Blog

Sean Flynn and Luca Schirru The Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium public event took place from June 16-17, 2025, at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Organized by American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) and South Centre, in partnership with the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and COMMUNIA Association for the Public Domain, the symposium’s main objective was to share research and deliberate over principles that guide protection of the public interest in copyright reform for the digital age. The meeting occurred in the context of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (WIPO SCCR) having adopted a work plan to draft principles, objectives, and options for an instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) in three priority areas: to enable preservation activities; to adapt exceptions and limitations to the online environment; and to ensure that people with disabilities other than vision impairments can benefit from new technologies. On the first day, participants presented and discussed ongoing research on user rights from different parts of the globe. A keynote panel gathering academics discussed the history and the justifications for an international instrument on copyright L&Es. In the end of the afternoon, former and current government representatives addressed the history of the L&Es agenda, as well as the work plan on L&Es currently discussed at the SCCR. The second day was structured around detailed discussions in four sessions: principles for the protection of libraries, archives, and museums; education and research; remuneration in digital contexts; and cross-cutting issues, like liability safeguards, contractual overriding, cross-border research, and access rights. The main output of the symposium was the “Working Document: Principles and Objectives for Limitations and Exceptions.” Participants developed this document through extensive deliberations and presentations carried out in the previous days, drawing from past documents and proposals of the SCCR on the topic of limitations and exceptions, international intellectual property instruments, and scholarship. Based on (i) already existing models and language in international copyright law or (ii) that have been proposed by countries in past SCCR deliberations or (iii) that are supported by a broad consensus in existing law and scholarship, the document contains proposed language for objectives, principles and options that may promote the objectives of the 2012 Mandate and the SCCR Work Program as described in the SCCR 46 Chair’s Summary.

This post was originally published on KEI Online by Thiru The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) convened the 39th session of its Program and Budget Committee (PBC) from 16 June 2025 to 20 June 2025. With respect to WIPO’s proposed Program and Budget for 2026/2027, the PBC passed the following decision: The PBC further requested to refer the outstanding items discussed during PBC 39 to the 66th series of meetings of the WIPO Assemblies: i. Removal of all references to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and SDGs from the Proposed Program and Budget for 2026/2027 As flagged by KEI in early May, the United States “expressed its antipathy to WIPO’s engagement with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” at the 34th session of WIPO’s 34th session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) in May 2025. On Wednesday, 18 June 2025 (on the third day of the June PBC), the United States stated: First, as stated repeatedly at PBC 38, the United States objects to the framing of this document in terms of the Sustainable Development Goals.WIPO should not be prioritizing the implementation of the SDGs or directing its work in an attempt to implement the SDGs. At PBC 38, the Secretariat clarified that WIPO does not budget for the SDGs but rather budgets for WIPO’s expected results in the Strategy House. The inclusion of unnecessary aesthetic elements, graphics and language implying WIPO’s Program of Work and Budget is guided by the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs gives a false impression of the manner in which WIPO’s work is driven. As such, the United States requests these elements be removed from the proposed Program of Work and Budget. At PBC 38, the Secretariat also clarified that WIPO’s implementation strategies are driven not by the SDGs but by the expected results of the Medium Term Strategic Plan. The extent to which WIPO’s work can be labeled as a contribution to the SDGs is simply a product of WIPO working towards its expected results. The United States also requests removing from the proposed Program of Work and Budget any language calling for WIPO to conduct its work or devote resources towards implementing the SDGs, including, for example, the regional and national development sector’s fourth priority and the section of the narrative on global challenges and partnership sector entitled 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. In response to the US intervention on WIPO and its work toward the implementation of the UN SDGS, several Member States responded. Brazil Brazil would like to start by thanking the Distinguished Delegation of the United States of America for sharing additional proposals during this afternoon.We look forward to receiving specific language in writing on this matter. With regard to the first and third points raised, we would like to add our voice to what has just been said by the Distinguished Representative from the African Group. This Delegation would like to reiterate our view on the pertinence and accuracy of the explicit reference on the proposed work program of work and budget to both the WIPO Development Agenda and to the Sustainable Development Goals, the SDGs. As we have already expressed during the PBC38, it is our view that the current document adequately reflects WIPO’s strategic priorities and is fully aligned with the organization’s medium-term strategic plan for 2022-2026, which we were able to collectively agree upon all Member States. This Delegation, therefore, supports our shared and continued efforts to ensure that IP system is inclusive, representative and responsive to the needs and priorities of all, including our Developing Countries. Brazil is particularly pleased with the increased budget allocation to developmental activities, including through the creation of the Development Acceleration Fund, which we consider is a significant step to strengthening WIPO’s commitment to development of oriented initiatives and to the effective implementation of WIPO’s Development Agenda Recommendations. Finally, Mr. Chair, we still trust that the discussions during the sessions will be able to reflect a common understanding that WIPO financial sustainability needs to go hand-in-hand with its development oriented responsibility being WIPO, a UN system organization. We remain committed to working constructively with all Delegations and with the Secretariat to advance a proposed program of work and budget that is balanced, transparent and development oriented. I thank you very much. Egypt Thank you, Mr. Chair.Our Delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Distinguished Delegate of Namibia on behalf of African Group and we thank the Distinguished Delegate of the United States for their proposal. [The] Egypt Delegation highly values WIPO’s continued commitment to its Development Agenda and UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and supports in this regard the current proposal of the Programme of Work and Budget with regard to the allocation of resources to the Development Agenda as will add the new Development Acceleration Fund which demonstrates the pivotal role WIPO is playing in fostering innovation and supporting Development Agenda in respective Member States and comes in alignment with WIPO Medium Terms Strategic Plan 2022/2026. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for your intervention Mexico Thank you, Chair.Mexico also aligns itself with Delegations which have expressed their support to referencing the Sustainable Development Goals in the draft budget and the Development Acceleration Fund as currently reflected.Work on references to SDGs does not imply an external mandate above and beyond WIPO’s mandate but rather underpinning WIPO’s mandate within IP as a development tool. WIPO’s agenda is supported by all Member States and already intends to support IP in development. Including information on the SDGs in the budget is complimentary. This helps us to map out how projects help foster national and international development, increaseaccountability and ensures the evaluation of projects. This also helps us articulate our work better with the international system and other agencies and it helps us mobilize funds.So this does not limit our sovereignty but rather opens up greater opportunities for collaboration. The majority of Member States recognize that SDGs are an

By Andres Izquierdo, Counsel, PIJIP, American University At the 38th session of WIPO’s Program and Budget Committee (PBC), the Delegation of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), introduced a proposal to address the ongoing funding crisis that threatens the participation of Indigenous Peoples in WIPO’s norm-setting processes. The proposal calls for the internal reallocation of existing budgetary resources to ensure minimum, stable support for Indigenous and local community representatives at meetings of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). Colombia emphasized that the proposal had the support of most GRULAC members and was developed in consultation with delegations from other regional groups. It was presented in response to the exhaustion of the WIPO Voluntary Fund, a mechanism created in 2005 (WO/GA/32/6) to support Indigenous participation but which has remained underfunded for years. The Delegation warned that the lack of resources—ongoing for more than a year—has already undermined inclusive participation in discussions directly impacting the rights and interests of Indigenous communities. Crucially, the GRULAC proposal does not introduce any new budgetary burdens. Instead, it draws on WIPO’s existing financial rules to allow internal reallocations, enabling at least two Indigenous representatives to attend each IGC session. This approach mirrors a precedent set in 2016 (IGC 31), when Member States—including Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Peru—pushed for the inclusion of a contingent allocation from WIPO’s regular budget to temporarily support the Fund after its depletion (PBC/24). That 2016 compromise demonstrated that practical solutions can be implemented without amending the program budget or creating new financial obligations. Civil society organizations, including the South Centre, have long argued for the institutionalization of Indigenous participation through predictable, core budget allocations rather than reliance on inconsistent voluntary donations. GRULAC’s proposal responds to those calls and to the broader imperative of inclusive governance in global IP policymaking. No Member State objected to the proposal when it was introduced. However, the Chair deferred the final decision to an informal session to allow further review and discussion. GRULAC expressed its openness to constructive input from all delegations. As WIPO reflects on equity, access, and institutional coherence, this proposal offers a critical opportunity to reaffirm that the voices of Indigenous Peoples must not be sidelined in shaping international legal norms. The forthcoming informal session of the PBC 39th will be a key moment for Member States to move from recognition to action in ensuring meaningful, sustained Indigenous participation at WIPO.

By Yuanxiao Xu. This post was originally published on Authors Alliance. “One need not be a copyright scholar to evaluate fair use. One need only understand the purpose of copyright. — Leval wins my heart forever” Brandon Butler’s drawing of Judge Leval. CC BY 4.0. If you have spent much time exploring U.S. copyright law, you’d likely have encountered the writings—or at least the influence—of Judge Pierre Leval. Among many other contributions, his “Toward a Fair Use Standard” article built a solid foundation for modern fair use jurisprudence. On the bench, Judge Leval’s opinions are famed for their clarity and balance, always mindful of “copyright’s overall objective of contributing to public knowledge,” as can be seen in his landmark decision in Authors Guild v. Google.  On May 23rd, another very important opinion was authored by Judge Leval for the Second Circuit Court in Romanova v. Amilus Inc. Although we won’t delve into it further in this blog post, his opinion provides much-needed clarification on “justification” post-Warhol—guidance that we hope many courts will follow in the coming years. The case facts in Romanova were simple and straightforward: a photographer sued a website for republishing her photo without permission. The district court wrongly found fair use, and the Second Circuit reversed.  The opinion authored by Judge Leval was characteristically thoughtful, not only in its substantive treatment of fair use, but also in its strong affirmation of the district court’s decision to raise fair use sua sponte (Latin for “of one’s own accord “—sua sponte is used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion, without prompting or suggestion from either party). This post focuses on that procedural dimension of Romanova and goes one step further, explaining why fair use should never have been treated as an affirmative defense in the first place. For decades, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose has been celebrated as a decision that fortified fair use. But ironically, the decision also ossified the view that fair use is strictly an affirmative defense—significantly limiting the power of fair use to safeguard free expression in practice. Even where lower courts are doubtful, they nevertheless feel bound by the way the Campbell court construed fair use as an affirmative defense. In a footnote in Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin, the Eleventh Circuit Court mused: “fair use is commonly referred to an affirmative defense, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music . . . Nevertheless, the fact that the fair use right must be procedurally asserted as an affirmative defense does not detract from its constitutional significance as a guarantor to access and use for First Amendment purposes.” Now, Judge Leval (whose influential scholarship was cited with approval in Campbell) is helping to restore the power of fair use as a fundamental right—one that cannot be waived, forfeited, or overlooked due to procedural missteps.  Although the case facts and substantive fair use ruling in Romanova are relatively routine, its procedural holding stands out as especially noteworthy. It restores to fair use its legal force and its human dimension.  The district court in Romanova, acting on its own initiative, dismissed the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim on the basis of the defendant’s use being a fair use, even though the defendant had not appeared in court and never raised the fair use defense.  The Second Circuit upheld the decision of the district court to consider fair use sua sponte. While the court did not go so far as to declare that fair use is not an affirmative defense, Judge Leval’s opinion strips away some of the harmful consequences of treating fair use procedurally rigidly. According to Judge Leval, justice should not depend on one party’s ability to afford litigation, and that courts are always empowered to consider obvious, meritorious fair use defenses. Recognizing how imbalances in power play out in costly copyright litigation, Judge Leval reasoned with clairvoyance: At times, small corporations simply cannot afford the expense of counsel needed to defend a suit. Default does not necessarily preclude the court’s consideration of affirmative defenses available to the defendant, especially when they have obvious merit and their applicability is evident from the face of the complaint. Otherwise, plaintiffs could often easily inflict unjustified harms on small corporate enemies. Intimidation tactics would threaten to strip small creators of their content, and would silence the numerous small platforms that need the protection of the fair use doctrine. (emphasis added) He concluded: The district court here believed that its consideration of the fair use defense would serve justice and advance the goals of copyright. [The district] court misunderstood the fair use defense, which in fact had no proper application to these facts. But we cannot fault the district court for considering a defense which it believed (albeit mistakenly) was valid and important. While district courts should indeed be cautious before sua sponte invoking affirmative defenses on behalf of defaulting defendants, they should also be cautious about not considering such defenses. Up until this opinion, many courts have doggedly followed the mistaken belief that defendants must plead fair use in their answer or a motion to dismiss, or risk waiving it—because fair use has been characterized rigidly as an affirmative defense, a position reinforced by lower courts’ reading of Campbell.  An affirmative defense first admits that a wrongful act has occurred, then offers a justification or excuse that negates culpability. The wrongfulness of the act is central to the concept of an affirmative defense. For example, a bribe given in a foreign country is wrongful by nature, but if the foreign country’s written law allows for such payments, it can serve as an affirmative defense; a board of directors neglecting fiduciary duty is wrongful by nature, but they can use a later shareholder rectifying vote as an affirmative defense; most famously, perhaps, killing another human is wrongful by its nature, but self defense is an affirmative defense. Because of the innate wrongfulness of the acts in such circumstances, it seems reasonable that the presumed wrongdoer must raise an affirmative defense and support it with evidence.  However, fair use is not a wrongful act by nature, and treating it as though it were fundamentally misunderstands its role in copyright law. Unlike bribery, breach of fiduciary