next few years at ICANN. If you are interested in this material, and especially the fairness and balance of future UDRP rules, and would like to be involved in further discussion, please contact Kathryn Kleiman, Senior Policy Fellow of PIJIP, at Kleiman@american.edu. Links: [1] WIPO-ICA UDRP Review Report of April 2025 can be found here. [2] Our comments can be found here. [3] All comments to this report can be found here.

Blog, WIPO-SCCR

The GRULAC proposal on remuneration rights at WIPO SCCR: Understanding the interface with national debates and the issue of corporate power

/

Vitor Ido of the University of São Paulo (USP) explains the context of the renewed focus on remuneration of creatives in Latin America, especially in Brazil. He focuses on the desire by Brazil’s new government to regulate the power of large corporates, especially those based in the Global North, especially the tendency to exploit Brazil’s creative content at the expense of local authors and creators. This presentation was delivered at the User Rights meeting in Geneva on 17 June 2025. The full text is available below. The political context in Brazil: A renewed commitment to national creative industries It’s a pleasure to be here and thank you so much for the invitation. So I’ll try to feed into this discussion of remuneration rights, but with a different framing and a different entry point in particular: the reasons why GRULAC and Latin America wanted to bring this discussion to WIPO and how there’s kind of a big mismatch between what’s taking place at the national or regional level and what’s taking place more globally. My interpretation is that we need to understand that at least in Brazil, potentially slightly different from what we’re seeing in Europe, there’s two main things: On the one hand, renewed attention to creative industries as strategic to the Brazilian economy and Latin America more broadly. And on the other hand, regulation of huge platforms.  It’s the post-Bolsonaro context. So this is responding to an authoritarian context in which you had severe cutting in culture industries financing, but also deregulation in the platform sector, which also led to direct consequences for democracy, just like we saw in other countries as well. So if we look from that point of view, when we look at how this new government tried to pitch creative industries as one core focus, you see new fiscal policies, you see new legislation and direct and indirect support to not only authors, but movies and all different cultural sectors. That’s where we get to the remuneration issues: low to minimum to absolutely no remuneration at all for authors, in particular by foreign large platforms. And it’s said all the time in Brazil that our Minister of Culture, who’s also an artist, she pretty much gains nothing and she’s well-known, super well-known actually, and she gets basically nothing out of Spotify. On top of that, of course, there are general concerns about a workforce being displaced by artificial intelligence and thinking about the economic potentials of exporting some of our cultural assets to other countries, not just Lusophone countries, but then potentials for conventional streaming platforms like Netflix. So during the pandemic, for instance, when that was the setting, there was no direct support by the government, what we had was just that sort of investment. But also on the other hand, the issue of regulating platforms, what you see, and maybe that’s one of the things that’s being discussed outside of Brazil more, is how the Supreme Court has taken a very active role in regulating platforms, and even this week they’re about to finalise a reframing of a longstanding provision that was basically a safe harbour, not liability, for platforms that is about to be reshaped. And some people in the international literature are even calling it kind of a Brazil model in the making. Remuneration to support and protect journalism and other key sectors But where it fits into remuneration, is that very explicitly the government is saying to counter misinformation, it’s not just about digital literacy, but also about having enough instruments to support journalism, quality journalism, alternative journalism, black-owned journalism, indigenous peoples-owned journalism, women-owned journalism. And because of a fading business model, that also means that potentially new support in the form of remuneration can be part of this agenda.  This is just one example. Another is that, of course, dubbing [of movies and TV] in Brazil is a really huge cultural industry in an economic sense. You see this campaign that is talking not only about the loss of a whole profession, but also how this fits into notions of being Brazilian, what does it mean to speak Brazilian Portuguese, what does it mean to export it all, and the impact of being translated into an AI [voice], which Netflix actually did on a few occasions. It’s not, therefore, just a workforce displacement issue, but also that broader cultural repercussion that needs to be taken into account. The rights of indigenous people to protect traditional knowledge I just wanted to add, as well, a couple of other issues that I think are important for us to understand more broadly. I think the core in Brazil would be there’s more reasons to be concerned about misappropriation, particularly when we’re talking about minorities, than de facto issues with L&Es not existing.  I’m referring, of course, to Alan [Rocha]’s very well-known argument of how courts in Brazil have historically been trying to compensate for the bad legislation that does not really have L&Es, but that de facto end up authorising utilizations, for instance, for both research and educational purposes. In the policy realm, there’s also other reasons to be concerned about what’s going on, with the provisions related to big funders that are licencing some of our preservation and museums and archives policies that often just have that blunt open access provisions that are not really aligned with the way you need to negotiate and ponder things with indigenous peoples. I refer to the launch of the University of Sao Paulo’s new Centre of Documentation of Indigenous Languages and Cultures that took place a couple of weeks ago. It’s a very exciting, huge project, and one of the main issues there is precisely how do you do preservation and archival resources with direct participation of indigenous peoples. One of the main issues is you can’t start with an [open] access provision. It might end with that, but then you need to calibrate issues related to traditional knowledge, so when we bring

Scroll to Top