Centre Director Sean Flynn featured in ‘GLOBE’
Sean Flynn, Director of the Centre on Knowledge Governance was featured in GLOBE #36, the review of the Geneva Graduate Institute.
Blog
Your blog category
Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
The mandate for working on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) at the World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) is rooted in the principle of maintaining a “balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information,” as articulated in the Preamble to the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The issue has been on the WIPO agenda since 2004, driven initially by proposals from Chile and several other countries in Latin America, and subsequently supported strongly by the African Group. The formal mandate for continued work on L&Es—specifically for libraries and archives, education and research institutions, and ‘other disabilities’—stems from a 2012 mandate from the General Assembly (WO/GA/41/14), which called for continuing discussions “to work towards an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)”. This process was accelerated when the African Group’s proposal for a Work Program on L&Es was adopted in 2023 (SCCR/43/8 REV), reaffirming the goal to move towards “the adoption of an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments on exceptions and limitations”, with subsequent drafts, such as SCCR/44/6 (November 2023), setting out detailed methodologies and processes intended to facilitate text-based negotiations on the subject. A draft instrument on limitations and exceptions was submitted by the African Group in October 2025 (SCCR/47/5) Below we 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. To download or print this analysis, see the pdf version below. Benefits of International Harmonization Counterbalance to minimum protection approach; Promoting L&E reform. International copyright treaties have primarily followed a “minimum protection approach” with the result many (especially developing) countries reform laws to meet the evolving international landscape on copyright protection without updating limitations and exceptions. Following the 1996 Internet Treaties, for example, most countries have protections that cover digital works, but often lack the updates necessary to apply exceptions to digital uses. An instrument on L&E can help guide copyright reform to better recognize “the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, as reflected in the Berne Convention.” (WCT Preamble). A key example is the Marrakesh treaty, which has promoted extensive reform in exceptions for people with disabilities. (Geiger and Jütte 2024; Hilty et al. 2021; Longan 2023; Majekolagbe 2025) Defending positive reform An instrument on L&Es would help defend reform efforts against claims that broadening L&Es would violate the international three step test. (Asay 2021; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Eliminating anticompetitive effects Harmonizing L&Es across international borders can help combat anticompetitive behavior. For example, firms have used inadequate copyright exceptions to inhibit generic pharmaceutical labeling, reverse engineering to create competing products, etc. (Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Enabling Cross-Border Use Harmonizing L&Es can help promote cross border uses of materials relying on exceptions, such as a research corpus, educational texts, contents of libraries and archives, etc. (Flynn et al. 2020; Trimble 2025) Benefits of More Open L&Es for Social and Economic Development Promoting ongoing authorship L&Es promote free expression and authorship that builds upon existing works for subsequent creations such as commentaries, biographies, critical reviews, satire and parody, and other transformations. (Hilty et al. 2021; Samuelson 2018; Yoo 2021) Promoting research (empirical) More open exceptions for research uses are associated with higher levels of academic production and publication, including of projects using computational research that requires making digital copies of whole works (aka text and data mining). (Flynn and Palmedo 2019; Handke, Guibault, and Vallbé 2021; Palmedo 2019) Supporting functions of public institutions L&Es enable institutions like libraries and archives to fulfill essential public functions, such as digitization, preservation, making replacement copies, and providing document delivery for research. (Lindsay and Greenleaf 2018; Majekolagbe 2025; Samuelson 2018) Promoting the Dissemination of Knowledge L&Es such as education and research exceptions enable wider dissemination of information through digital platforms, such as for online learning, sharing research files, etc., that can contribute to development and economic and social advancement. (Lindsay and Greenleaf 2018; Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Promoting Innovation and Competition L&Es foster commerce, competition, and innovation by limiting exclusive rights that might otherwise impede the development of derivative products and services such as interoperable software, recording and storage devices (from the VCR to the cloud), and search and indexing of webpages. (von Lohmann 2008; Samuelson 2018) Promoting Innovation (Empirical) More open user rights environments are associated with higher firm revenues in information industries, including software and computer systems design, and in complementary industries (e.g., ISPs, web hosts) by legally allowing consumers to copy and share content. This in turn promotes investments in new technological innovation (Flynn and Palmedo 2019; Palmedo 2021) Bibliography The pdf version follows below:
Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate?
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as document SCCR/47/3 in preparation for the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR/47) in December 2025. The draft does not differ in its main provisions from previous drafts, and this raises questions as to whether the document fulfils the mandate given to the SCCR by previous WIPO General Assemblies. Below we provides an analysis of the chair’s draft edits. We focus on the substantive changes in SCCR 47/3 as well as on the more controversial provisions, most of which are unchanged in this draft. The central question for the Broadcasting Treaty, in line with the 2007 General Assembly Mandate, is whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” to warrant a recommendation for a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The 2006 WIPO General Assembly mandated that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006). Key issues include whether the treaty should include any exclusive rights, rather than only general obligations to prevent piracy (similar to its current Art. 10 and to the substance of the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite); whether it should extend to rights of fixation and to “stored programmes”; whether to enable remuneration schemes for retransmissions; and how to broaden the limitations and exceptions to ensure that broadcast rights cannot prohibit uses permitted by copyright exceptions. To download or print this analysis, see the pdf below. Analysis and commentary by section on the latest draft of the Broadcast Treaty Updated Broadcast Treaty. New text in SCCR 47/3 in green. Comments and Suggestions 2. Definitions SCCR 47 added: 2.06 In the Draft Text, there is no definition of the term “broadcast”. The object of protection of the Treaty is the transmission of the programme-carrying signal, which constitutes the broadcast. The broadcast represents the output of the activity in which a broadcasting organization is engaged, namely “broadcasting”, which is already defined in item (a). Furthermore, the term “broadcast” is not employed in the Draft Text. (g) “stored programmes” means programmes, which a broadcasting organization owns or regarding which it has acquired transmission rights with the intention of including them in its linear transmission, or which have originally been transmitted in a linear transmission by a broadcasting organization, For those that want to extend protections of the treaty to streaming on the Internet, a key challenge is how to achieve this goal while limiting any protection to traditional broadcasters rather than to streaming companies such as YouTube, Spotify, etc. The definition of a broadcasting organization applies to any organization that “takes the initiative and has the editorial responsibility for the transmission, …; the programmes of a broadcasting organization form a linear programme-flow.” “Linear program flow” means scheduled programming. Internet streaming companies often show some scheduled programming and thus could be considered covered broadcasting organizations. The definition of “stored programmes” attempts to limit application to more traditional broadcasters by requiring that such programs be owned or licensed “with the intention of including them in its linear transmission.” Most of the content from streaming companies is not intended to be included in a linear transmission. There is a policy question about why there is a need to cover stored transmissions at all. As the definition notes, such programs are normally either owned or licensed by the broadcaster, which then would have all copyright rights to combat piracy of the programs. Commenters have offered changes to restrict the scope of the treaty to traditional broadcasting. Hugenholtz (2023) proposes that the definition of covered broadcasts exclude transmission of stored programs on demand by covering only “simultaneous reception by the general public of a programme-carrying single, where the programmes are provided in a prescheduled and linear order.” This is similar to the Rome Convention, which defines “rebroadcasting” as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another.” Love advises adding that the signal be “from a single source point to multiple recipient points,” which would exclude on demand point-to-point transmissions. Article 3: Scope of Application (2) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply as well to the protection of programme-carrying signals of the broadcasting organizations used in their transmissions when providing access to the public to the stored programmes of the broadcasting organizations.… (6) Contracting Parties may, in a notification deposited with the Director General of WIPO, declare that they exclude broadcasting organizations that exclusively transmit their linear programme-carrying signals by means of computer networks from the scope of application of this Treaty. Such notifications may be deposited at the time of ratifications, acceptance or accession, or at any time thereafter; in the last case, it shall become effective six months after it has been reposited. The treatment of webcasters has long been a controversial issue in the negotiation, with some arguing that to be limited to traditional broadcasting the treaty should exclude application to webcasts that never make use of traditional airwave-based broadcasting. Proponents of such extension point to the transition of some providers to web-only transmission. The draft makes clear that countries may exclude webcasters through a reservation. To limit the text to traditional broadcasting, Art. 3(2) and (6) could be deleted. Article 6 Right of Retransmission to the Public […] (2) Any Contracting Party that, before the entry into force of this Treaty, did not provide a right under paragraph (1) to broadcasting organizations in respect of entities that merely retransmit programme-carrying signals for the reception by the public while providing reasonable remuneration to rightholders of the programmes carried by such signals, may continue such a domestic legislative arrangement. One problem with giving broadcasters a right to prevent retransmissions to the public of their signals is that many countries require such retransmissions, for example to carry public broadcasts over cable, internet, or other forms of service that
Four new proposals for SCCR 47
The World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) has published four new proposals on ways forward for some of its key work streams in the Standing Committee on Copyright and related Rights (SCCR), to take place from 1st to 5th December 2025. The proposals concern:(i) Exclusive rights for Broadcasting Organisations to protect their content(ii) Addressing Disparities in the Remuneration of Performers(iii) Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright to promote Education, Research and Access to Knowledge, and(iv) Ensuring Fair Copyright Royalties for Creators in the digital environment across the world. Here are the proposals in more details, with links to the source documents and to our analysis. Document Number Title Description Submitted by SCCR/47/3 A new draft of the WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty. This aims to reflect the views of member states expressed at the previous SCCR and also at the WIPO General Assembly in July 2025. It addresses the issue of enhanced and updated protection for broadcasting organizations concerning their programme-carrying signals, which has been on the WIPO agenda since 1998. But does it give broadcasters and streamers too many exclusive rights? See our analysis of the latest draft. SCCR Chair, Vice-Chair, and facilitators SCCR/47/4 A proposal for a Study on the Rights of Audiovisual Performers and their Payment Mechanisms for the Exploitation of their Performances. This requests WIPO to commission a study on the situation of audiovisual performers, examining the legal and economic frameworks governing performers’ rights worldwide, and how these influence payments received for the use of audiovisual performances, especially on digital and on-demand platforms. It aims to assess the impact of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances and identify best practices in ensuring performers receive fair payment. African Group SCCR/47/5 A draft Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries, Archives, Museums, Education and Research Institutions and People with Disabilities. The draft instrument recognizes the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, such as education, research, and access to information. It specifies permitted uses for education and research, cultural heritage, and for people with any disability that requires accessible formats.See our summary of justifications for L&Es. African Group SCCR/47/6 A proposal for a Legally Binding Instrument on the Governance of Copyright Royalty in Digital Environment: Promoting a Fair Chance in a Globalized World. This working paper proposes a legally binding international instrument to govern copyright royalties in the digital environment. It addresses the disparity between developed and developing countries regarding royalty collection and distribution mechanisms. It identifies four key challenges: the governance of royalty collection and distribution, mechanisms for royalty allocation, the centralization of a global copyright database, and disparities in copyright royalty valuation.Watch our contributions to the remuneration debate Indonesia
The AI Remuneration Debate: Three Perspectives
The rapid development of generative AI has sparked intense debate over how, or even if, creators should be compensated when their copyrighted works are used to train commercial AI systems. This issue pits the drive for technological innovation against the fundamental rights of authors to benefit from their creations, leading to diverse proposals for legal and economic frameworks that seek to strike a fair balance. The following three presentations from the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium in June 2025 explore this complex landscape from distinct legal, philosophical, and geopolitical perspectives. The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property bring you three contributions to the AI Remuneration Debate. PART 1: Christophe Geiger approaches the problem from a human rights perspective, arguing for a balance between the right to develop AI for cultural and scientific progress and the author’s right to benefit from their work. He critiques current systems, noting the “all-or-nothing” nature of the US “fair use” doctrine and the EU’s “bizarre” opt-out rule for text and data mining, which he believes fails to secure fair compensation for authors due to unequal bargaining power with publishers and producers. His central proposal is to replace the EU’s opt-out system with a mandatory statutory remuneration scheme for the commercial use of works in AI training. Drawing on the success of similar “remunerated exceptions” in Europe, which generate significant revenue, Geiger proposes that income from this scheme be distributed directly to creators. Geiger contends this model would uphold authors’ human right to fair remuneration without stifling innovation. PART 2: Zachary Cooper reframes the debate by arguing that traditional copyright concepts are becoming obsolete in an age of infinite digital remixing and AI-driven content creation. He contends that focusing on authorship thresholds is futile because the line between human and machine creation is hopelessly blurred and impossible to audit reliably. Methods like watermarking are technically weak and easily circumvented. For Cooper, the real issue is the massive scale of AI generation, which makes copyright enforcement impractical and weakens creators’ negotiating power. He describes copyright as “a dam in an infinite river,” an outdated barrier against a constant flow of transformation. Instead of rigid ownership rules, Cooper suggests the future lies in collective licensing models and a greater emphasis on attribution and visibility, which would allow creators to capture value as their work spreads across massive platforms. PART 3: Vitor Ido situates the remuneration debate within the political and economic context of Brazil and Latin America, presenting it as a crucial tool for regulating corporate power and protecting national creative industries. He explains that for GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), the issue is not just about copyright but about challenging the dominance of large, foreign-based platforms that exploit local content with little to no payment to creators. The discussion also encompasses cultural sovereignty, such as protecting the dubbing industry from AI-generated voices, and safeguarding the traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities from misappropriation. Ido highlights Brazil’s draft AI Bill, which proposes an inverse of the EU’s system: a mandatory remuneration right that includes a reciprocity clause and ties the payment amount to the size of the AI company, directly targeting the market power of major corporations. This approach frames remuneration as a strategic element in a broader agenda of economic justice and cultural preservation in the Global South.
Italy updates its copyright law to address AI
On September 18, 2025, the Italian Senate definitively approved the country’s first comprehensive framework law on artificial intelligence (AI). The new law also reflects Italy’s commitment to aligning its domestic legal system with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), ensuring coherence between national rules and the emerging European regulatory framework. Law no. 132 of September 23, 2025 (Provisions and delegations to the Government regarding artificial intelligence), has been published in the Official Gazette no. 223 of September 25, 2025, and it will enter into force on October 10, 2025. It consists of 6 chapters and 28 articles, not only establishing ethical and regulatory frameworks for AI across various sectors but also bringing several changes to the field of copyright law. In particular, Chapter IV, titled “Provisions for the Protection of Users and Copyright,” modifies Article 1 of Law No. 633/1941 (Italy’s Copyright Act) and introduces a new Article 70-septies, adapting the legal framework to the evolving challenges posed by AI-generated content and data mining. Emphasising human authorship The first major change introduced by Article 25, a), of the new AI law is a revision to Article 1 of the Italian Copyright Act. The phrase “human” has been explicitly added, clarifying that only works of human creativity are eligible for protection under Italian copyright law. The amended text now reads: This law protects works of human creativity in the fields of literature, music, figurative arts, architecture, theatre, and cinematography, whatever the mode or form of expression, even when created with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, provided they are the result of the author’s intellectual effort. This addition is not merely semantic. It codifies a crucial principle: while AI can be a tool in the creative process, copyright protection remains reserved for human-generated intellectual effort. This positions Italian law in alignment with the broader international trend, seen in the EU, U.S., and UK, of rejecting full legal authorship rights for non-human agents such as AI systems. In practice, this means that works solely generated by AI without significant human input will likely fall outside the scope of copyright protection. Regulating text and data mining for AI The second key innovation is provided by Article 25, b), of the new AI law, which introduces Article 70-septies in the Italian Copyright Act, providing clarity on the legality of text and data mining (TDM) activities used in the training of AI models. The provision states: 1. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, reproductions and extractions from works or other materials available online or in databases to which one has lawful access, for the purposes of text and data mining by AI systems, including generative AI, are permitted in accordance with Articles 70-ter and 70-quater. This provision essentially reaffirms that text and data mining (TDM) is permitted under certain conditions, namely where access to the source materials is lawful and the activity complies with the existing TDM exceptions under EU copyright law, as already implemented in Articles 70-ter and 70-quater of the Italian Copyright Act. It mirrors the spirit of the EU Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which created specific exceptions for TDM, notably distinguishing between scientific and general uses. By formally reiterating the TDM exceptions for the use of AI, Italy seeks to balance the promotion of AI development with the protection of content creators’ rights. However, challenges remain regarding the definition of ‘lawful access’ and the ability of rightsholders to effectively exercise their opt-out rights in relation to TDM activities. Conclusion The recent amendments to Italy’s Copyright Act mark an important step toward harmonising traditional legal frameworks with the realities of emerging technologies, such as AI. By emphasising human authorship and providing clearer legal pathways for text and data mining, the new provisions aim to foster both innovation and respect for intellectual property. The law shall enter into force on the fifteenth day following its publication in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic. This article was reposted from the original at https://communia-association.org/2025/10/01/italy-updates-its-copyright-law-to-address-ai/
A Paradigm Shift with an Uncertain Future: Prof Wend Wendland on the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge
On 25 September 2025, Professor Wend Wendland, delivered the 14th Peter Jaszi Distinguished Lecture at American University in Washington D.C.. The event was hosted by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. For over 25 years at WIPO, Prof. Wendland played a critical role in the area of traditional knowledge, including as the Director of the Traditional Knowledge Division and Secretary of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC). His lecture, titled “Beyond Adoption: Why it Matters and What’s Next for the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge?”, celebrated the recent adoption of this landmark agreement. In his lecture, Professor Wendland described the Treaty as a ‘historic’ event and a ‘paradigm shift’ in intellectual property. He highlighted that it is the first international IP treaty championed by developing countries and Indigenous Peoples, making them policy-makers rather than policy-takers. The Treaty’s core feature is a new mandatory requirement for patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. This aims to combat biopiracy and reconcile innovation with biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit-sharing. This transparency is expected to improve the patent system’s quality and efficacy, while also contributing to environmental, economic, and social justice by acknowledging the role of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of biodiversity. Despite his enthusiasm, Wendland acknowledged the Treaty’s limitations, noting that it does not create new rights in traditional knowledge, and does not directly ensure compensation for provider countries and Indigenous Peoples. It represents what could be agreed upon by consensus after a 25-year struggle, demonstrating strategic pragmatism. The adoption itself is significant, marking a step forward in the evolution of the IP system and providing a platform for a more inclusive conversation about the future of IP. However, Wendland cautioned that the treaty’s adoption alone is not enough; its true significance will depend on its practical implementation and effectiveness. Finally, Wendland discussed the path forward, stressing the immediate need for the Treaty to come into force, which requires ratification by 15 countries. He expressed concern that this process might be slower than hoped, with some major countries like the USA, Japan, and the Republic of Korea opposing the treaty, and others like India and China not yet signing it. Potential hurdles for ratification include political reluctance to recognise Indigenous Peoples, conflicts with existing national laws, and pressure from trading partners. Wendland concluded by urging policymakers, patent offices, and the international community to work towards bringing the Treaty to life, ensuring its paradigm-shifting potential is realised in practice. Watch the full presentation here.
25 Sept 2025: Beyond Adoption: Why it Matters and What is Next for Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge
On 25 September, former Director of the Traditional Knowledge Division at the World Intellectual Property Organization Wend Wendland will deliver a lecture on the landmark World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, which was adopted in May 2024. He will address the treaty’s significance in policy making and knowledge governance. The talk is part of the Peter A. Jaszi Distinguished Lecture on Intellectual Property series, hosted by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University (PIJIP). The reception after the event will feature an announcement of the newly launched Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance (see below, in PDF).
INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL, DERECHOS DE AUTOR Y EL FUTURO DE LA CREATIVIDAD: APUNTES DE LA FERIA INTERNACIONAL DEL LIBRO DE PANAMÁ
Por Andrés Izquierdo Durante la segunda semana de agosto, fui invitado a hablar en la Feria Internacional del Libro de Panamá, un evento organizado por la la Oficina del Derecho de Autor de Panamá, el Ministerio de Cultura y la Asociación Panameña de Editores con apoyo de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Mi presentación se centró en la cada vez más compleja intersección entre las leyes de derechos de autor y la inteligencia artificial (IA), un tema ahora en el centro del debate legal, cultural y económico mundial. Esta publicación resume los argumentos principales de esa presentación, basándose en litigios recientes, investigaciones académicas y desarrollos de políticas, incluyendo el informe de mayo de 2025 de la Oficina de Derechos de Autor de EE. UU. sobre IA generativa. ¿Cómo deberían responder las leyes de derechos de autor al uso generalizado de obras protegidas en el entrenamiento de sistemas de IA generativa? El análisis sugiere que hay debates emergentes en varias áreas clave: los límites del uso justo y las excepciones, la necesidad de derechos de remuneración aplicables, y el papel de la concesión de licencias y la supervisión regulatoria. El artículo se desarrolla en cinco partes: comienza con una visión general del contexto legal y tecnológico en torno al entrenamiento de IA; luego revisa propuestas académicas para recalibrar los marcos de derechos de autor; examina decisiones judiciales recientes que ponen a prueba los límites de la doctrina actual; resume el informe de 2025 de la Oficina de Derechos de Autor de EE. UU. como respuesta institucional; y concluye con cuatro consideraciones de política para la regulación futura. UN ESCENARIO LEGAL Y TECNOLÓGICO EN TRANSFORMACIÓNLa integración de la IA generativa en los ecosistemas creativos e informativos ha expuesto tensiones fundamentales en la ley de derechos de autor. Los sistemas actuales ingieren rutinariamente grandes volúmenes de obras protegidas —como libros, música, imágenes y periodismo— para entrenar modelos de IA. Esta práctica ha dado lugar a preguntas legales no resueltas: ¿Puede la ley de derechos de autor regular de manera significativa el uso de datos de entrenamiento? ¿Se extienden las doctrinas y disposiciones legales existentes—como el uso justo, o excepciones y limitaciones—a estas prácticas? ¿Qué remedios, si los hay, están disponibles para los titulares de derechos cuyas obras se utilizan sin consentimiento? Estas preguntas siguen abiertas en todas las jurisdicciones. Si bien algunos tribunales y agencias reguladoras han comenzado a responder, una parte sustancial del debate está siendo moldeada ahora por la investigación académica jurídica y por los litigios, cada uno proponiendo marcos para conciliar el desarrollo de la IA con los compromisos normativos del derecho de autor. Las siguientes secciones examinan este panorama evolutivo, comenzando con propuestas académicas recientes. PERSPECTIVAS ACADÉMICAS: HACIA UN EQUILIBRIO RENOVADOAl revisar la literatura académica, han emergido varios temas claros. Primero, algunos autores concuerdan en que deben fortalecerse los derechos de remuneración para los autores. Geiger, Scalzini y Bossi sostienen que, para garantizar verdaderamente una compensación justa para los creadores en la era digital, especialmente a la luz de la IA generativa, la ley de derechos de autor de la Unión Europea debe ir más allá de las débiles protecciones contractuales y, en su lugar, implementar derechos de remuneración robustos e inalienables que garanticen ingresos directos y equitativos a autores e intérpretes como cuestión de derechos fundamentales. Segundo, varios académicos subrayan que la opacidad técnica de la IA generativa exige nuevos enfoques de remuneración para los autores. Cooper argumenta que, a medida que los sistemas de IA evolucionen, será casi imposible determinar si una obra fue generada por IA o si una obra protegida específica se utilizó en el entrenamiento. Advierte que esta pérdida de trazabilidad hace que los modelos de compensación basados en atribución sean inviables. En cambio, aboga por marcos alternativos para garantizar que los creadores reciban una compensación justa en una era de autoría algorítmica. Tercero, académicos como Pasquale y Sun sostienen que los responsables de formular políticas deberían adoptar un sistema dual de consentimiento y compensación: otorgar a los creadores el derecho a excluirse del entrenamiento de IA y establecer un gravamen sobre los proveedores de IA para asegurar el pago justo a aquellos cuyas obras se utilizan sin licencia. Gervais, por su parte, defiende que los creadores deberían recibir un nuevo derecho de remuneración, asignable, por el uso comercial de sistemas de IA generativa entrenados con sus obras protegidas por derechos de autor; este derecho complementaría, pero no reemplazaría, los derechos existentes relacionados con reproducción y adaptación. También hay un consenso creciente sobre la necesidad de modernizar las limitaciones y excepciones, en particular para educación e investigación. Flynn et al. muestran que una mayoría de los países del mundo no tienen excepciones que permitan la investigación y enseñanza modernas, como el uso académico de plataformas de enseñanza en línea. Y en Science, varios autores proponen armonizar las excepciones de derechos de autor internacionales y domésticas para autorizar explícitamente la minería de texto y datos (TDM) para investigación, permitiendo el acceso lícito y transfronterizo a materiales protegidos sin requerir licencias previas. En la OMPI, el Comité Permanente sobre Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos (SCCR) ha tomado medidas en este ámbito aprobando un programa de trabajo sobre limitaciones y excepciones, actualmente en discusión para el próximo SCCR 47. Y en el Comité de Desarrollo y Propiedad Intelectual (CDIP), está aprobado un Proyecto Piloto sobre TDM para Apoyar la Investigación e Innovación en Universidades y Otras Instituciones Orientadas a la Investigación en África – Propuesta del Grupo Africano (CDIP/30/9 REV). Mi propio trabajo, al igual que el de Díaz & Martínez, ha enfatizado la urgencia de actualizar las excepciones educativas latinoamericanas para dar cuenta de usos digitales y transfronterizos. Eleonora Rosati sostiene que el entrenamiento con IA no licenciada queda fuera de las excepciones de derechos de autor existentes en la UE y el Reino Unido, incluidas el Artículo 3 (TDM para investigación científica) de la Directiva DSM, el Artículo 4 (TDM general con exclusiones) y el Artículo 5(3)(a) de la Directiva InfoSoc (uso para enseñanza o investigación
AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book Fair
AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book FairDuring the second week of August, I was invited to speak at the Panama International Book Fair, an event hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Panama Copyright Office, the Ministry of Culture, and the Panama Publishers Association. My presentation focused on the increasingly complex intersection between copyright law and artificial intelligence (AI)—a topic now at the center of global legal, cultural, and economic debate. This post summarizes the core arguments of that presentation, drawing on recent litigation, academic research, and policy developments, including the U.S. Copyright Office’s May 2025 report on generative AI. How should copyright law respond to the widespread use of protected works in the training of generative AI systems? The analysis suggests there are emerging discussions around several key areas: the limits of fair use and exceptions, the need for enforceable remuneration rights, and the role of licensing and regulatory oversight. The article proceeds in five parts: it begins with an overview of the legal and technological context surrounding AI training; it then reviews academic proposals for recalibrating copyright frameworks; it examines recent court decisions that test the boundaries of current doctrine; it summarizes the U.S. Copyright Office’s 2025 report as an institutional response; and it concludes by outlining four policy considerations for future regulation. A Shifting Legal and Technological LandscapeThe integration of generative AI into creative and informational ecosystems has exposed foundational tensions in copyright law. Current systems routinely ingest large volumes of copyrighted works—such as books, music, images, and journalism—to train AI models. This practice has given rise to unresolved legal questions: Can copyright law meaningfully regulate the use of training data? Do existing doctrines and legal provisions—fair use, or exceptions and limitations—extend to these practices? What remedies, if any, are available to rightsholders whose works are used without consent? These questions remain open across jurisdictions. While some courts and regulatory agencies have begun to respond, a substantial part of the debate is now being shaped by legal scholarship and litigation, each proposing frameworks to reconcile AI development with copyright’s normative commitments. The following sections examine this evolving landscape, beginning with recent academic proposals. Academic Perspectives: Towards a New Equilibrium In reviewing the literature, several clear themes have emerged. First, some authors agree that remuneration rights for authors must be strengthened. Geiger, Scalzini, and Bossi argue that to truly ensure fair compensation for creators in the digital age, especially in light of generative AI, EU copyright law must move beyond weak contractual protections and instead implement strong, unwaivable remuneration rights that guarantee direct and equitable revenue flows to authors and performers as a matter of fundamental rights. Second, some scholars highlight that the technical opacity of generative AI demands new approaches to author remuneration. Cooper argues that as AI systems evolve, it will become nearly impossible to determine whether a work was AI-generated or whether a particular copyrighted work was used in training. He warns that this loss of traceability renders attribution-based compensation models unworkable. Instead, he calls for alternative frameworksto ensure creators are fairly compensated in an age of algorithmic authorship. Third, scholars like Pasquale and Sun argue that policymakers should adopt a dual system of consent and compensation—giving creators the right to opt out of AI training and establishing a levy on AI providers to ensure fair payment to those whose works are used without a license. Gervais, meanwhile, argues that creators should be granted a new, assignable right of remuneration for the commercial use of generative AI systems trained on their copyrighted works—complementing, but not replacing, existing rights related to reproduction and adaptation. There is also a growing consensus on the need to modernize limitations and exceptions, particularly for education and research. Flynn et al. show that a majority of the countries in the world do not have exceptions that enable modern research and teaching, such as academic uses of online teaching platforms. And in Science, several authors propose harmonizing international and domestic copyright exceptions to explicitly authorize text and data mining (TDM) for research, enabling lawful, cross-border access to copyrighted materials without requiring prior licensing. At WIPO, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has been taking steps in this area by approving a work program on L&E´s, under current discussions for the upcoming SCCR 47. And in the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), there is a Pilot Project approved on TDM to Support Research and Innovation in Universities and Other Research-Oriented Institutions in Africa – Proposal by the African Group (CDIP/30/9 REV). My own work, as well as that of Díaz & Martínez, has emphasized the urgency of updating Latin American educational exceptions to account for digital and cross-border uses. Eleonora Rosati argues that unlicensed AI training falls outside existing EU and UK copyright exceptions, including Article 3 of the DSM Directive (TDM for scientific research), Article 4 (general TDM with opt-outs), and Article 5(3)(a) of the InfoSoc Directive (use for teaching or scientific research). She finds that exceptions for research, education, or fair use-style defenses do not apply to the full scope of AI training activities. As a result, she concludes that a licensing framework is legally necessary and ultimately unavoidable, even when training is carried out for non-commercial or educational purposes. Finally, policy experts like James Love warn that “one-size-fits-all” regulation risks sidelining the medical and research breakthroughs promised by artificial intelligence. The danger lies in treating all training data as equivalent—conflating pop songs with protein sequences, or movie scripts with clinical trial data. Legislation that imposes blanket consent or licensing obligations, without distinguishing between commercial entertainment and publicly funded scientific knowledge, risks chilling socially valuable uses of AI. Intellectual property law for AI must be smartly differentiated, not simplistically uniform. Litigation as a Site of Doctrinal Testing U.S. courts have become a key venue for testing the boundaries of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. In the past two years, a growing number of cases
