Blog – Page 8 – Centre on Knowledge Governance

Knowledge Ecology International Publishes Highlights from WIPO Discussions on Graphical User Interfaces

Guest / 26 March, 2025

The 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions from various delegations on Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). A recent Knowledge Ecology International post authored by Thiru highlighted the key details from WIPO discussions on GUIs, and can be read at this link, or below: SCT 48 – Highlights from WIPO discussions on graphical user interfaces Posted on March 26, 2025 by Thiru As mentioned in a previous blog, Under the topic of industrial designs, the 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions. The first submission is an updated proposal (SCT/44/6 Rev.4) on a Joint Recommendation for Industrial Design Protection for Designs for Graphical User Interfaces, submitted by Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the European Union and its member states. The second paper (SCT/46/5) is a proposal by the African Group for a Study on the Impact of Design Protection for Graphical User Interface (GUI) Designs on Innovation. In advance of the Committee’s consideration of these two papers, the WIPO secretariat convened an information session on 21 February 2025 on Graphical User Interface (GUI) Design Protection. On Monday, 24 March 2025, a number of delegations weighed in on design protection for graphical user interfaces; several delegations referenced the February 2025 information session. The following extracts are taken from WIPO’s speech to text live transcript. This item will be revisited on Wednesday, 26 March 2025. In its opening remarks, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean region (GRULAC) said: “We are also following with interest the ongoing discussions on the protection of graphical user interfaces, GUIs, recognizing their increasing relevance in the digital economy.” Pakistan, on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, expressed interest in the African Group proposal on a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation (SCT/46/5). As regards industrial design protection for GUIs, most APG Member States are of the view that innovation by local firms through utilization and adoption of existing technologies can significantly improve local technological capabilities and enable a form of learning by doing. Such avenues can play an important role in the catch-up process of nascent industries in developing countries with industrial development in other countries. The group, therefore, remains interested in following up with further deliberation on the revised proposal for a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation contained in document SCT/46/5. The APG also views the continuation of discussions on the revised proposals regarding the utilization of country names or geographical names of significance as a priority. The group aims to engage in a spirit of collaboration to refine existing proposals towards an appropriate outcome based on inputs from concerned Member States. On this matter, the Chair noted: Item 4 involves two proposals. First, updated proposal by the of Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK and the U.S.A. and the EU and its Member States for a joint recommendation concerning industrial design protection for designs for GUI which is contained in document SCT/44/6 Rev.4. And Another proposal which is made by the African Group for a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation which is contained in SCT/46/5. I would like to remind you the fact that in the previous SCT meeting, SCT agreed to invite the Secretariat organize a virtual information session on GIU design protection prior to the next session of the SCT. Actually that information session took place online on the 21st of February. Now I request the Secretariat to report on the information session on GUI design protection. Now give the floor to the Secretariat. The WIPO Secretariat reported: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I will briefly report on the online information session on GUI design protection that was requested by SCT 47 in its March 2024 session. The information session took place online, exclusively online on February 21st this from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The session was structured in three parts. First, a discussion on the development of GUI designs in various sectors. This discussion was moderated by Mr. David Stone, a solicitor at A&O Sherman in London and featured also speakers from Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea and Brazil and Nigeria. Secondly, there was a presentation by the Secretariat on the findings from the two SCT questionnaires on GUI design protection. And finally, there was a presentation by WIPO’s department for economics and data Analytics on the economic research on GUI designs that has been carried out by the department. The information session around 200 Delegates registered for this information session. which was followed by 145 Delegates. The European Union provided the following perspectives: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The European Union and its Member States would like to congratulate you and your Vice Chairs on your election and we are looking forward to working during this session under your able guidance. Regarding the topic of GUI designs, the EU and its Member States would like to firstly thank the Secretariat for organizing the virtual information session on the 21st of February. We have listened with great interest to the reports of experts, the findings of the two questionnaires and the update about the forthcoming report by the chief economist of WIPO. The information session provided valuable insights into the current landscape of design protection across various jurisdictions. The presentations revealed significant commonalities in how different countries approach GUI protection and this suggests a strong foundation for potential international harmonization of design law. However, areas of divergence were also highlighted which present opportunities for working towards developing more unified and comprehensive approaches to GUI design protection on a global scale. On this basis, Mr. Chairman, we continue to be convinced that adopting the joint recommendation in document SCT/44/6 Rev 4 is a practical way

Legislative Initiatives on Copyright in Brazil in 2024

InfoJustice Eds. / 25 March, 2025

Allan Rocha de Souza; Luca Schirru; Leon Queiroz Ramos In Brazil, 2024 has been quite eventful regarding copyright, with the debate seemingly returning to center stage. The Senate’s approval of Bill 2338/23 (AI Bill) and Bill 2331/22 (audiovisual quotas on video-on-demand services), along with the enactment of Law 14.852/24 (Videogames Act), are the three major developments. However, no progress was made on Bill 2630/20 in the Senate (the so-called “Fake News Bill”) or Bill 2730/19 (copyright reform Bill) in the House of Representatives. Unsurprisingly, the most attention-grabbing development, which sparked numerous discussions and seminars, was the approval of the AI Bill by the Senate on December 10, 2024. This was mainly due to the uncertainties and tensions surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and the sensitive nature of the bill’s provisions on copyright. The Senate also approved Bill 2331/22, which introduces a fee for the commercial exploitation of audiovisual works in the digital environment—an initiative that is likely to impact user-generated content. Additionally, the Videogame Act (Law 14.852/24) was enacted, establishing a regulatory framework for video games in Brazil, including their normative classification as “interactive audiovisual works developed as computer programs.” AI and copyright The AI Bill (PL 2338/23), which establishes the regulatory framework for AI systems in Brazil, was approved by the Senate on December 10, 2024, and will now be reviewed by the House of Representatives. It is worth noting that the initial regulatory proposal was approved in the form of Bill 21-A/20 by the House of Representatives on September 29, 2021, but was later superseded by the Senate Bill. In its structure, logic, and overall approach, it mirrors the European AI Act, representing a clear example of the “Brussels Effect.” However, such mirroring may be excessive and should not overlook national particularities and specific challenges. The relationship between copyright and AI is complex and only gained national prominence in April 2024, when a dedicated chapter was incorporated into the Bill. As with any subject of this level of complexity and uncertainty (and all matters related to AI regulation fall into this category), there are always aspects that could and should be improved. These aspects were highlighted in the study “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Contributions to the Regulatory Debate in Brazil“ . Research in general—and text and data mining (TDM) in particular—received insufficient attention that is not able to ensure that research can continue without serious risks and costs, which could hinder this critical activity for the country. These regulatory oversteps include: (i) limiting research to institutional settings, (ii) prohibiting public-private research collaborations, and, most importantly, (iii) requiring that training data be “lawfully accessed,” a condition with significant implications. Without cutting-edge research, the country risks stagnation. Moreover, these provisions will impact all data-intensive research activities, across all sectors, regardless of whether they involve AI system development. The remuneration and licensing obligations established for training AI systems with copyrighted works, while reasonable in cases of commercial uses with substitutive effects, impose high entry costs on domestic companies. As a result, the primary beneficiaries will be large technology players and database holders (mainly major foreign corporations) that own sufficiently large collections of copyrighted works to serve as training datasets for AI systems. Consequently, this framework will undoubtedly hinder national innovation and the development of AI systems that would reflect Brazilian characteristics — all of that without effectively ensuring compensation for authors and artists, which was supposed to be its main justification! As approved by the Senate, these constraints on research and national innovation will impact virtually all economic, industrial, and public interest activities that rely on or require large volumes of information and data—whether for fundamental research or the development of AI systems tailored to national demands. This will also affect corporate customization and internal systems development, as copyright protection extends to text, sounds, and images. Consequently, any AI system that processes these types of content will be affected. Videogames Act Published on May 3, 2024, Law 14.582/2024 (officially ‘Legal Framework for the Video Game Industry’) establishes the Videogame Act, which regulates the “manufacturing, importation, commercialization, development, and commercial use of video games” in Brazil (Article 2). It does so by establishing guidelines and principles for their use (Article 6), as well as proposing measures for fostering investment and development in the sector (Article 4). Additionally, the law explicitly excludes games involving betting with prizes, random outcomes, commercial promotions, or lottery-based modalities (Article 5, sole paragraph). The legislation introduces concrete incentives for national video game production by recognizing the sector as part of the cultural industry (Article 12), making it eligible for tax benefits and public funding, similar to other cultural goods. Furthermore, classifying investments in video game development as “investments in research, development, innovation, and culture” (Article 11, sole paragraph) will likely increase the availability of resources and foster growth in the sector. An interesting aspect of the law is the facilitation of video games for educational and training purposes (Article 10), particularly through the development of public policies within the framework of the National Digital Education Policy and the creation of a repository for games developed with public funds. Equally relevant for research and development is the possibility of state support for research, development, and improvement of educational video games, including the creation of a dedicated platform for educational games (Article 13, §1, IV). However, all of these policies are optional rather than mandatory, as they arguably should be. One of the law’s key contributions is its definition of “video game,” which directly references copyright legislation. It classifies video games as “an interactive audiovisual work developed as a computer program” (Article 5.1) and links their protection to the Software Law (Law 9.609/98), which has distinct provisions compared to the general Copyright Law (Law 9.610/98). Although it does not directly address copyright, the law provides definitions for multiple roles that different professionals can assume in the creation and production of video games. These include potential authors, such as visual artists (Article 7, §3, I), audio designers for games (Article

Africa: Copyright & Public Interest, Blog

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA HIGHLIGHTS THE URGENCY OF COPYRIGHT REFORMS

InfoJustice Eds. / 25 March, 2025

By ReCreate South Africa The cost of excluding billions of people in Africa and the Global South from access to knowledge could be huge for future generations. Knowledge-sharing in Africa is not always transactional, and the existing IP and copyright paradigms are not working well for creators or audiences on the continent. Creators are often poorly remunerated and in many cases audiences and students cannot afford access to knowledge and entertainment. Some global corporations take an extractive and exploitative approach to African creativity. Africa needs a new knowledge governance system to take into account the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge. These were the conclusions of an international conference entitled “Copyright and the Public Interest: Africa and the Global South” held last month in South Africa. The convenors were ReCreate South Africa, a coalition of creators and users of copyright material and the conference took place at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (3 February), at the University of Cape Town Library (5 February) and at Innovation City (6 February). This conference was a follow-on from ReCreate’s inaugural conference on the “Right to Research in Africa” held at the University of Pretoria and the University of Cape Town in January 2023. Conference partnered with Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP), the intergovernmental organisation, South Center, the University of Cape Town’s IP Unit, Mandela Institute, Law School and more. The conference was made possible by PIJIP and Arcadia, as well as Open Air. You can watch the full conference sessions online. IP as a tax on African Creativity: Protecting the Livelihoods of Creators In his opening input, Ben Cashdan, convener of ReCreate South Africa and former economic advisor to President Nelson Mandela, said that IP royalties are a de facto tax on Africa. “Income from IP royalties on all creativity, on all inventions around the world, topped $1 trillion in the past 24 months for the first time, and the United States gets about $130 billion of that. Africa gets a tiny fraction. Could that be because we don’t have creatives? Could that be because we don’t have actors, writers, musicians? Obviously not. The system operates in such a way that we don’t get the fruits of our labor here in this country and on this continent.” South African singer Mercy Pakela, whose music topped the charts in the 1980s, recounted how she had signed with record labels so that her music could be heard by music lovers around the world, but over 40 years later she still feels she has not received fair remuneration. Pakela said “I wish I knew then what I know now because then I did not know that it was business. I just wanted to be on stage. I thought it was just about talent.” Jack Devnarain, Chairperson of the South African Guild of Actors highlighted that many performers in Africa die poor due to the power imbalance between artists and their distributors or rights owners. He pointed a finger at those whose business models restrict the livelihoods of African performers and who are opposed to copyright reform. “There are people, particularly the American-based organizations, the corporate giants in the Global North that are working very hard, and I’m talking about the publishers, the studios, the streamers, the broadcasters, that do not want South African actors to have a royalty earning right.” South Africa’s CAB and Why Teachers Need Fair Use The Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB), passed by Parliament in South Africa, but still awaiting the President’s signature, aims to solve the problem of exploitation of artists by introducing a right to fair royalties or equitable remuneration. The CAB also broadens access to knowledge for communities. Hence it addresses the needs of both constituencies, creators and users. The President has referred the Bill to the Constitutional Court over concerns that it may lead to arbitrary deprivation of property of rights holders. Advocate Iain Currie, lawyer for ReCreate raised questions around whether Intellectual Property is property in the traditional sense and also challenged the view that adjustments to Copyright laws in the public interest are arbitrary. One of the main objectives of the CAB is to ensure that teachers and learners have access to educational materials, which is clearly a public interest goal. According to Dr Mugwena Maluleke, President of Education International, “there is a shocking shortage of 44 million teachers worldwide. A major catalyst for this shortage is the inability to attract and retain teachers due to inadequate conditions for providing quality teaching,” including a shortage of textbooks and learning materials. “Fair use in education is the key that unlocks the door to a world of knowledge and creativity, by allowing educators to utilize copyrighted materials in their teaching.” Moreover “Fair copyright legislation is essential to enabling teachers to adapt and use the material and reach an increasingly diverse student body.” Maluleke is also General Secretary of SADTU, the largest teachers union in South Africa, with a membership of over 250 000 teachers and workers. Dr Sanya Samtani, Senior Researcher at the Mandela Institute in the Law Faculty at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg echoed these sentiments. “The Copyright Amendment Bill is an example of the state trying to regulate copyright, trying to fulfill its international obligations on copyright, and also its human rights obligations, which are constitutional and international in nature.” ‘AI for Good’ in Africa The conference considered the importance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in solving the world’s most pressing challenges, including climate change, pandemic responses and countering misinformation. Generative AI has understandably raised alarm bells amongst creatives. Professor Vukosi Marivate, Chair of Data Science at the University of Pretoria, described a project in which broadcast TV shows in South Africa could be used to train AI models to educate local communities about primary health care in indigenous African languages. Marivate said that a power reset needs to take place between local communities and Big Tech based in the Global North. This will allow AI to be used to protect

Blog

COMMUNIA’s submission to the Geo-blocking Regulation evaluation call for evidence

Justin Diamond / 24 March, 2025

COMMUNIA recently made a submission to a call for evidence on the evaluation of the Geo-blocking Regulation which the European Commission is set to review the rules for this year. This regulation governs geo-blocking, including for audiovisual services and copyright-protected works. The European Commission has not yet introduced measures to improve access to audiovisual content, and audiovisual services and copyright-protected works are currently exempted from the regulation. Background on the Geo-blocking Regulation and additional information on COMMUNIA’s proposal to provide EU consumers with an opportunity to stream publicly funded content that is otherwise unavailable in their region against the payment of a fee are further detailed in a recent blogpost on COMMUNIA’s site by Justus Dreyling, which is included below: This week, COMMUNIA made a submission to a call for evidence on the evaluation of the Geo-blocking Regulation (available as a PDF file). The European Commission is set to review the rules for geo-blocking, including for audiovisual services and copyright-protected works, this year. After the stakeholder dialogue on access to and availability of audiovisual works has failed to deliver any meaningful change, we call on the Commission to use this opportunity to finally introduce measures to improve access to audiovisual content across the Union. The Geo-blocking Regulation was adopted in 2018 with the aim of promoting the internal market by improving access to goods and services for individuals. Audiovisual services and copyright-protected works were notably exempted from the regulation. As a result, most audiovisual content produced in the EU remains inaccessible to European citizens. COMMUNIA has called on the co-legislators on multiple occasions to consider broadening the scope of the regulation to include audiovisual services and copyrighted content or at least improve the conditions for audiovisual content that has received public funding for its production or distribution. As part of this submission, we renew our proposal for a model project based on a European transactional video of demand (TVOD) platform in order to provide EU consumers with an opportunity to stream publicly funded content that is otherwise unavailable in their region against the payment of a fee (PDF file).

Blog

WTO Event on 30 Years of TRIPS

Justin Diamond / 15 March, 2025

On March 19, 2025, a side event will take place during the regular WTO TRIPS Council session, organized by Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India, and Pakistan. The event will review 30 years of the TRIPS agreement, focusing on its history, national experiences, and impact on public interest and development in member countries. Key segments include a historical overview by Carlos Correa of the South Centre, a discussion on national experiences, and a panel featuring experts from academia and civil society. Virtual participation will be available – for full details, please see the original article published by Knowledge Ecology International below: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India, and Pakistan to convene WTO TRIPS Council Side event – 30 Years of TRIPS: Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries Update: On Tuesday, 11 March 2025, the World Trade Organization published an addendum (IP/C/W/718/Add.1) which stated: “By means of a communication dated 10 March 2025, the delegation of Pakistan has requested to be added to the list of sponsors of the submission circulated in document IP/C/W/718.” On Monday, 10 March 2025, the World Trade Organization (WTO) published a communication (IP/C/W/718) from Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, and India entitled: “IP and Public Interest – Intellectual Property For Development Group – Side Event: 30 Years of TRIPS: Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries”. The cover note to the submission notes: “The informal group of countries known as “Intellectual Property (IP) for Development” plans to host an informal side event, on the margins of the regular TRIPS Council session on the afternoon on 19 March, one day before the TRIPS Council session of the 20 and 21 March 2025. The signing Members invite delegates and experts to an initial discussion to reflect on the history of the TRIPS negotiations, 30 years after their conclusion” (Source: IP/C/W/718). The convenors will enable virtual participation; a link will be provided. The group has signalled their intent to promote “a discussion on its evolution and impact will help to improve the available information, providing valuable insights and reflections for assessing the expectations of developing countries and the outcomes of implementation of TRIPS” (Ibid). The hybrid event will take place on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 from 13:00 CET to 16:30 CET in Room S1 of the World Trade Organization. Carlos Correa, Executive Director of the South Centre will provide a history of the TRIPS negotiations including the context, main actors, and the process of the negotiations during the first segment from 14:00 to 14:30 CET. Section 2 of the side event will focus on national experiences; this panel will feature Celso Amorim and Jayashree Watal and will run from 14:30 to 15:15 CET. Celso Amorim is currently Chief Advisor to the President of Brazil for Foreign Policy. Jayashree Watal is currently Visiting Professor at the National Law University, Delhi and an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. Section 3 of the side event will a panel comprised of experts including Joshua Sarnoff, Raymond P. Niro Professor of Intellectual, Property Law, DePaul College of Law (online), James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)- (in-person), Ellen ‘t Hoen, Director of Medicines Law & Policy, (in-person), Sean Flynn, Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University (in-person), and Sangeeta Shashikant Third World Network –TWN- (in-person). Section 3 will run from 15:15 to 16:15 CET.

Blog, Traditional Knowledge

Why the WIPO IGC Deadlocked

InfoJustice Eds. / 11 March, 2025

By: Chidi Oguamanam Chidi Oguamanam, representative of Nigeria and University of Ottowa Professor of Law, provides analysis of the failure to endorse a new consolidated text by the 50th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC). The article was originally published by ABS Canada, and is reprinted here with the author’s permission. Link to article Discord over Rights and Measures-Based Approaches to the Protection of TK and TCEs Scuttles WIPO IGC 50 By: Chidi Oguamanam Backdrop to the 50th WIPO IGC Session At the 50th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC), delegates arrived with expectations for a better outcome. However, after one week of deliberations from March 3-7, 2025, experts and diplomats failed to achieve consensus over an improved working text of international legal instrument(s) for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions (TK/TCEs). The last session of the WIPO-IGC (the 49th session) was stalemated because the majority of delegates agreed that they failed to narrow gaps in the working texts of TK and TCEs from the 47th WIPO-IGC session. At the 49th session, delegates resolved not to transmit any instruments to the 50th session, which meant that they would fall back to the text of the 47th session to the collective disappointment of the Committee and its Finnish Chair, Anna Vuopala, at the December 2024 meetings. The 50th WIPO-IGC session was chaired by Brazilian diplomat Ms. Erika Patriota, who was invested in breaking the jinx of the 49th session. Despite her best efforts through a methodology that relied heavily on informal sessions as well as drew from the facilitation skill of the Filipino Friend of the Chair, Anne Adlon, the session’s intended purpose to narrow gaps and deliver on an improved text of negotiating instruments was not met. A hopeful start on the first couple of days resulted in ridding the two working texts (TK and TCEs) of a few redundant and unsupported alternative articles. However, a methodological failure arising from not reining in delegates who were determined to contribute new textual language, and who were determined to even substitute in wholesale fashion some existing articles, pushed the Committee off-balance away from narrowing gaps. Rights and Measures-Based Approach is Now a Critical Schism There was a palpable ideological schism among delegates on the perennial high level conceptual question over the nature of the instrument in relation to intellectual property rights. On one side are demandeur delegations who favour negotiating the TK/TCEs instruments as sui generis, or what one delegate characterizes as “IP+.” On the other side are those who prefer that the instruments be in sync with conventional IP rights – with term limits, elaborate exceptions and limitations, and accommodation of the so-called “vibrant public domain.” More prominently and equally worrisome at the 50th WIPO-IGC session was a palpable division among delegates along “rights-based” and “measures-based” approaches to the protection of TK and TCEs. In simple terms, the rights-based approach is premised on the recognition of inalienable and existing rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to their TK and TCEs as a fundamental anchor for the protection of those rights and the premise upon which any consequential measures are based. On the other hand, proponents of the measures-based approach, who are mainly non-demandeurs led by the United States and its allies in Group B (Japan, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, UK), the EU, the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS), etc., are inclined toward a measures-based approach. The latter group of proponents of the measures-based approach proactively emphasizes and promotes a list of policy, regulatory, persuasive, and non-binding measures to encourage the “safeguarding” of TK and TCEs. In the opinion of these proponents, a soft-law (i.e., non-binding) approach is the preferred nature of such measures. The argument is that, in accordance with its mandate, the Committee should not prejudge the nature of the instrument that will result from its work. For most non-demandeurs, a measures-based approach is a suitable pathway to a non-binding treaty. For the demandeurs, that is, IPLCs as well as mostly developing countries of the global south who coalesce around the mainly fluid category of like-minded countries (LMCs), the African Group, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), India, China, and some members of the Asia Pacific Group (APG), a rights-based approach is preferred. The demandeurs support a stronger and binding instrument in the nature of the already-concluded treaty from the work of the Committee – the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. For this group, the fact that the Committee is required not to prejudge the outcome of its deliberations does not preclude designing a binding instrument. For demandeurs, the narrow focus of non-demandeurs on a non-binding instrument misses the other consideration regarding the outcome of the Committee’s work, which relates to whether it would result in a single or multiple instruments. At the beginning, the Committee set out on a pathway to three instruments, namely, TK, TCEs and Genetic Resources (GRs). It has agreed on only one instrument so far, which is the binding instrument on GRs. Cut-and-Paste Merger for Artificial Consolidation Despite a lack of consensus, the 50th IGC attempted to merge the two remaining negotiating instruments on TK and TCEs into one document, in contrast to their being negotiated in parallel, which has been the practice. It is not as if no attempt has been made in the past at consolidating the two remaining documents. In February 2023 and March 2023, the Jamaican Chair of the IGC, Lilly-Clair Bellamy, raised the Chair’s Consolidated Texts of TK and TCEs, which some delegations wanted to be used as a working instrument at the aborted 49th session of the IGC. The attempt at the equally aborted 50th session to merge both texts in a cut-and-paste merging approach reflects the potential inclination of delegations toward a consolidated instrument. The Committee appears open to consider a single TK/TCE instrument to complement the

Blog, Broadcast Treaty

The (Long) Road to the Broadcast Treaty: A Brief History

Lokesh Vyas, Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn / 11 March, 2025

Lokesh Vyas; Luca Schirru; Sean Flynn Members of the research team from the Program of Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP)’ Geneva Center published a “Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 145. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/145/ The document traces the discussions and statements made by Member States across all SCCR and General Assembly meetings from the launch of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in 1998 to the 45th meeting of the committee in 2024. The history can be used to analyze the evolution in the statements, positions, and proposals of countries over this long history. This note describes the pre-history of the Broadcasting Treaty before the creation of the SCCR. Berne Convention Broadcasting entered the international copyright scene in the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention, with the introduction of Article 11bis to the Berne Convention: “Article 11bis: (1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the communication of their works to the public by radio-diffusion.(2) The national legislations of the countries of the Union may regulate the conditions under which the right mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be exercised, but the effect of those conditions will be strictly limited to the countries which have put them in force. Such conditions shall not in any case prejudice the moral right (droit moral) of the author, nor the right which belongs to the author to obtain an equitable remuneration which shall be fixed, failing agreement, by the competent authority.”[2] The exclusive right in 11bis is limited to communications “to the public” by the particular means of “radio-diffusion.” It thus did not cover issues such as rebroadcasts by other means (e.g. cable, internet, etc.) or one-to-one transmissions. Article 11bis(2) gives governments flexibility in how to regulate the right. The importance of public interest regulation was emphasized by the Sub-Committee on Broadcasting which discussed the issue at the conference.[3] In 1948, Article 11bis(1) was expanded to cover additional technologies, and Article 11bis(3) was introduced, creating an exception for “ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting body by means of its own facilities and used for its own emissions”.[4] The provision also permitted legislation to authorize the preservation of such recordings in official archives if they held exceptional documentary value. The 1967 Stockholm Revision brought further modifications: Article 11bis(1) was revised to include the terms “broadcasting” and “rebroadcasting”. Article 11bis(2) remained unchanged; the wording of Article 11bis(3) was slightly modified, though without any substantial legal effect. Rome Convention The International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome, 1961) convened jointly by two UN agencies: ILO and UNESCO, as well as BIRPI (WIPO’s predecessor), included a related right of broadcasting organizations. As James Love has described: “Broadcasting organizations made a discrete case for inclusion in the treaty as a beneficiary, even when making no creative contribution. Backed by sheer lobbying power, broadcasters claimed that, unlike theater owners, record or bookstores, they were tasked with making works available to the public without direct compensation from listeners, often with additional public service obligations, and were entitled to rights, even when none existed for the works broadcast.”[5] The treaty defined “broadcasting” as “the transmission by wireless means for public reception”[6] and “rebroadcasting” as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another broadcasting organisation”.[7] The treaty was thus limited to the protection of live broadcasts by traditional wireless means. The Rome Convention included a list of permissible limitations and exceptions.[8] Brussels Convention As Delia Lipszyc noted with the rise of orbiting or geostationary satellites in international telecommunications since 1965, broadcasting organizations expressed the need for adequate protection against the ‘piracy of signals’ when their television programmes were transmitted by space satellites.[9] The Rome Convention left ambiguity on this issue as it only covered “wireless” transmissions, raising doubts about whether it applied to broadcasts relayed through satellites. International discussions on the legal challenges of “intercontinental broadcasts of television programmes by satellite” began in 1968 and 1969. Following these meetings, UNESCO and BIRPI jointly convened a Committee of Governmental Experts to examine copyright and related rights issues affecting performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasters due to satellite transmissions. The committee met three times—in Lausanne (1971), Paris (1972), and Nairobi (1973)—laying the groundwork for the 1974 Diplomatic Conference in Brussels.[10] In the 1974 Brussels Diplomatic Conference Report, Lipszyc notes that the General Rapporteur highlighted the issue’s urgency, as recognized by the three Committees of Governmental Experts. They explored several possible solutions, including: 1.) the revision of the International Telecommunication Convention or of the annexed Radio Regulations; the revision of the Rome Convention (1961); 2.) the adoption of a new multilateral Convention; or 3.) some other formula, such as the confirmation of the existing international agreements or 4.) the adoption of a straightforward resolution condemning the piracy of signals. Quoting from Lipszyc: “As the preparatory work progressed, a consensus emerged in favour of the third solution; even though some countries considered that the Rome Convention granted broadcasters protection against unauthorized rebroadcasting of their signals transmitted by satellites, it was still clear that, because of the few accessions to that Convention, it did not immediately lend itself to a solution of this problem at world level. … At the meetings of the three Committees of Experts, discussions focused mainly on a number of drafts of a new multilateral convention designed to prevent the rebroadcasting of signals transmitted via satellites by distributors for whom they were not intended; but it proved particularly difficult to arrive at a general consensus on the content and terms of this Convention”. The above-referred Report highlighted that the main difficulty arose at the meeting of the First Committee of Governmental Experts (Lausanne, 1971) and took up a great deal of the proceedings of all three preparatory meetings. The problem was to know whether, if exclusive rights were granted to the originating broadcasting organizations in the sphere of private law and within a new international

Blog

Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance Released at World Intellectual Property Organization

Sean Flynn / 3 March, 2025

The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance were released today at the 50th meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The principles were drafted at a retreat with copyright academics, stakeholders and computational researchers who gathered in the Cradle of Humankind to address the goal of enabling African and other Global South uses of digital research tools without promoting “data colonialism” concerns. The Cradle Principles express that knowledge governance systems but must be seen as composed of various fields of information regulation including “international, constitutional, traditional knowledge, intellectual property, media and telecommunications, privacy, competition, biodiversity, and other laws, and are also composed of non-governmental cultural practices and norms, including traditional systems governing the use of community-held knowledge.” The Principles conclude that such systems, taken together, should further the following goals: -promote the goals of sustainable development, social justice, and human rights; -provide balanced frameworks that protect and promote access to, and use of information for research, scientific inquiry, analysis, translation, and preservation of cultures and languages; -promote the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities’ in the knowledge economy, including their right to self-determination, inclusion, cultural integrity, data sovereignty and sustainable development; -ensure sovereignty over knowledge resources to combat unidirectional information resource extraction and misappropriation that aggravates inequalities and injustice in the ability to access and use information and knowledge;. The Principles include a table of considerations to help determine when knowledge should be subject to more protection to safeguard the rights of traditional cultures and when knowledge should be more freely available for research, education and other public interest uses. The IGC is currently negotiating a treaty on the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. Although the principles do not contain any specific language for the IGC’s work, they may nonetheless be useful in identifying options and considerations for balancing important public interests in the negotiation, including for the crafting of limitations and exceptions to any exclusive rights that may be included in a final treaty. See complete document here: https://knowledgegov.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Cradle-Principles-V8.pdf

Blog, Traditional Knowledge

WIPO Debate Stalls Over Including the Genetic Resources Treaty in the PCT Framework

Andres Izquierdo / 27 February, 2025

By Andres Izquierdo, Yara Misto, & Haddija Jawara The latest session of the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group was marked by intense debate over agenda item 16, which addressed the implications of the recently adopted WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty). Brazil formally appealed the Chair’s ruling on the matter, ultimately resulting in the indefinite suspension of the session due to a lack of quorum for a vote. During the 18th Session of the PCT Working Group, member states discussed document PCT/WG/18/16, which examines the potential integration of disclosure requirements for genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (ATK) into the PCT framework. The discussions on PCT/WG/18/16 exposed a divide among WIPO members. Brazil, Colombia, and Egypt pushed for amendments to the PCT, stressing the importance of aligning its framework with the newly adopted GRATK Treaty. In contrast, Canada, France, and Norway maintained that such discussions were premature, arguing that any modifications should be postponed until the Treaty officially enters into force. With no consensus reached, the issue was deferred for future discussions. Brazil’s Procedural Appeal and the Deadlock Brazil objected to the closure of the agenda item, emphasizing its importance to multiple member states and interest groups. Invoking Rule 14 of WIPO’s procedural guidelines, Brazil asserted its right to appeal the Chair’s ruling, which—under WIPO rules—must be put to an immediate vote. The Chair’s decision would stand unless overturned by a majority of delegations. However, procedural complications arose when it became clear that the session lacked the necessary quorum to conduct a vote on Brazil’s appeal. Without the required quorum, the appeal remained unresolved. Acknowledging the deadlock, the Chair announced the indefinite suspension of the meeting, with the issue to be revisited in a future session. Statements from Member States & Brazil’s Appeal Below is the transcript of statements from member states and the full text of Brazil’s appeal: Colombia (GRULAC) “Madam Chair, Delegation of Colombia has the honor of presenting this statement on behalf of the majority of the country’s members of GRULAC.We would like to express our gratitude to the WIPO Secretariat, the Director General, for the initiative of having this agenda item and the preparation of the document PCT/WG/18/16.We appreciate their efforts to look into the challenges of the implementation of this Treaty on Genetic Resources and Related Traditional Knowledge within the PCT with regard to patents.The option in having the GRTK in 2024, it was a very great achievement for the majority of the GRULAC countries in order to guarantee that Intellectual Property Systems in our region reflect in a balanced way the interests of all stakeholders including states, indigenous peoples and local communities.In this context, we believe that it would be appropriate for the PCT Working Group to take the opportunity to see how the procedures of the PCT can be aligned with the established provisions of Article 7 of the GRTK Treaty.Obviously, we need to ensure that we facilitate harmonization and guarantee the applicability in effective terms.The Secretariat’s initiative is particularly relevant given that both the process leads to the amendment of any PCT process or provision can take a long time.It is, therefore, useful to have the technical discussions and an open debate so that we can have key information provided by Member States so that they are able to ratify the Treaty and also know what requirements may come up in terms of amendments to the PCT’s own regulations.So we would like to thank the IB and suggest that we do indeed come back at the next PCT meeting with a proposed amendment which would enable us to foresee challenges that may come up.We, therefore, call upon Member States to support the proposal made in 18/16 so that those modifications amendments that will facilitate the implementation, particularly with regard to diverging sources within the PCT system.” Namibia (African Group) “I thank you, Chair, for the floor.I’m taking the floor on behalf of the African Group.We join other Delegations in congratulating you on your appointment as the Chair and we are looking forward to a productive meeting.And on the onset African Group wishes to commend WIPO for their efforts and work done this far in ensuring implementation of international instruments for protection of patents.Patents are powerful tools in fostering innovation and providing economic value to businesses and investors.Patent protection helps to secure commercial benefits of new inventions and ultimately ensuring sustainable innovations.The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge adopted in May 2024 marked a significant milestone in advancing legal instrument for protection or emerging issues of Intellectual Property law.The Treaty addresses the relationship between Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources as well as Traditional Knowledge as subject matter that has been at the center of multilateral discussion over the years.The Treaty emphasizes the need for a framework that respects the rights of Indigenous People and local communities over their Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge while promoting fair and equitable access and benefit-sharing conventions resulting from the use of those resources.Therefore, it is crucial for the Working Group to consider amendment to the PCT regulations to include the disclosure requirements prior informed consent and benefit-sharing mechanism in the PCT system.Those steps are vital to ensure that the use of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge in patent applications acknowledges the rights of Indigenous People and local communities as well as the broader global objectives of sustainable development.To move forward, the Working Group must assess how those amendments can be integrated into the PCT framework to fulfill the objectives of the Treaty.” Japan “Thank you, Madam Chair.Japan would like to express our position on this agenda item.At this stage, the new GOA TK Treaty has not come into effect nor is there any clear prospect of when it will.Additionally, it remains uncertain how each potential contracting party will implement the Treaty in the national laws or rules.Therefore, Japan believes under these circumstances it is premature to consider amending the regulations.We are

Blog, Design Law Treaty

Developing Countries' Accomplishments in the WIPO Design Law Treaty

Sean Flynn and Luca Schirru / 24 January, 2025

Last year, two new intellectual property treaties were adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization — one on the disclosure of uses of genetic resources in patent applications and a second on applications for design law protection. Although the design law treaty was promoted by wealthy countries of the global north, the final outcome shows the impact of developing countries who advocated for deleting or softening provisions that regulated substantive design law while protecting the ability to require information related to Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs), Traditional Knowledge (TK), or biological and genetic resources (GR). Opening the closed list for application criteria The main intent of the Design Law Treaty was described as harmonizing procedures and formalities for applying for design law protection. There is very little substantive international law on design protection, and the treaty was not billed as creating such minimum requirements. However, by proposing to restrict the elements that may be requested in a design law application, the basic proposal for the treaty in effect restricted what elements could be considered in granting protection. The basic proposal for the treaty followed the Trademark Law Treaty in proposing a closed list of elements that could be required in an application. The closed nature of the list was made clear in subsection 2 of what was ultimately included as Article 4 of the treaty, which states: “[Prohibition of Other Requirements] No indication or element, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) and in Article 10, may be required in respect of the application.” The problem with a closed list of application criteria is that it limits the substantive criteria that governments can rely upon in granting design law protection. As Bagley (2018, 995-996) argued: “by delineating a closed list of application requirements that countries can impose on applicants, the DLT in effect moves beyond formalities to placing substantive limits on countries in relation to design registration”. In the early stages of consideration of the Treaty, developing countries focused on the lack of language in the closed list allowing countries to require disclosure of traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge, or genetic resources used in the design seeking protection. The basic proposal for the DLT included two alternatives on these issues: “ALTERNATIVE A [(ix) a disclosure of the origin or source of traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge or biological/genetic resources utilized or incorporated in the industrial design;]” “ALTERNATIVE B [(ix) an indication of any prior application or registration, or of other information , of which the applicant is aware, that is relevant to the eligibility for registration of the industrial design;]” During the negotiation, Knowledge Ecology International raised other issues that the United States and other laws require disclosure of in design law applications that were not included in the closed list. These included, for example, requirements to disclose uses of public funding and artificial intelligence in the creation of the design. There was considerable opposition from the “Group B” wealthy countries of the global north to the language in Alternative A including reference to “biological/genetic resources” in the permitted elements of an application. Delegations argued that such resources were not relevant to design law. In the end, the compromise text excluded direct mention of genetic resources but adopted open language that permits countries to require any application element deemed “relevant” to the registration of the design: Article 4 … (2) [Indication of Information] A Contracting Party may require, where permitted under the applicable law, that an application contain an indication of any prior application or registration, or of other information, including information on traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge, of which the applicant is aware, that is relevant to the eligibility for registration of the industrial design. (3) [Prohibition of Other Requirements] No indication or element, other than those referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) and in Article 12, may be required in respect of the application. The final outcome thus permits countries to allow disclosures of genetic resource information as well as information about uses of public funding, artificial intelligence, and other elements that a country deems relevant to the registration. Eliminating Term of Protection The basic proposal for the DLT included two options for requiring a term of protection. Term of protection is indisputably substantive, and many countries opposed its inclusion in the treaty on this basis. But two other treaties — the Hague Agreement and the WTO’s TRIPS agreement — have minimum terms of protection of 5 years and 10 years respectively. A proposal by the USA would have harmonized members to a minimum 15-year term, which is the present US law. [Article 9Bis Term of protection A Contracting Party shall provide a term of protection for industrial designs of at least 15 years from either: (a) the filing date, or (b) the date of grant or registration.], proposed by USA.[Article 9Bis Term of protection Contracting Parties shall have the option to comply with Article 17 of the Hague Convention or Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement.], proposed by Nigeria. There was united opposition to any term of protection in the agreement by the Africa Group, GRULAC, and APG. As a result, fairly early on in the negotiation, Article 9bis was dropped from the negotiating text and no term of protection was included in the final treaty. Making the Grace Period Optional The basic proposal included language on grace periods during which a design could be disclosed without affecting its registerability. There are no regulations of grace periods in the Patent Law Treaty, Trademark Law Treaty, or the Hague Agreement. Concerns were raised that this provision may disproportionately favor larger firms in weather countries that “can afford to disclose their designs publicly without immediately filing for protection, potentially stalling local competitors who lack the financial or legal capacity to navigate complex intellectual property landscapes”. The final text established a grace period of 12 months but made this provision subject to a reservation. Thus, countries may join the agreement without binding themselves to the grace period