WIPO-SCCR

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

Sean Flynn The following statement was delivered by Professor Sean Flynn on behalf of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights at the World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly meeting on the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.  …. I speak on behalf of the User Rights Network of copyright academics around the World. I found Ms Forbin’s opening statement to be quite striking.  The Broadcast and the Limitations and Exceptions topics can indeed be traced back over a quarter of a century. Both date back to the 1996 Internet Treaties where the broadcast issue was removed and an agreed statement adopted calling for adaptation of exceptions for the digital environment. Both issues were on the initial agenda of the SCCR that was created by the GA in 1998.  Of course the increased participation in the Committee and the lack of speedy work is not really a paradox but a reflection of the importance and contested nature of some of the issues.  But as an outside observer, I would say that conclusions of both agenda items are fairly clear and achievable.  On L&E, the GA Decision of 2012 statement sets the goal. Which is not only thematic events and tool kits as some observers here called for. The 2012 General Assembly mandated “work towards an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments” on limitations and exceptions. (WO/GA/41/14). Instruments. Not just events and guides.  We commend the SCCR’s adoption of the Work Program in SCCR 43 to progress toward the mandate. That Work Program contains innovative modalities of the kind Ms Forbin may have been referring to, including intercessional work.  Importantly, the Work Program does not prejudge the nature of the instrument. Today, I heard the EU and the US agree to work on at least soft law instruments on L&Es. I have heard all education and research stakeholders state that such soft laws would be helpful. So that seems to be a landing point.   On Broadcast, there would be little opposition to the text if the fixation and post fixation rights were removed. But there will be continued resistance as long as those provisions are in the text.  The Broadcast Treaty should also ensure that broadcast rights cannot be more extensive than copyright protection on the same materials. This is not yet the case with the current draft. But this is a pretty easy technical fix.  I join the comment form KEI in thinking the possible landing zones on these issues are fairly clear. There may indeed be a need for innovative modalities to reach them. The SCCR agenda right now contains a whole host of issues. There must be 10 or 12 different agenda items that are talked about every time. So perhaps there should be some innovative modalities to concentrate the discussion, special sessions devoted to particular topics, for instance. We are of course happy to work with delegations on these and other important issues.

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