Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions

By /

by Aditya Gupta and Sean Flynn

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 recommendation 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 significantly 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.

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. Academics have posited that such an instrument is necessary to counteract the existing “minimum protection approach” of international treaties, which often prioritizes copyright holders over 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 reformAn 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 effectsHarmonizing L&Es across international borders can help combat anticompetitive behavior. For example, firms have use inadequate copyright exceptions to inhibit generic pharmaceutical labeling, reverse engineering to create competing products, etc. (Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008)
Enabling Cross-Border UseHarmonizing 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 authorshipL&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 institutionsL&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 KnowledgeL&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 CompetitionL&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 

  1. Asay, Clark. 2021. “Rethinking Copyright Harmonization.” 96 Indiana Law Journal 1005 (2021) 96(4). https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol96/iss4/2.
  2. Depoorter, Ben. 2021. “The Economics of Copyright Exemptions: A Comparative Analysis.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, Cambridge Law Handbooks, eds. Haochen Sun, Ng-Loy Wee Loon, and Shyamkrishna Balganesh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–11. doi:10.1017/9781108671101.003.
  3. Fiil-Flynn, Sean M., Brandon Butler, Michael Carroll, Or Cohen-Sasson, Carys Craig, Lucie Guibault, Peter Jaszi, et al. 2022. “Legal Reform to Enhance Global Text and Data Mining Research.” Science 378(6623): 951–53. doi:10.1126/science.add6124.
  4. Flynn, Sean, Christophe Geiger, João Quintais, Thomas Margoni, Matthew Sag, Lucie Guibault, and Michael Carroll. 2020. “Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action.” Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/48.
  5. Flynn, Sean, and Michael Palmedo. 2019. “The User Rights Database: Measuring the Impact of Copyright Balance.” AUWCL Working Papers. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/fac_works_papers/42.
  6. Flynn, Sean, Luca Schirru, Michael Palmedo, and Andrés Izquierdo. 2022. “Research Exceptions in Comparative Copyright.” Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/75.
  7. Geiger, Christophe, and Bernd Jütte. 2022. “Conceptualizing a ‘Right to Research’ and Its Implications for Copyright Law: An International and European Perspective.” Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series (77). https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/77.
  8. Geiger, Christophe, and Bernd Jütte. 2024. “The Right to Research as Guarantor for Sustainability, Innovation and Justice in EU Copyright Law.” Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series (119). https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/119.
  9. Handke, Christian, Lucie Guibault, and Joan-Josep Vallbé. 2021. “Copyright’s Impact on Data Mining in Academic Research.” Managerial and Decision Economics 42(8): 1999–2016. doi:10.1002/mde.3354.
  10. Hilty, Reto M., Kaya Köklü, Valentina Moscon, Carlos Correa, Séverine Dusollier, Christophe Geiger, Jonathan Griffiths, et al. 2021. “International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law.” IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 52(1): 62–67. doi:10.1007/s40319-020-00999-8.
  11. Lindsay, David, and Graham Greenleaf, eds. 2018. “Copyright Exceptions and Limitations – Categories.” In Public Rights: Copyright’s Public Domains, Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 350–91. doi:10.1017/9781316460214.014.
  12. von Lohmann, Fred. 2008. “Fair Use as Innovation Policy.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 23(2): 829–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24120888 (October 6, 2025).
  13. Longan, Mitchell. 2023. “A System Out of Balance:  A Critical Analysis of Philosophical Justifications for Copyright Law Through the <em>Lenz</Em> of Users’ Rights.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 56(3): 779–826. doi:https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.system.
  14. Majekolagbe, Faith O. 2025. “The Case for a New International Instrument on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 43: 73. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/caelj43&id=85&div=6&collection=journals.
  15. Okediji, Ruth L. 2018. “The Limits of International Copyright Exceptions for Developing Countries.” Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 21: 689.
  16. Okediji, Ruth L., and P. Bernt Hugenholtz. 2008. Conceiving an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright. Open Society Institute. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/conceiving-international-instrument-limitations-and-exceptions-copyright (June 8, 2024).
  17. Palmedo, Michael. 2019. “The Impact of Copyright Exceptions for Researchers on Scholarly Output.” Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/105.
  18. Palmedo, Michael. 2021. “A Novel Dataset Measuring Change in Copyright Exceptions.” Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/74.
  19. Reichman, Jerome, and Ruth Okediji. 2012. “When Copyright Law and Science Collide: Empowering Digitally Integrated Research Methods on a Global Scale.” Minnesota Law Review 96: 1362–1480. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2675.
  20. Ricketson, Sam. 2021. “Protection of Limitations and Exceptions in the International Copyright Framework.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, Cambridge Law Handbooks, eds. Haochen Sun, Ng-Loy Wee Loon, and Shyamkrishna Balganesh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–108. doi:10.1017/9781108671101.009.
  21. Samuelson, Pamela. 2018. “Justifications for Copyright Limitations and Exceptions.” In Copyright Law in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions, ed. Ruth L. Okediji. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 12.
  22. Trimble, Marketa. 2025. “Cross-Border Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright: ‘Powered by AI.’” Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal 41(2): 133. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol41/iss2/1.
  23. Yoo, Christopher S. 2021. “Self-Actualization and the Need to Create As a Limit on Copyright.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, Cambridge Law Handbooks, eds. Haochen Sun, Ng-Loy Wee Loon, and Shyamkrishna Balganesh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 12–34. doi:10.1017/9781108671101.004.

The pdf version follows below:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top