Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

Blog

Your blog category

Blog, WIPO

Time for an IP Reset to Protect Health, Education, Creativity and Traditional Knowledge?

/

It’s time to put people back into the Intellectual Property system. Currently IP tends to reproduce inequality. IP should support public goods such as health and education. We need to address substitution of creators and markets by AI and we should promote solutions like Public AI to protect research and cultural diversity. The profits earned through the monopoly power of IP should be ‘de-linked’ from the incentive to invest in R&D or creativity, especially in health. Most of all, we need accountability back in the system. These were a few of the recommendations offered by a high-level panel of international professors, top government representatives and practitioners at the recent launch of the Centre on Knowledge Governance at the Geneva Graduate Institute on 3 Dec 2025. The discussion covered many of the topical issues currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Disclosure of Traditional Knowledge Former WIPO senior director Wend Wendland talked about his new book which details the long journey to adopt a Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (TK), finally passed in 2024 and which requires the disclosure of TK in patent applications, a rare win for marginalised people in the formal IP system. Valmaine Toki, a Maori rights advocate, praised the treaty but said it will remain an imperfect victory until indigenous people have a full seat at the table in fora like WIPO to ensure full benefit sharing in the exploitation of their knowledge.  Remuneration Guilherme Patriota, Brazil’s Ambassador to the WTO said that creativity and innovation, especially in the age of AI, should not be a ‘winner takes all’ scenario skewed towards the interests of large corporations.  The creator of Brazil has a huge music industry, very popular, also very valuable in many ways like many other countries of the South. Actually, it’s kind of a wealth of the South. Nigeria has a huge film and music industry as you do in South Africa. What’s going to happen to that? Is that all going to be fed for free into systems for large language models and AI and they will start to replicate similar types of music? I think individuals should have the rights of remuneration for their individual work and contribution. So that’s what we’re looking for. Make it more human, make the system more human. Harvard Law Professor Ruth Okediji argued that the failure to reward creators is a problem throughout the IP system: The innovators behind the COVID-19 vaccine are not the ones getting the royalties. The employees in the big intermediaries are not the ones getting the remuneration. It’s not just indigenous communities. It’s not just women. It’s not just small and medium enterprises. The entire ecosystem is structured around private arrangements that make equitable dissemination [of benefits] difficult… AI is bringing us to this moment of confrontation in more explicit ways. Let’s remember that it’s not just the scraping of music or the scraping of data. There are labourers in developing countries who are painstakingly, for very little money, involved in this [production of AI models]. There are environmental costs of these large language models and those costs will be borne disproportionately.  So I think to echo something Ambassador Patriota said, this [inequality] is in the DNA of the system. Access to Medicines Participants also talked about the impact of IP monopolies on access, especially to public goods. Leading health advocate Ellen ‘t Hoen expressed disappointment that the IP lessons learnt by the Access to Medicines movement which fought successfully for affordable AIDS medicines in the 1990s were not applied during the Covid19 pandemic.  The vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccines were largely developed with fast, vast amounts of public financing. …That’s exactly what you want. If a crisis hits like that, you want governments to act and spend money in order to solve it. But what they failed to do was attach conditions to that financing. Those conditions could have, for example, been licensing  know-how through the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) or the Medicines Patent Pool. That did not happen. So the IP was quite strong, and the companies at the end of the day became the ones who decided where the vaccines would go, and the vaccines went to the highest bidders. There is the famous case of Canada buying three times the size of its population, while about five people were vaccinated in sub-Saharan Africa.  James Love of Knowledge Ecology International added the problem of global scale: I think we have to really think hard about how you produce works, produce inventions, produce products as public goods in a world where markets are global. They’re not just national. Governments can sort of do public goods at the national level. They have really been bad at doing it at the global level. And I think that proposals like the idea of de-linking the incentive for drug development from the price of the drug, or the idea of a WTO agreement on the supply of public goods, those things are really, really important today. Limitations and Exceptions Ruth Okediji described Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in a similar vein: There are public goods for which limitations and exceptions are critical. Education would be an example. Every country needs limitations and exceptions that address what happens in the classroom. So I’d say limitations and exceptions for education are super important. We have limitations, for example, for innovation purposes, reverse engineering, decompilations, when it comes to software. This is important in order to both promote interoperability but also to understand what’s behind the hood when you’re looking at a particular technical invention. So I think identifying the category of limitations and exceptions is important and then discerning whether that is a category that at the multilateral level can facilitate consensus because it is the kind of knowledge good for which all countries have a common concern. Archivists are another example. The role of libraries, another example.  Okediji went on to characterise

Blog, WIPO, WIPO-SCCR

WIPO SCCR 47 Ends with Some Progress After Another Late Night

/

The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights negotiated its conclusions into the early morning hours of December 6 over the conclusions on a packed agenda. The meeting agreed to identify a series of specific articles of the Treaty on the Protection of Broadcast Organizations that lack consensus, to delay until next meeting the decision on how to begin text based negotiations on three proposals for work on an instrument on limitations and exceptions, and to begin work on studies of remuneration of audiovisual authors and on copyright and training of artificial intelligence tools. This note describes the major conclusions and positions of member states at the meeting. Below we also publish an edited transcript of the SCCR 47 public sessions.  Treaty for the Protection of Broadcast Organizations The Chair released a new draft Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations with minor changes from the previous draft. After many sessions of the SCCR when it appeared that a conclusion of the broadcast Treaty might be near, this round ended with conclusion that many of the draft treaty’s provisions are far from reaching consensus. The Chair’s summary, in a break with those of the recent past, contained a detailed discussion of divergences that remain: 8. Regarding the first set of articles (articles 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17), no concerns were raised about their current wording.  The second set of articles (articles 3, 4, 6, 10) received support in principle, although a few technical adjustments are still required either in the provisions or the explanatory notes.  With respect to the third set of articles, further in-depth discussions are needed in order to overcome the remaining differences, particularly on the topics of (i) rights contained in articles 7, 8 and the respective definitions (article 2), (ii) exceptions and limitations (article 11) and (iii) the functioning of the national treatment and reciprocity principles (article 5 and the interlink between articles 6, 7, 8, 9 and articles 10 and 15).  In plenary statements, the United States and the members of the African Group explicitly opposed moving the current Chair’s draft of the treaty to a diplomatic conference.  The African Group has long supported a narrow broadcast treaty and has repeatedly expressed concerns about potential unintended effects of a broader treaty on public interest uses and on competitive markets. At this SCCR, the Group made its most specific objections to particular provisions of the draft.  The African group stated its support for the conclusions of the Chair’s summary of SCCR 45, “notably that the treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy, should not extend to post-fixation activities, should provide Member States with flexibility to implement obligations through adequate and effective legal means and that the object of protection relates to program carrying signals linked to linear transmissions.” It criticized the current draft of the Treaty as veering outside of this zone of consensus. It specifically objected to: The Group identified several questions it requested the facilitators and proponents of the treaty to address, including: The African Group concluded that, “given the lack of consensus on numerous provisions, the African Group is of the view that the present text is not ready for a referral to a Diplomatic Conference.” It further restated its position “that the broadcasting treaty and the instrument on limitation and exceptions should progress together with a view to finalizing both instruments concurrently.” The United States largely repeated concerns about the scope of the draft treaty that it has made in previous SCCR and General Assembly meetings. It expressed disappointment that Articles 7 and 8, on fixation and post-fixation rights over stored programs, were retained in this draft despite its objections to these provisions in earlier meetings.  The EU, the primary demander of the Treaty, expressed some flexibility in confining the draft to conform to concerns raised by other members and recognized that “further technical clarifications are needed” on the present draft. The EU restated its support for a “future proof” treaty in which “retransmission by computer networks of broadcasting organization should be granted meaningful protection.” But it asserted some flexibility on this matter, stating that, “in order to achieve a compromise,” it is “ready to consider” the current option in the text for countries to opt out of covering broadcasting organizations that transmit exclusively via computer networks through a reservation. The EU did not, however, signal support for the narrowing of rights to exclude coverage of stored programs opposed by the United States and the Africa Group. Some other countries, including Russia, Japan, and Canada, noted the minimal changes in the current draft and urged that it progress toward the available consensus that could support a narrower treaty. India specifically called for consideration of “the option of incorporating mandatory limitations and exceptions.”  Brazil asserted that it was ready follow a consensus for the convening of a Diplomatic Conference based on the present draft, but asserted that “in case consensus is not possible by the end of this session, we propose to temporarily remove the topic from the agenda to enable consultations among interested parties, bringing it back to the Committee after sufficient convergence is identified.” Following plenary comments, the discussions of the Treaty moved into informal sessions in which, for the first time in recent memory, observers were not permitted to listen to the deliberations.  Limitations and Exceptions The limitations and exceptions agenda saw the introduction of three new texts. Responding to SCCR 46’s conclusion that the Chair “will prepare a document with concrete suggestions … for the implementation of the Work Program” on limitations and exceptions, the Chair published a Framework of Work Towards an Appropriate International Legal Instrument or Instruments on Limitations and Exceptions. The African Group published a Draft Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries, Archives, Museums, Education and Research Institutions and People with Disabilities. The United States, during the SCCR meeting, published Updated Version of the Document “Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries And Archives” and

Blog, Centre News

Centre Launches with Top Thinkers; Video available.

/

At a packed event at the Geneva Graduate Institute on 3rd December 2025, the Centre on Knowledge Governance held its official launch. The launch featured top thinkers and high level government representatives, with a focus on the future of the Intellectual Property system. The full video of the event is now available to view online. After an introduction by Centre Director Sean Flynn, the event featured the launch of a new book by Wend Wendland, entitled The Journey to the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Joining Professor Wendland were His Excellency Ambassador Patriota of Brazil and Maori rights activist, Valmaine Toki. A second panel discussed the future of the IP system, with high level contributions by Harvard Professor Ruth Okediji and Medicines advocate Ellen ‘t Hoen. The event was moderated by Ben Cashdan, a filmmaker from South Africa and former advisor in the office of President Nelson Mandela.

Blog, Centre News

Centre Announces New Advisory Board, Fellows and Faculty Advisors

/

At the launch of the Centre on 3rd December 2025 at the Geneva Graduate Institute, Centre Director Sean Flynn announced new appointments to the advisory bodies of the Centre, including prominent high profile international scholars and thinkers. Advisory Board Joining the top level advisory board are: James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International. He advises UN agencies, national governments, international and regional intergovernmental organizations and public health NGOs, and is the author of a number of articles and monographs on innovation and intellectual property rights. Ellen ‘t Hoen, a lawyer and public health advocate. From 1999 until 2009 she was the director of policy for Médecins sans Frontières’ Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. In 2009 she joined UNITAID in Geneva to set up the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). She was the MPP’s first executive director until 2012. From 2014 to 2025 she served as the Director of Medicines Law & Policy. Carlos Correa, the Executive Director of the South Centre. He began his term as South Centre Executive Director on 1 July 2018. Prior to this, he was the Special Advisor on Trade and Intellectual Property of the South Centre. Dr. Correa is a renowned international authority on intellectual property and technology issues. Fellows Our inaugural senior fellows are: Wend Wendland, a lawyer from South Africa who has more than 30 years’ experience in intellectual property, in both the private and public sectors. As a Director of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for many years until June 2025, he devoted himself to multilateral norm-setting and capacity-building. Wendland is the author of The Journey to the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Maja Bogataj Jančič, the founder and head of the Intellectual Property Institute (IPI), a private research, training and consulting institution based in Ljubljana, Slovenia.Maja is also the founder and head of the Open Data and Intellectual Property Institute ODIPI. Her recent work focuses on open science, open data, data governance and artificial intelligence, as well as open science issues and the legal framework of copyright and data for research and science. Affiliated Faculty In addition to the Advisory Board and Senior Fellows, the Centre has announced affiliated faculty members from the Geneva Graduate Institute, as follows: Suerie Moon, Co-Director, Global Health Centre. Moon combines academically rigorous research and analysis with policy relevance and impact. Her theoretical contributions to the field include conceptualizing the global health system, defining the functions the system must perform to adequately protect public health, global public goods for health, and identifying the types of governance gaps and power disparities that contribute to health inequity.  David Rodogno, Professor, International History and Politics, Head of Interdisciplinary Programmes, Academic Advisor, Executive Certificate in Advocacy and International Public Affairs. Dr Rodogno was a Research Fellow at the London School of Economics (2002-2004), Foreign Associate Researcher at the Institut d’Histoire du Temps Présent in Paris (2004-2005), RCUK Academic Fellow at the School of History, University of St Andrews (2005-2010), and SNSF – Research Professor (2008-2011). Joost Pauwelyn, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute and Co-Director of the Institute’s Centre for Trade and Economic Integration (CTEI). He is also the Murase Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center (since 2014). Joost specializes in international economic law, in particular trade law and investment law, and its relationship to public international law. He also a leading force behind the global www.tradelab.org network of legal clinics on international economic law. Dêlidji Eric DEGILA, Professor of practice of International Relations, Interdisciplinary Programmes and Visiting Faculty in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Geneva Graduate Institute. He is the past Chair of the Global South Caucus, International Studies Association, ISA. His research interests range from international politics to African peace and security challenges, diplomacy, migration, and health issues in the Global South. Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, Professor of International Relations and Political Science. Before joining the Institute in 2009, Annabelle Littoz-Monnet was Assistant Professor at the Central European University, Budapest (2005-2009). She has also worked for the Socio-Legal Studies Centre at Oxford University and as a Research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Relations, Brussels (2004-2005). Neha Mishra, Assistant Professor in the international law department of the Geneva Graduate Institute. She researches international legal issues in the digital economy, focusing on international economic law, data flows/governance, and digital trade, and the interface of international law and emerging digital technologies. Carolyn Deere Birkbeck, the Founder and Executive Director of the Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs (TESS), housed at the Geneva Graduate Institute. TESS is dedicated to supporting the multilateral dialogue, inclusive international cooperation, and policy action necessary to align trade and trade policies with the urgent need for environmental action, sustainable development, and just transitions.  For more information about all the people at the Centre on Knowledge Governance, visit the people section of our about page.

Artificial Intelligence, Blog, Centre News

Centre Announces Short Course on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence

/

The Centre on Knowledge Governance is pleased to announce a new short course on AI and IP to take place in Geneva from September 7-8, 2026. COURSE DESCRIPTION  This intensive two-day course provides a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the evolving legal and policy landscape at the intersection of Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Participants will explore pressing legal challenges, including the copyright protection for AI training data, the patentability and copyright of AI-generated outputs, and the balance between proprietary interests and the public interest in research (Text and Data Mining and computational research) and the development of “Public AI.”  The course will feature in-depth comparative analysis of legal frameworks and policy proposals across the European Union (EU), United States (USA), India, Brazil, Singapore, Japan, and in international forums, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization and other agencies.  The learning experience will culminate in a practical role-play exercise in which students will draft a model international legal instrument aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for creators while safeguarding the rights of researchers and public interest organizations developing AI infrastructure. This legal instrument will focus on  a range of factors to be used in distinguishing research and public interest uses of AI from commercial competitive uses. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this course, participants will be able to: WHO IS THIS PROGRAMME FOR? This programme is particularly relevant for mid- to senior level practitioners from various organisations working at the intersection of intellectual property and AI policy or scholarship, such as: LECTURERS The Course will be directed by Sean Flynn and Ben Cashdan of the Centre on Knowledge Governance, Geneva Graduate Institute. Guest lecturers will participate in person or online to bring comparative expertise from jurisdictions such as India, Brazil and China and the African continent, in addition to the US and EU. SCHOLARSHIPS 10 scholarships will be available for highly motivated government delegates from developing countries or representatives of public interest organizations who participate in multilateral policy processes on copyright, AI and the rights of researchers. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (INITIAL APPLICATION) If you are interested in being considered as a student on the course, and/or if you would like to apply for one of our scholarships, please kindly complete the following form:

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, WIPO, WIPO-SCCR

Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 47

/

This note, which will be presented at the November 25, CKG Workshop on SCCR 47, provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues that may be addressed in the 47th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, December 1-5, 2025. It is published as part of the mission of the Centre on Knowledge Governance to produce information and analysis to promote the public interest in multilateral knowledge governance negotiations. The analysis is presented in the order that the items occur on the SCCR 47 Agenda. 

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, Centre News, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

Centre publishes new analysis on broadcast, limitations and exceptions

/

This week our research team published a series of new reports. These relate to the work streams in the upcoming Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 47by Sean Flynn This note, which will be presented at the November 25, CKG Workshop on SCCR 47, provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues that may be addressed in the 47th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, December 1-5, 2025. It is published as part of the mission of the Centre on Knowledge Governance to produce information and analysis to promote the public interest in multilateral knowledge governance negotiations. The analysis is presented in the order that the items occur on the SCCR 47 Agenda.  Tracing a Century of Broadcasting Rights Debates: 1928–2025Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn This report provides a detailed view of developments concerning broadcasting rights within international copyright law, beginning with the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention and continuing through the latest SCCR discussions. These SCCR sessions illustrate the ongoing effort to create a new international treaty to update protection for traditional broadcasting and cablecasting against signal piracy, while grappling with complex issues like protection over computer networks and the definition of object and scope. Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR: A TimelineLuca Schirru, Ben Cashdan and Sean Flynn The timeline details the progression of discussions within the WIPO SCCR regarding Limitations and Exceptions (L&Es) to copyright. This detailed chronology, spanning from 1996 to 2025, highlights the main proposals, studies, and key milestones concerning L&Es for various sectors, including visually impaired persons, libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It documents the formal inclusion of L&Es on the SCCR agenda, the development of numerous draft treaties and working documents, and the ongoing efforts to reach consensus and implement work programs. Comparison of Proposed Texts on Limitations and Exceptions in SCCR 47Jonathan Band Two new documents have been introduced for the Limitations and Exceptions agenda item: the African Group’s “Proposal on Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/47/5) and the Chair’s “Text Proposed” (SCCR/47/8), alongside the earlier U.S. proposal “Limitations for Libraries and Archives” (SCCR/44/5). The tables identify common elements among the three documents and additional areas shared by the Chair and African Group texts, suggesting significant areas of commonality and that further text-based work towards an international legal instrument can start with these documents. Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and ExceptionsAditya Gupta and Sean Flynn The authors summarise justifications for an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to copyright, and for expanded limitations and exceptions more generally. The justifications are taken from a review of academic literature. Researchers have posited that such an instrument is necessary to counteract the existing “minimum protection approach” of international treaties, which often prioritizes copyright holders over the public interest, access to knowledge, and competition and development concerns. Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate?Sean Flynn WIPO published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as SCCR/47/3, which does not differ in its main provisions from previous drafts and raises questions about whether it fulfils the mandate of earlier WIPO General Assemblies. The analysis focuses on substantive changes and controversial provisions, addressing whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection”. Four new proposals for SCCR 47Ben Cashdan WIPO has published four new proposals on ways forward for key work streams in the SCCR, scheduled for 1–5 December 2025. The proposals concern exclusive rights for broadcasting organisations, disparities in the remuneration of performers, limitations and exceptions to promote education, research and access to knowledge, and ensuring fair copyright royalties for creators in the digital environment.

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

Tracing a Century of Broadcasting Rights Debates: 1928–2025

/

This timeline provides a detailed view of the developments concerning broadcasting rights within international copyright law. It begins with the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention, which initially introduced these rights, and tracks major milestones such as the 1961 Rome Convention and the rise of satellite broadcasting in the mid-1960s. The majority of the timeline focuses on the intensive, multi-year negotiations held under the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which formally began addressing the protection of broadcasting organisations in 1998. These SCCR sessions illustrate the ongoing effort to create a new international treaty to update protection for traditional broadcasting and cablecasting against signal piracy, while grappling with complex issues like protection over computer networks and the definition of object and scope. The information concerning the pre-SCCR period (1928–1998) was extracted from Vyas, Lokesh; Schirru, Luca; and Flynn, Sean, The (Long) Road to the Broadcast Treaty: A Brief History (Infojustice, 2025). The remaining sections were prepared based on the documents available on WIPO’s SCCR Meetings webpage (e.g. “Report”, “Conclusions” and “Summary by Chair”) and on Schirru, Luca; Vyas, Lokesh; Jawara, Haddija; Ruthes Gonçalves, Lukas; McGee, Katie; Misto, Yara; and Flynn, Sean Michael Fiil, Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR (Global Version) (2025), Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series, 145. See PDF version below. Date Main Developments Short Description 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention Article 11bis introduced broadcasting rights into international copyright law, marking the entry of broadcasting into the global copyright framework. 1948 Brussels Revision of the Berne Convention Added changes and clarifications to Article 11bis. 1961 Rome Convention Adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome, 1961). The Convention covered only “wireless” transmissions, whether the treaty applied to broadcasts transmitted via satellites 1965 Rise of Satellite Broadcasting With the emergence of orbiting and geostationary satellites, broadcasting organizations began demanding protection against signal piracy (noted by Delia Lipszyc). 1967 Stockholm Revision of the Berne Convention. Introduced further modifications to broadcasting rights but limited protection to live wireless broadcasts. 1968–1969 Intercontinental satellite television broadcasts Global discussions began on the legal challenges of intercontinental satellite television broadcasts. 1971–1974 UNESCO and BIRPI Expert Committees Committee of Governmental Experts (UNESCO & BIRPI) met in: Lausanne (1971); Paris (1972);Nairobi (1973). These meetings laid the foundation for the 1974 Brussels Diplomatic Conference. 1973–1974 Parallel Negotiations Alongside the Brussels Convention, an Intergovernmental Committee under Article 32 of the Rome Convention developed a model law on the protection of performers, producers of phonograms, and broadcasting organizations. 1996 WIPO Internet Treaties During negotiations of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), there was renewed momentum for a separate treaty on broadcasting, leading to the establishment of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). 1998 SCCR Agenda The protection of broadcasting organizations was formally added to the agenda of the SCCR, created by the 32nd WIPO Assemblies (March 25–27, 1998). SCCR/1: 1998 Existing legislation on broadcast  Memorandum about the “Existing International, Regional and National Legislation Concerning the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations” (SCCR/1/3). SCCR/2: 1999 Multiple submissions on the topic of the rights of broadcasting organizations  Documents on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations Submissions Received from Member States of WIPO and the European Community” (SCCR/2/5) and “from Non-Governmental Organizations” (SCCR/2/6; SCCR/2/6/REV) and “Addendum Concerning the Submission by the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan (NAB-Japan)” (SCCR/2/6 ADD.). Submissions by Mexico (SCCR/2/7) and by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (SCCR/2/8) on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations”. “Report on the Regional Roundtable for Central European and Baltic States on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations and on the Protection of Databases, Held in Vilnius, from April 20 to 22, 1999”,  submitted on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,  Hungary, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic (SCCR/2/10 REV.); “Submission by Cameroon” (SCCR/2/12, presenting the “state of Cameroonian legislation on the protection of broadcasting organizations” and “proposals for the strengthening of the international protection of broadcasting organizations”, pp.2-3).  SCCR/3: 1999 Multiple submissions on the topic of the rights of broadcasting organizations  “Report of the Regional Roundtable for African Countries on the Protection of Databases and on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations, Held in Cotonou, from June 22 to 24, 1999”, submitted on behalf of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi,  Mali, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, South Africa, Togo and United Republic of Tanzania (SCCR/3/2); Proposal on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organization” submitted by Argentina (SCCR/3/4); Proposal on the “Protection of Audiovisual Performances; Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations”, submitted by  United Republic of Tanzania (SCCR/3/5); “Statement Adopted at the Regional Roundtable for Countries of Asia and the Pacific on the Protection of Databases and on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations, Held in Manila, from June 29 to July 1, 1999”, submitted by Bangladesh, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam (SCCR/3/6). SCCR/4: 2000 Invitation to submit proposals “59. The Standing Committee decided to invite governments to submit […] proposals in treaty language […].” (SCCR/4/6 Report, p.12) SCCR/5: 2001 Different proposals and a comparative table Proposals on the “Protection of Broadcasting Organizations” submitted by Kyrgyzstan (SCCR/5/2), Sudan (SCCR/5/3), and Japan (SCCR/5/4). “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations: Comparative Table of Proposals Received by April 30, 2001”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/5/5). “The Standing Committee made the following decision: […]  B. Rights of Broadcasters: (i) the issue would be the main point on the Agenda of the next meeting of the Standing Committee; (ii) the Secretariat would invite the Governments and the European Community to submit additional proposals on this issue, preferably in treaty language[…]” (SCCR/5/6).  SCCR/6: 2001 Multiple submissions on the topic of the rights of broadcasting organizations Proposals on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations”, submitted by the European Community and its Member States (SCCR/6/2)

Blog, Education, Libraries, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR: A Timeline

/

The timeline presented below details the progression of discussions within the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) regarding Limitations and Exceptions (L&Es) to copyright. This detailed chronology, spanning from 1996 to 2025, highlights the main proposals, studies, and key milestones concerning L&Es for various sectors, including visually impaired persons, libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It documents the formal inclusion of L&Es on the SCCR agenda, the development of numerous draft treaties and working documents, and the ongoing efforts to reach consensus and implement work programs. This document was prepared based on the documents available on WIPO’s SCCR Meetings webpage as compiled in Schirru, Luca; Vyas, Lokesh; Jawara, Haddija; Ruthes Gonçalves, Lukas; and Flynn, Sean, “Documentary History of the Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 148. See PDF version below. Date Main Developments Short Description 1996 WIPO Internet Treaties Agreed Statement to Article 10 of the WCT affirmed that Contracting Parties may “carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions” and “devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital network environment.” SCCR/1: 1998 Establishment of the SCCR by the General Assembly (GA) decision.  GA decision creating SCCR included a decision that the committee consider, amongst others, the topics of “Copyright, Related Rights, and Digital Technology” “to consider in particular the impact of digital technology and global information networks on copyright and related rights…”, the protection of audiovisual performances, the protection of databases and the protection of broadcasting organizations (SCCR 1/2). SCCR/8: 2002 L&Es as a matter for future review by the SCCR  The item “implementation of the WCT and WPPT, particularly regarding provisions on technological measures of protection and limitations and exceptions” in the document “Short description of possible subjects for future review by the Standing Committee”, provides that “Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that an uncontrolled use of technological measures together with anti-circumvention legislation and contractual practices will allow rights owners to extend their rights far beyond the bounds of the copyright regime, to the detriment of public interest. At the same time, concern has also been expressed that a narrow definition of exceptions and limitations to the protection of technological measures will unduly restrict reasonable access to and use of protected works” (SCCR/8/2, p.6). SCCR/9: 2003 First SCCR study on limitations and exceptions  First SCCR study of the topic of L&Es in the WIPO treaties: “WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment”, prepared by Mr. Sam Ricketson (SCCR/9/7). L&Es are also addressed in the “survey on implementation provisions of the WCT and WPPT”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/9/6, “The following is a brief summary of the legislative provisions contained in the survey. The summary covers the following issues: […] exceptions and limitations”, p.2) SCCR/12: 2004 Proposal to include L&Es and part of the SCCR agenda Chile’s proposal (SCCR 12/3) to “the inclusion for the Twelfth Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the subject of exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights for the purposes of education, libraries and disabled persons, in the current agenda item referring to “other issues for review”, which would become agenda item 4”. SCCR/13: 2005 Proposal on the Analysis of L&Es “Proposal by Chile on the Analysis of L&Es”, suggesting “three areas of work to be undertaken […] 1. Identification […] of national models and practices concerning exceptions and limitations. 2. Analysis of the exceptions and limitations needed to promote creation and innovation and the dissemination of developments stemming therefrom. 3. Establishment of agreement on exceptions and limitations for purposes of public interest that must be envisaged as a minimum in all national legislations for the benefit of the community;  especially to give access to the most vulnerable or socially prioritized sectors” (SCCR/13/5, p.1).  SCCR/14: 2006 Study on Automated Rights Management Systems and L&Es  A study by Mr. Nic Garnett on “Automated Rights Management Systems and Copyright Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/14/5).  2007 WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations, which included recommendations 14 and 17 on IP flexibilities;  Rec. 19 access to knowledge and technology to foster creativity and innovation; Rec. 22 L&Es in norm-setting. SCCR/15 SSCR/S2: 2007 Study on L&Es. Proposal by Mexico on L&Es for Broadcasting A study prepared by Judith Sullivan: “Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired” (SCCR/15/7). “Proposal by Mexico relating to article 10 ‘Limitations and Exceptions’”, prepared by the Secretariat (adding a paragraph (3) to article 10 on L&ES, SCCR/S2/4) SCCR/16: 2008 L&Es are formally included on the SCCR’s agenda  Proposal by Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and Uruguay (SCCR 16/2, p.2) proposing that “that the Committee implement a plan taking into consideration those three levels of activities outlined in Chile’s 2005 submission, with the objective of achieving a consensus on minimum mandatory exceptions and limitations particularly with regard to educational activities, people with disabilities, libraries and archives, as well as exceptions that foster technological innovation.”  SCCR/18: 2009 Presentation of proposal concerning a Treaty Proposed by WBU “Supplementary information on the WIPO studies on Limitations and Exceptions”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/18/2, at SCCR/17, “it was agreed that ‘in order to update and complement the studies, governments are invited to submit to the Secretariat any supplementary information regarding their national law before February 1, 2009’”, p.1). “Draft questionnaire on Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/18/3, “the WIPO Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft questionnaire regarding exceptions and limitations, with particular emphasis on the issues regarding education, libraries and disabled persons”, p.2). “Stakeholders’ Platform: Interim Report, prepared by the Secretariat” (SCCR/18/4, “WIPO Secretariat invited various major stakeholders representing copyright rightholders and VIP interests to take part in two meetings with the aim of exploring their concrete needs, concerns, and suggested approaches in order to achieve the goal of facilitating access to works in alternative formats for people with disabilities”, p.2). “Proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, relating to Limitations and Exceptions: Treaty proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU)”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/18/5, presented “as

Blog, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

Comparison of Proposed Texts on Limitations and Exceptions in SCCR 47 

/

Two documents have been introduced in connection to the Limitations and Exceptions agenda item for SCCR 47 Previously we already had a third document Below are two tables. The first identifies common elements among the African Group Proposal, the Chair’s Text, and the US proposal. The second table identifies common elements addressed by the African Group Proposal and the Chair’s text, but not included in the U.S. document. (It should be noted that the African Group’s Proposal also includes provisions not in the U.S. document or the Chair’s text.) As the attached tables demonstrate, there are significant areas of commonality among all three documents; and even more between the Chair’s text and the African Group Proposal. This suggests that further text-based work in the Committee towards an international legal instrument or instruments concerning exceptions and limitations can start with these documents.  PDF version below Table 1: Common Elements in United States Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, African Group Proposal, and Chair’s Proposed Text U.S. Objectives and Principles African Group Proposal Chair’s Text National Exceptions Encourage Member States to adopt well-focused exceptions and limitations in their national laws that are consistent with their international obligations, including the three-step test, and facilitate the public service role of libraries and archives, and maintain the balance between the rights of authors, artists and publishers, and the public interest, particularly in research, education, preservation, and access to information. (p. 2) Encourage Member States, when adopting or revising exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 2) Contracting Parties shall take all appropriate measures to respect, protect and fulfill the right to receive education and conduct research through appropriate exceptions and limitations in their national laws, consistent with their international obligations, maintaining the balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest. (p. 15) Member States shall provide an appropriate balance in their copyright and related rights system through limitations and exceptions for the public interest, including for education; research; freedom of expression uses such as for quotation, comment, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche; access to information and news reporting; preservation of cultural heritage; and to facilitate access for persons with disabilities. (p. 15) Contracting Parties shall update, carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws which have been considered acceptable under the Berne Convention, especially under article 10(1) and 10(2), and devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital environment to protect educational and research activities. (p. 15) Limitations and exceptions are an integral part of a balanced copyright system and should contribute to quality preservation, access, education and research, as well as to expand opportunities for all persons with disabilities to fully participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to benefit from scientific progress. (p. 6) Promote cooperation among institutions at national, regional and international levels. (p. 6) Research and Education Encourage Member States to enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of advancing research and knowledge by adopting exceptions and limitations for purposes of research and scholarship, and to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 3) It shall be permissible to use a work or other subject matter for educational or research purposes to the extent justified by the purpose and provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. (p. 19) Facilitate access to works for cultural, educational and research purposes, including through digital and online tools, and across borders. (p. 5) Enable cultural heritage institutions as well as educational and research institutions to provide copies and enable access to works to researchers, teachers, students and the public, under appropriate conditions. (p. 5) Preservation Encourage Member States to enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of preserving works by adopting exceptions and limitations for their preservation activities, and to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 3) Exceptions and limitations can and should enable libraries, archives, and museums to carry out their public service role of preserving works that comprise the cumulative knowledge, heritage, and culture of the world’s nations and peoples. (p. 3)[E]xceptions and limitations can and should enable libraries, archives, and museums to make copies of published and unpublished works, including highly ephemeral materials, for purposes of preservation and replacement, under certain appropriate circumstances. Those circumstances may include preservation and replacement in both analog and digital formats, or migration of content from obsolete storage formats to more stable formats on an ongoing basis, as reasonably necessary and as incidental to technology for a specific, limited preservation purpose. (p. 3) Contracting Parties shall provide for a limitation or exception to the right ofreproduction in order to allow cultural heritage institutions to make copies of any works or other subject matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the purposes of preservation of such works or other subject matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. (p. 29) For purposes of this Instrument, “cultural heritage institution” means a publicly accessible library or museum, an archive, or a film or audio heritage institution. (p. 31) Support the preservation of cultural heritage by libraries, archives and museums and other not-for-profit entities performing equivalent functions. (p. 4) Enable cultural heritage institutions to make copies of works, whether published or unpublished, for the purposes of preservation or replacement, including highly ephemeral materials. Such copies may be made in analog or digital formats, and during technological migration, provided they are necessary and incidental to a specific preservation purpose. (p. 4) Enable the preservation of and remote digital access to works, including cross-border, under secure conditions and promote the respect of adequate and effective

Scroll to Top