# Centre on Knowledge Governance


## Posts

- [Public AI Launch, and Some Thoughts on Copyright](https://knowledgegov.org/public-ai-launch-and-some-thoughts-on-copyright/): I attended the exciting launch of a series of papers and reflections on “Public AI” at the EU Parliament this week. The core of the idea is that the non-US/China world needs more public directed and open source AI related resources — from computational capacity to open data sets (like EU’s “data spaces”) — to build both commercial and non-commercial AI tools delinked from big tech. There is an important copyright issue at its core. To build AI infrastructure, including to support the development of frontier and foundation models that may be themselves non-profit but can serve as the base for other (including commercial) developers, Public AI model builders need legal certainty as to what material they can use for training. If they don’t have the same right as Chinese and US developers, they won’t be able to succeed. Some developers are working with only openly licensed and public domain sources, but they tend to be trained on much smaller data sets then. Cultural heritage organizations want to help, but they also need certainty as to whether they can curate and share data with model builders. Article 3 of the EU CDSM (2019) provides some cover, but publishers are claiming it is not for training AI but rather only for traditional academic pursuits. Most developing countries lack even an Art. 3 type leg to stand on. In this context, the future of Public AI appears to depend a lot on the definition of the right to research within modern copyright laws. Proposals to apply remuneration requirements, if any, only after a specific application (“output)”) of a foundation model proves to have copyright relevant effects (e.g. commercial substitution) may be one path forward. See Senftleben, Martin, Generative AI and Author Remuneration (June 14, 2023). International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 54 (2023), pp. 1535-1560.
- [Time for an IP Reset to Protect Health, Education, Creativity and Traditional Knowledge?](https://knowledgegov.org/time-for-an-ip-reset-to-protect-health-education-creativity-and-traditional-knowledge/): It’s time to put people back into the Intellectual Property system. Currently IP tends to reproduce inequality. IP should support public goods such as health and education. We need to address substitution of creators and markets by AI and we should promote solutions like Public AI to protect research and cultural diversity. The profits earned through the monopoly power of IP should be ‘de-linked’ from the incentive to invest in R&D or creativity, especially in health. Most of all, we need accountability back in the system. These were a few of the recommendations offered by a high-level panel of international professors, top government representatives and practitioners at the recent launch of the Centre on Knowledge Governance at the Geneva Graduate Institute on 3 Dec 2025. The discussion covered many of the topical issues currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Disclosure of Traditional Knowledge Former WIPO senior director Wend Wendland talked about his new book which details the long journey to adopt a Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (TK), finally passed in 2024 and which requires the disclosure of TK in patent applications, a rare win for marginalised people in the formal IP system. Valmaine Toki, a Maori rights advocate, praised the treaty but said it will remain an imperfect victory until indigenous people have a full seat at the table in fora like WIPO to ensure full benefit sharing in the exploitation of their knowledge.  Remuneration Guilherme Patriota, Brazil’s Ambassador to the WTO said that creativity and innovation, especially in the age of AI, should not be a ‘winner takes all’ scenario skewed towards the interests of large corporations.  The creator of Brazil has a huge music industry, very popular, also very valuable in many ways like many other countries of the South. Actually, it’s kind of a wealth of the South. Nigeria has a huge film and music industry as you do in South Africa. What’s going to happen to that? Is that all going to be fed for free into systems for large language models and AI and they will start to replicate similar types of music? I think individuals should have the rights of remuneration for their individual work and contribution. So that’s what we’re looking for. Make it more human, make the system more human. Harvard Law Professor Ruth Okediji argued that the failure to reward creators is a problem throughout the IP system: The innovators behind the COVID-19 vaccine are not the ones getting the royalties. The employees in the big intermediaries are not the ones getting the remuneration. It’s not just indigenous communities. It’s not just women. It’s not just small and medium enterprises. The entire ecosystem is structured around private arrangements that make equitable dissemination [of benefits] difficult… AI is bringing us to this moment of confrontation in more explicit ways. Let’s remember that it’s not just the scraping of music or the scraping of data. There are labourers in developing countries who are painstakingly, for very little money, involved in this [production of AI models]. There are environmental costs of these large language models and those costs will be borne disproportionately.  So I think to echo something Ambassador Patriota said, this [inequality] is in the DNA of the system. Access to Medicines Participants also talked about the impact of IP monopolies on access, especially to public goods. Leading health advocate Ellen ‘t Hoen expressed disappointment that the IP lessons learnt by the Access to Medicines movement which fought successfully for affordable AIDS medicines in the 1990s were not applied during the Covid19 pandemic.  The vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccines were largely developed with fast, vast amounts of public financing. …That’s exactly what you want. If a crisis hits like that, you want governments to act and spend money in order to solve it. But what they failed to do was attach conditions to that financing. Those conditions could have, for example, been licensing  know-how through the Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program (CTAP) or the Medicines Patent Pool. That did not happen. So the IP was quite strong, and the companies at the end of the day became the ones who decided where the vaccines would go, and the vaccines went to the highest bidders. There is the famous case of Canada buying three times the size of its population, while about five people were vaccinated in sub-Saharan Africa.  James Love of Knowledge Ecology International added the problem of global scale: I think we have to really think hard about how you produce works, produce inventions, produce products as public goods in a world where markets are global. They’re not just national. Governments can sort of do public goods at the national level. They have really been bad at doing it at the global level. And I think that proposals like the idea of de-linking the incentive for drug development from the price of the drug, or the idea of a WTO agreement on the supply of public goods, those things are really, really important today. Limitations and Exceptions Ruth Okediji described Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in a similar vein: There are public goods for which limitations and exceptions are critical. Education would be an example. Every country needs limitations and exceptions that address what happens in the classroom. So I’d say limitations and exceptions for education are super important. We have limitations, for example, for innovation purposes, reverse engineering, decompilations, when it comes to software. This is important in order to both promote interoperability but also to understand what’s behind the hood when you’re looking at a particular technical invention. So I think identifying the category of limitations and exceptions is important and then discerning whether that is a category that at the multilateral level can facilitate consensus because it is the kind of knowledge good for which all countries have a common concern. Archivists are another example. The role of libraries, another example.  Okediji went on to characterise
- [WIPO SCCR 47 Ends with Some Progress After Another Late Night](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-sccr-47-ends-with-some-progress-after-another-late-night/): The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights negotiated its conclusions into the early morning hours of December 6 over the conclusions on a packed agenda. The meeting agreed to identify a series of specific articles of the Treaty on the Protection of Broadcast Organizations that lack consensus, to delay until next meeting the decision on how to begin text based negotiations on three proposals for work on an instrument on limitations and exceptions, and to begin work on studies of remuneration of audiovisual authors and on copyright and training of artificial intelligence tools. This note describes the major conclusions and positions of member states at the meeting. Below we also publish an edited transcript of the SCCR 47 public sessions.  Treaty for the Protection of Broadcast Organizations The Chair released a new draft Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations with minor changes from the previous draft. After many sessions of the SCCR when it appeared that a conclusion of the broadcast Treaty might be near, this round ended with conclusion that many of the draft treaty’s provisions are far from reaching consensus. The Chair’s summary, in a break with those of the recent past, contained a detailed discussion of divergences that remain: 8. Regarding the first set of articles (articles 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17), no concerns were raised about their current wording.  The second set of articles (articles 3, 4, 6, 10) received support in principle, although a few technical adjustments are still required either in the provisions or the explanatory notes.  With respect to the third set of articles, further in-depth discussions are needed in order to overcome the remaining differences, particularly on the topics of (i) rights contained in articles 7, 8 and the respective definitions (article 2), (ii) exceptions and limitations (article 11) and (iii) the functioning of the national treatment and reciprocity principles (article 5 and the interlink between articles 6, 7, 8, 9 and articles 10 and 15).  In plenary statements, the United States and the members of the African Group explicitly opposed moving the current Chair’s draft of the treaty to a diplomatic conference.  The African Group has long supported a narrow broadcast treaty and has repeatedly expressed concerns about potential unintended effects of a broader treaty on public interest uses and on competitive markets. At this SCCR, the Group made its most specific objections to particular provisions of the draft.  The African group stated its support for the conclusions of the Chair’s summary of SCCR 45, “notably that the treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy, should not extend to post-fixation activities, should provide Member States with flexibility to implement obligations through adequate and effective legal means and that the object of protection relates to program carrying signals linked to linear transmissions.” It criticized the current draft of the Treaty as veering outside of this zone of consensus. It specifically objected to: The Group identified several questions it requested the facilitators and proponents of the treaty to address, including: The African Group concluded that, “given the lack of consensus on numerous provisions, the African Group is of the view that the present text is not ready for a referral to a Diplomatic Conference.” It further restated its position “that the broadcasting treaty and the instrument on limitation and exceptions should progress together with a view to finalizing both instruments concurrently.” The United States largely repeated concerns about the scope of the draft treaty that it has made in previous SCCR and General Assembly meetings. It expressed disappointment that Articles 7 and 8, on fixation and post-fixation rights over stored programs, were retained in this draft despite its objections to these provisions in earlier meetings.  The EU, the primary demander of the Treaty, expressed some flexibility in confining the draft to conform to concerns raised by other members and recognized that “further technical clarifications are needed” on the present draft. The EU restated its support for a “future proof” treaty in which “retransmission by computer networks of broadcasting organization should be granted meaningful protection.” But it asserted some flexibility on this matter, stating that, “in order to achieve a compromise,” it is “ready to consider” the current option in the text for countries to opt out of covering broadcasting organizations that transmit exclusively via computer networks through a reservation. The EU did not, however, signal support for the narrowing of rights to exclude coverage of stored programs opposed by the United States and the Africa Group. Some other countries, including Russia, Japan, and Canada, noted the minimal changes in the current draft and urged that it progress toward the available consensus that could support a narrower treaty. India specifically called for consideration of “the option of incorporating mandatory limitations and exceptions.”  Brazil asserted that it was ready follow a consensus for the convening of a Diplomatic Conference based on the present draft, but asserted that “in case consensus is not possible by the end of this session, we propose to temporarily remove the topic from the agenda to enable consultations among interested parties, bringing it back to the Committee after sufficient convergence is identified.” Following plenary comments, the discussions of the Treaty moved into informal sessions in which, for the first time in recent memory, observers were not permitted to listen to the deliberations.  Limitations and Exceptions The limitations and exceptions agenda saw the introduction of three new texts. Responding to SCCR 46’s conclusion that the Chair “will prepare a document with concrete suggestions … for the implementation of the Work Program” on limitations and exceptions, the Chair published a Framework of Work Towards an Appropriate International Legal Instrument or Instruments on Limitations and Exceptions. The African Group published a Draft Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries, Archives, Museums, Education and Research Institutions and People with Disabilities. The United States, during the SCCR meeting, published Updated Version of the Document “Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries And Archives” and
- [Centre Launches with Top Thinkers; Video available.](https://knowledgegov.org/centre-launches-with-top-thinkers-view-the-video/): At a packed event at the Geneva Graduate Institute on 3rd December 2025, the Centre on Knowledge Governance held its official launch. The launch featured top thinkers and high level government representatives, with a focus on the future of the Intellectual Property system. The full video of the event is now available to view online. After an introduction by Centre Director Sean Flynn, the event featured the launch of a new book by Wend Wendland, entitled The Journey to the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Joining Professor Wendland were His Excellency Ambassador Patriota of Brazil and Maori rights activist, Valmaine Toki. A second panel discussed the future of the IP system, with high level contributions by Harvard Professor Ruth Okediji and Medicines advocate Ellen ‘t Hoen. The event was moderated by Ben Cashdan, a filmmaker from South Africa and former advisor in the office of President Nelson Mandela.
- [Centre Announces New Advisory Board, Fellows and Faculty Advisors](https://knowledgegov.org/centre-announces-new-advisory-board-fellows-and-faculty-advisors/): At the launch of the Centre on 3rd December 2025 at the Geneva Graduate Institute, Centre Director Sean Flynn announced new appointments to the advisory bodies of the Centre, including prominent high profile international scholars and thinkers. Advisory Board Joining the top level advisory board are: James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International. He advises UN agencies, national governments, international and regional intergovernmental organizations and public health NGOs, and is the author of a number of articles and monographs on innovation and intellectual property rights. Ellen ‘t Hoen, a lawyer and public health advocate. From 1999 until 2009 she was the director of policy for Médecins sans Frontières’ Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. In 2009 she joined UNITAID in Geneva to set up the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). She was the MPP’s first executive director until 2012. From 2014 to 2025 she served as the Director of Medicines Law & Policy. Carlos Correa, the Executive Director of the South Centre. He began his term as South Centre Executive Director on 1 July 2018. Prior to this, he was the Special Advisor on Trade and Intellectual Property of the South Centre. Dr. Correa is a renowned international authority on intellectual property and technology issues. Fellows Our inaugural senior fellows are: Wend Wendland, a lawyer from South Africa who has more than 30 years’ experience in intellectual property, in both the private and public sectors. As a Director of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for many years until June 2025, he devoted himself to multilateral norm-setting and capacity-building. Wendland is the author of The Journey to the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Maja Bogataj Jančič, the founder and head of the Intellectual Property Institute (IPI), a private research, training and consulting institution based in Ljubljana, Slovenia.Maja is also the founder and head of the Open Data and Intellectual Property Institute ODIPI. Her recent work focuses on open science, open data, data governance and artificial intelligence, as well as open science issues and the legal framework of copyright and data for research and science. Affiliated Faculty In addition to the Advisory Board and Senior Fellows, the Centre has announced affiliated faculty members from the Geneva Graduate Institute, as follows: Suerie Moon, Co-Director, Global Health Centre. Moon combines academically rigorous research and analysis with policy relevance and impact. Her theoretical contributions to the field include conceptualizing the global health system, defining the functions the system must perform to adequately protect public health, global public goods for health, and identifying the types of governance gaps and power disparities that contribute to health inequity.  David Rodogno, Professor, International History and Politics, Head of Interdisciplinary Programmes, Academic Advisor, Executive Certificate in Advocacy and International Public Affairs. Dr Rodogno was a Research Fellow at the London School of Economics (2002-2004), Foreign Associate Researcher at the Institut d’Histoire du Temps Présent in Paris (2004-2005), RCUK Academic Fellow at the School of History, University of St Andrews (2005-2010), and SNSF – Research Professor (2008-2011). Joost Pauwelyn, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute and Co-Director of the Institute’s Centre for Trade and Economic Integration (CTEI). He is also the Murase Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center (since 2014). Joost specializes in international economic law, in particular trade law and investment law, and its relationship to public international law. He also a leading force behind the global www.tradelab.org network of legal clinics on international economic law. Dêlidji Eric DEGILA, Professor of practice of International Relations, Interdisciplinary Programmes and Visiting Faculty in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Geneva Graduate Institute. He is the past Chair of the Global South Caucus, International Studies Association, ISA. His research interests range from international politics to African peace and security challenges, diplomacy, migration, and health issues in the Global South. Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, Professor of International Relations and Political Science. Before joining the Institute in 2009, Annabelle Littoz-Monnet was Assistant Professor at the Central European University, Budapest (2005-2009). She has also worked for the Socio-Legal Studies Centre at Oxford University and as a Research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Relations, Brussels (2004-2005). Neha Mishra, Assistant Professor in the international law department of the Geneva Graduate Institute. She researches international legal issues in the digital economy, focusing on international economic law, data flows/governance, and digital trade, and the interface of international law and emerging digital technologies. Carolyn Deere Birkbeck, the Founder and Executive Director of the Forum on Trade, Environment & the SDGs (TESS), housed at the Geneva Graduate Institute. TESS is dedicated to supporting the multilateral dialogue, inclusive international cooperation, and policy action necessary to align trade and trade policies with the urgent need for environmental action, sustainable development, and just transitions.  For more information about all the people at the Centre on Knowledge Governance, visit the people section of our about page.
- [Centre Announces Short Course on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence](https://knowledgegov.org/centre-announces-short-course-on-intellectual-property-and-artificial-intelligence/): The Centre on Knowledge Governance is pleased to announce a new short course on AI and IP to take place in Geneva from September 7-8, 2026. COURSE DESCRIPTION  This intensive two-day course provides a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the evolving legal and policy landscape at the intersection of Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Participants will explore pressing legal challenges, including the copyright protection for AI training data, the patentability and copyright of AI-generated outputs, and the balance between proprietary interests and the public interest in research (Text and Data Mining and computational research) and the development of “Public AI.”  The course will feature in-depth comparative analysis of legal frameworks and policy proposals across the European Union (EU), United States (USA), India, Brazil, Singapore, Japan, and in international forums, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization and other agencies.  The learning experience will culminate in a practical role-play exercise in which students will draft a model international legal instrument aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for creators while safeguarding the rights of researchers and public interest organizations developing AI infrastructure. This legal instrument will focus on  a range of factors to be used in distinguishing research and public interest uses of AI from commercial competitive uses. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this course, participants will be able to: WHO IS THIS PROGRAMME FOR? This programme is particularly relevant for mid- to senior level practitioners from various organisations working at the intersection of intellectual property and AI policy or scholarship, such as: LECTURERS The Course will be directed by Sean Flynn and Ben Cashdan of the Centre on Knowledge Governance, Geneva Graduate Institute. Guest lecturers will participate in person or online to bring comparative expertise from jurisdictions such as India, Brazil and China and the African continent, in addition to the US and EU. SCHOLARSHIPS 10 scholarships will be available for highly motivated government delegates from developing countries or representatives of public interest organizations who participate in multilateral policy processes on copyright, AI and the rights of researchers. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (INITIAL APPLICATION) If you are interested in being considered as a student on the course, and/or if you would like to apply for one of our scholarships, please kindly complete the following form:
- [Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 47](https://knowledgegov.org/analysis-of-agenda-items-for-wipo-sccr-47/): This note, which will be presented at the November 25, CKG Workshop on SCCR 47, provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues that may be addressed in the 47th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, December 1-5, 2025. It is published as part of the mission of the Centre on Knowledge Governance to produce information and analysis to promote the public interest in multilateral knowledge governance negotiations. The analysis is presented in the order that the items occur on the SCCR 47 Agenda. 
- [Centre publishes new analysis on broadcast, limitations and exceptions](https://knowledgegov.org/centre-publishes-new-copyright-research-on-broadcast-limitations-and-exceptions/): This week our research team published a series of new reports. These relate to the work streams in the upcoming Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 47by Sean Flynn This note, which will be presented at the November 25, CKG Workshop on SCCR 47, provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues that may be addressed in the 47th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, December 1-5, 2025. It is published as part of the mission of the Centre on Knowledge Governance to produce information and analysis to promote the public interest in multilateral knowledge governance negotiations. The analysis is presented in the order that the items occur on the SCCR 47 Agenda.  Tracing a Century of Broadcasting Rights Debates: 1928–2025Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn This report provides a detailed view of developments concerning broadcasting rights within international copyright law, beginning with the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention and continuing through the latest SCCR discussions. These SCCR sessions illustrate the ongoing effort to create a new international treaty to update protection for traditional broadcasting and cablecasting against signal piracy, while grappling with complex issues like protection over computer networks and the definition of object and scope. Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR: A TimelineLuca Schirru, Ben Cashdan and Sean Flynn The timeline details the progression of discussions within the WIPO SCCR regarding Limitations and Exceptions (L&Es) to copyright. This detailed chronology, spanning from 1996 to 2025, highlights the main proposals, studies, and key milestones concerning L&Es for various sectors, including visually impaired persons, libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It documents the formal inclusion of L&Es on the SCCR agenda, the development of numerous draft treaties and working documents, and the ongoing efforts to reach consensus and implement work programs. Comparison of Proposed Texts on Limitations and Exceptions in SCCR 47Jonathan Band Two new documents have been introduced for the Limitations and Exceptions agenda item: the African Group’s “Proposal on Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/47/5) and the Chair’s “Text Proposed” (SCCR/47/8), alongside the earlier U.S. proposal “Limitations for Libraries and Archives” (SCCR/44/5). The tables identify common elements among the three documents and additional areas shared by the Chair and African Group texts, suggesting significant areas of commonality and that further text-based work towards an international legal instrument can start with these documents. Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and ExceptionsAditya Gupta and Sean Flynn The authors summarise justifications for an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to copyright, and for expanded limitations and exceptions more generally. The justifications are taken from a review of academic literature. Researchers have posited that such an instrument is necessary to counteract the existing “minimum protection approach” of international treaties, which often prioritizes copyright holders over the public interest, access to knowledge, and competition and development concerns. Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate?Sean Flynn WIPO published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as SCCR/47/3, which does not differ in its main provisions from previous drafts and raises questions about whether it fulfils the mandate of earlier WIPO General Assemblies. The analysis focuses on substantive changes and controversial provisions, addressing whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection”. Four new proposals for SCCR 47Ben Cashdan WIPO has published four new proposals on ways forward for key work streams in the SCCR, scheduled for 1–5 December 2025. The proposals concern exclusive rights for broadcasting organisations, disparities in the remuneration of performers, limitations and exceptions to promote education, research and access to knowledge, and ensuring fair copyright royalties for creators in the digital environment.
- [Tracing a Century of Broadcasting Rights Debates: 1928–2025](https://knowledgegov.org/tracing-a-century-of-broadcasting-rights-debates-1928-2025/): This timeline provides a detailed view of the developments concerning broadcasting rights within international copyright law. It begins with the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention, which initially introduced these rights, and tracks major milestones such as the 1961 Rome Convention and the rise of satellite broadcasting in the mid-1960s. The majority of the timeline focuses on the intensive, multi-year negotiations held under the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which formally began addressing the protection of broadcasting organisations in 1998. These SCCR sessions illustrate the ongoing effort to create a new international treaty to update protection for traditional broadcasting and cablecasting against signal piracy, while grappling with complex issues like protection over computer networks and the definition of object and scope. The information concerning the pre-SCCR period (1928–1998) was extracted from Vyas, Lokesh; Schirru, Luca; and Flynn, Sean, The (Long) Road to the Broadcast Treaty: A Brief History (Infojustice, 2025). The remaining sections were prepared based on the documents available on WIPO’s SCCR Meetings webpage (e.g. “Report”, “Conclusions” and “Summary by Chair”) and on Schirru, Luca; Vyas, Lokesh; Jawara, Haddija; Ruthes Gonçalves, Lukas; McGee, Katie; Misto, Yara; and Flynn, Sean Michael Fiil, Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR (Global Version) (2025), Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series, 145. See PDF version below. Date Main Developments Short Description 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention Article 11bis introduced broadcasting rights into international copyright law, marking the entry of broadcasting into the global copyright framework. 1948 Brussels Revision of the Berne Convention Added changes and clarifications to Article 11bis. 1961 Rome Convention Adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome, 1961). The Convention covered only “wireless” transmissions, whether the treaty applied to broadcasts transmitted via satellites 1965 Rise of Satellite Broadcasting With the emergence of orbiting and geostationary satellites, broadcasting organizations began demanding protection against signal piracy (noted by Delia Lipszyc). 1967 Stockholm Revision of the Berne Convention. Introduced further modifications to broadcasting rights but limited protection to live wireless broadcasts. 1968–1969 Intercontinental satellite television broadcasts Global discussions began on the legal challenges of intercontinental satellite television broadcasts. 1971–1974 UNESCO and BIRPI Expert Committees Committee of Governmental Experts (UNESCO & BIRPI) met in: Lausanne (1971); Paris (1972);Nairobi (1973). These meetings laid the foundation for the 1974 Brussels Diplomatic Conference. 1973–1974 Parallel Negotiations Alongside the Brussels Convention, an Intergovernmental Committee under Article 32 of the Rome Convention developed a model law on the protection of performers, producers of phonograms, and broadcasting organizations. 1996 WIPO Internet Treaties During negotiations of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), there was renewed momentum for a separate treaty on broadcasting, leading to the establishment of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). 1998 SCCR Agenda The protection of broadcasting organizations was formally added to the agenda of the SCCR, created by the 32nd WIPO Assemblies (March 25–27, 1998). SCCR/1: 1998 Existing legislation on broadcast  Memorandum about the “Existing International, Regional and National Legislation Concerning the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations” (SCCR/1/3). SCCR/2: 1999 Multiple submissions on the topic of the rights of broadcasting organizations  Documents on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations Submissions Received from Member States of WIPO and the European Community” (SCCR/2/5) and “from Non-Governmental Organizations” (SCCR/2/6; SCCR/2/6/REV) and “Addendum Concerning the Submission by the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan (NAB-Japan)” (SCCR/2/6 ADD.). Submissions by Mexico (SCCR/2/7) and by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (SCCR/2/8) on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations”. “Report on the Regional Roundtable for Central European and Baltic States on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations and on the Protection of Databases, Held in Vilnius, from April 20 to 22, 1999”,  submitted on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,  Hungary, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic (SCCR/2/10 REV.); “Submission by Cameroon” (SCCR/2/12, presenting the “state of Cameroonian legislation on the protection of broadcasting organizations” and “proposals for the strengthening of the international protection of broadcasting organizations”, pp.2-3).  SCCR/3: 1999 Multiple submissions on the topic of the rights of broadcasting organizations  “Report of the Regional Roundtable for African Countries on the Protection of Databases and on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations, Held in Cotonou, from June 22 to 24, 1999”, submitted on behalf of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi,  Mali, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, South Africa, Togo and United Republic of Tanzania (SCCR/3/2); Proposal on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organization” submitted by Argentina (SCCR/3/4); Proposal on the “Protection of Audiovisual Performances; Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations”, submitted by  United Republic of Tanzania (SCCR/3/5); “Statement Adopted at the Regional Roundtable for Countries of Asia and the Pacific on the Protection of Databases and on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations, Held in Manila, from June 29 to July 1, 1999”, submitted by Bangladesh, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam (SCCR/3/6). SCCR/4: 2000 Invitation to submit proposals “59. The Standing Committee decided to invite governments to submit […] proposals in treaty language […].” (SCCR/4/6 Report, p.12) SCCR/5: 2001 Different proposals and a comparative table Proposals on the “Protection of Broadcasting Organizations” submitted by Kyrgyzstan (SCCR/5/2), Sudan (SCCR/5/3), and Japan (SCCR/5/4). “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations: Comparative Table of Proposals Received by April 30, 2001”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/5/5). “The Standing Committee made the following decision: […]  B. Rights of Broadcasters: (i) the issue would be the main point on the Agenda of the next meeting of the Standing Committee; (ii) the Secretariat would invite the Governments and the European Community to submit additional proposals on this issue, preferably in treaty language[…]” (SCCR/5/6).  SCCR/6: 2001 Multiple submissions on the topic of the rights of broadcasting organizations Proposals on the “Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations”, submitted by the European Community and its Member States (SCCR/6/2)
- [Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR: A Timeline](https://knowledgegov.org/copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-in-the-sccr-a-timeline/): The timeline presented below details the progression of discussions within the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) regarding Limitations and Exceptions (L&Es) to copyright. This detailed chronology, spanning from 1996 to 2025, highlights the main proposals, studies, and key milestones concerning L&Es for various sectors, including visually impaired persons, libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It documents the formal inclusion of L&Es on the SCCR agenda, the development of numerous draft treaties and working documents, and the ongoing efforts to reach consensus and implement work programs. This document was prepared based on the documents available on WIPO’s SCCR Meetings webpage as compiled in Schirru, Luca; Vyas, Lokesh; Jawara, Haddija; Ruthes Gonçalves, Lukas; and Flynn, Sean, “Documentary History of the Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 148. See PDF version below. Date Main Developments Short Description 1996 WIPO Internet Treaties Agreed Statement to Article 10 of the WCT affirmed that Contracting Parties may “carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions” and “devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital network environment.” SCCR/1: 1998 Establishment of the SCCR by the General Assembly (GA) decision.  GA decision creating SCCR included a decision that the committee consider, amongst others, the topics of “Copyright, Related Rights, and Digital Technology” “to consider in particular the impact of digital technology and global information networks on copyright and related rights…”, the protection of audiovisual performances, the protection of databases and the protection of broadcasting organizations (SCCR 1/2). SCCR/8: 2002 L&Es as a matter for future review by the SCCR  The item “implementation of the WCT and WPPT, particularly regarding provisions on technological measures of protection and limitations and exceptions” in the document “Short description of possible subjects for future review by the Standing Committee”, provides that “Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that an uncontrolled use of technological measures together with anti-circumvention legislation and contractual practices will allow rights owners to extend their rights far beyond the bounds of the copyright regime, to the detriment of public interest. At the same time, concern has also been expressed that a narrow definition of exceptions and limitations to the protection of technological measures will unduly restrict reasonable access to and use of protected works” (SCCR/8/2, p.6). SCCR/9: 2003 First SCCR study on limitations and exceptions  First SCCR study of the topic of L&Es in the WIPO treaties: “WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment”, prepared by Mr. Sam Ricketson (SCCR/9/7). L&Es are also addressed in the “survey on implementation provisions of the WCT and WPPT”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/9/6, “The following is a brief summary of the legislative provisions contained in the survey. The summary covers the following issues: […] exceptions and limitations”, p.2) SCCR/12: 2004 Proposal to include L&Es and part of the SCCR agenda Chile’s proposal (SCCR 12/3) to “the inclusion for the Twelfth Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the subject of exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights for the purposes of education, libraries and disabled persons, in the current agenda item referring to “other issues for review”, which would become agenda item 4”. SCCR/13: 2005 Proposal on the Analysis of L&Es “Proposal by Chile on the Analysis of L&Es”, suggesting “three areas of work to be undertaken […] 1. Identification […] of national models and practices concerning exceptions and limitations. 2. Analysis of the exceptions and limitations needed to promote creation and innovation and the dissemination of developments stemming therefrom. 3. Establishment of agreement on exceptions and limitations for purposes of public interest that must be envisaged as a minimum in all national legislations for the benefit of the community;  especially to give access to the most vulnerable or socially prioritized sectors” (SCCR/13/5, p.1).  SCCR/14: 2006 Study on Automated Rights Management Systems and L&Es  A study by Mr. Nic Garnett on “Automated Rights Management Systems and Copyright Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/14/5).  2007 WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations, which included recommendations 14 and 17 on IP flexibilities;  Rec. 19 access to knowledge and technology to foster creativity and innovation; Rec. 22 L&Es in norm-setting. SCCR/15 SSCR/S2: 2007 Study on L&Es. Proposal by Mexico on L&Es for Broadcasting A study prepared by Judith Sullivan: “Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired” (SCCR/15/7). “Proposal by Mexico relating to article 10 ‘Limitations and Exceptions’”, prepared by the Secretariat (adding a paragraph (3) to article 10 on L&ES, SCCR/S2/4) SCCR/16: 2008 L&Es are formally included on the SCCR’s agenda  Proposal by Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and Uruguay (SCCR 16/2, p.2) proposing that “that the Committee implement a plan taking into consideration those three levels of activities outlined in Chile’s 2005 submission, with the objective of achieving a consensus on minimum mandatory exceptions and limitations particularly with regard to educational activities, people with disabilities, libraries and archives, as well as exceptions that foster technological innovation.”  SCCR/18: 2009 Presentation of proposal concerning a Treaty Proposed by WBU “Supplementary information on the WIPO studies on Limitations and Exceptions”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/18/2, at SCCR/17, “it was agreed that ‘in order to update and complement the studies, governments are invited to submit to the Secretariat any supplementary information regarding their national law before February 1, 2009’”, p.1). “Draft questionnaire on Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/18/3, “the WIPO Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft questionnaire regarding exceptions and limitations, with particular emphasis on the issues regarding education, libraries and disabled persons”, p.2). “Stakeholders’ Platform: Interim Report, prepared by the Secretariat” (SCCR/18/4, “WIPO Secretariat invited various major stakeholders representing copyright rightholders and VIP interests to take part in two meetings with the aim of exploring their concrete needs, concerns, and suggested approaches in order to achieve the goal of facilitating access to works in alternative formats for people with disabilities”, p.2). “Proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, relating to Limitations and Exceptions: Treaty proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU)”, prepared by the Secretariat (SCCR/18/5, presented “as
- [Comparison of Proposed Texts on Limitations and Exceptions in SCCR 47 ](https://knowledgegov.org/comparison-of-proposed-texts-on-limitations-and-exceptions-in-sccr-47/): Two documents have been introduced in connection to the Limitations and Exceptions agenda item for SCCR 47 Previously we already had a third document Below are two tables. The first identifies common elements among the African Group Proposal, the Chair’s Text, and the US proposal. The second table identifies common elements addressed by the African Group Proposal and the Chair’s text, but not included in the U.S. document. (It should be noted that the African Group’s Proposal also includes provisions not in the U.S. document or the Chair’s text.) As the attached tables demonstrate, there are significant areas of commonality among all three documents; and even more between the Chair’s text and the African Group Proposal. This suggests that further text-based work in the Committee towards an international legal instrument or instruments concerning exceptions and limitations can start with these documents.  PDF version below Table 1: Common Elements in United States Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, African Group Proposal, and Chair’s Proposed Text U.S. Objectives and Principles African Group Proposal Chair’s Text National Exceptions Encourage Member States to adopt well-focused exceptions and limitations in their national laws that are consistent with their international obligations, including the three-step test, and facilitate the public service role of libraries and archives, and maintain the balance between the rights of authors, artists and publishers, and the public interest, particularly in research, education, preservation, and access to information. (p. 2) Encourage Member States, when adopting or revising exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 2) Contracting Parties shall take all appropriate measures to respect, protect and fulfill the right to receive education and conduct research through appropriate exceptions and limitations in their national laws, consistent with their international obligations, maintaining the balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest. (p. 15) Member States shall provide an appropriate balance in their copyright and related rights system through limitations and exceptions for the public interest, including for education; research; freedom of expression uses such as for quotation, comment, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche; access to information and news reporting; preservation of cultural heritage; and to facilitate access for persons with disabilities. (p. 15) Contracting Parties shall update, carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws which have been considered acceptable under the Berne Convention, especially under article 10(1) and 10(2), and devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital environment to protect educational and research activities. (p. 15) Limitations and exceptions are an integral part of a balanced copyright system and should contribute to quality preservation, access, education and research, as well as to expand opportunities for all persons with disabilities to fully participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to benefit from scientific progress. (p. 6) Promote cooperation among institutions at national, regional and international levels. (p. 6) Research and Education Encourage Member States to enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of advancing research and knowledge by adopting exceptions and limitations for purposes of research and scholarship, and to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 3) It shall be permissible to use a work or other subject matter for educational or research purposes to the extent justified by the purpose and provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. (p. 19) Facilitate access to works for cultural, educational and research purposes, including through digital and online tools, and across borders. (p. 5) Enable cultural heritage institutions as well as educational and research institutions to provide copies and enable access to works to researchers, teachers, students and the public, under appropriate conditions. (p. 5) Preservation Encourage Member States to enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of preserving works by adopting exceptions and limitations for their preservation activities, and to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 3) Exceptions and limitations can and should enable libraries, archives, and museums to carry out their public service role of preserving works that comprise the cumulative knowledge, heritage, and culture of the world’s nations and peoples. (p. 3)[E]xceptions and limitations can and should enable libraries, archives, and museums to make copies of published and unpublished works, including highly ephemeral materials, for purposes of preservation and replacement, under certain appropriate circumstances. Those circumstances may include preservation and replacement in both analog and digital formats, or migration of content from obsolete storage formats to more stable formats on an ongoing basis, as reasonably necessary and as incidental to technology for a specific, limited preservation purpose. (p. 3) Contracting Parties shall provide for a limitation or exception to the right ofreproduction in order to allow cultural heritage institutions to make copies of any works or other subject matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the purposes of preservation of such works or other subject matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. (p. 29) For purposes of this Instrument, “cultural heritage institution” means a publicly accessible library or museum, an archive, or a film or audio heritage institution. (p. 31) Support the preservation of cultural heritage by libraries, archives and museums and other not-for-profit entities performing equivalent functions. (p. 4) Enable cultural heritage institutions to make copies of works, whether published or unpublished, for the purposes of preservation or replacement, including highly ephemeral materials. Such copies may be made in analog or digital formats, and during technological migration, provided they are necessary and incidental to a specific preservation purpose. (p. 4) Enable the preservation of and remote digital access to works, including cross-border, under secure conditions and promote the respect of adequate and effective
- [Centre Director Sean Flynn featured in 'GLOBE'](https://knowledgegov.org/centre-director-sean-flynn-featured-in-globe/): Sean Flynn, Director of the Centre on Knowledge Governance was featured in GLOBE #36, the review of the Geneva Graduate Institute.
- [Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions](https://knowledgegov.org/justifications-for-an-instrument-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions/): The mandate for working on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) at the World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) is rooted in the principle of maintaining a “balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information,” as articulated in the Preamble to the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The issue has been on the WIPO agenda since 2004, driven initially by proposals from Chile and several other countries in Latin America, and subsequently supported strongly by the African Group. The formal mandate for continued work on L&Es—specifically for libraries and archives, education and research institutions, and ‘other disabilities’—stems from a 2012 mandate from the General Assembly (WO/GA/41/14), which called for continuing discussions “to work towards an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)”. This process was accelerated when the African Group’s proposal for a Work Program on L&Es was adopted in 2023 (SCCR/43/8 REV), reaffirming the goal to move towards “the adoption of an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments on exceptions and limitations”, with subsequent drafts, such as SCCR/44/6 (November 2023), setting out detailed methodologies and processes intended to facilitate text-based negotiations on the subject. A draft instrument on limitations and exceptions was submitted by the African Group in October 2025 (SCCR/47/5) Below we summarise justifications for an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to copyright, and for expanded limitations and exceptions more generally. The justifications are taken from a review of academic literature. Researchers have posited that such an instrument is necessary to counteract the existing “minimum protection approach” of international treaties, which often prioritizes copyright holders over the public interest, access to knowledge, and competition and development concerns. To download or print this analysis, see the pdf version below. Benefits of International Harmonization Counterbalance to minimum protection approach; Promoting L&E reform. International copyright treaties have primarily followed a “minimum protection approach” with the result many (especially developing) countries reform laws to meet the evolving international landscape on copyright protection without updating limitations and exceptions. Following the 1996 Internet Treaties, for example, most countries have protections that cover digital works, but often lack the updates necessary to apply exceptions to digital uses. An instrument on L&E can help guide copyright reform to better recognize “the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, as reflected in the Berne Convention.” (WCT Preamble). A key example is the Marrakesh treaty, which has promoted extensive reform in exceptions for people with disabilities.  (Geiger and Jütte 2024; Hilty et al. 2021; Longan 2023; Majekolagbe 2025) Defending positive reform An instrument on L&Es would help defend reform efforts against claims that broadening L&Es would violate the international three step test.   (Asay 2021; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Eliminating anticompetitive effects Harmonizing L&Es across international borders can help combat anticompetitive behavior. For example, firms have used inadequate copyright exceptions to inhibit generic pharmaceutical labeling, reverse engineering to create competing products, etc.  (Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Enabling Cross-Border Use Harmonizing L&Es can help promote cross border uses of materials relying on exceptions, such as a research corpus, educational texts, contents of libraries and archives, etc.   (Flynn et al. 2020; Trimble 2025) Benefits of More Open L&Es for Social and Economic Development Promoting ongoing authorship L&Es promote free expression and authorship that builds upon existing works for subsequent creations such as commentaries, biographies, critical reviews, satire and parody, and other transformations. (Hilty et al. 2021; Samuelson 2018; Yoo 2021) Promoting research (empirical) More open exceptions for research uses are associated with higher levels of academic production and publication, including of projects using computational research that requires making digital copies of whole works (aka text and data mining).  (Flynn and Palmedo 2019; Handke, Guibault, and Vallbé 2021; Palmedo 2019)  Supporting functions of public institutions L&Es enable institutions like libraries and archives to fulfill essential public functions, such as digitization, preservation, making replacement copies, and providing document delivery for research. (Lindsay and Greenleaf 2018; Majekolagbe 2025; Samuelson 2018) Promoting the Dissemination of Knowledge L&Es such as education and research exceptions enable wider dissemination of information through digital platforms, such as for online learning, sharing research files, etc., that can contribute to development and economic and social advancement. (Lindsay and Greenleaf 2018; Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Promoting Innovation and Competition L&Es foster commerce, competition, and innovation by limiting exclusive rights that might otherwise impede the development of derivative products and services such as interoperable software, recording and storage devices (from the VCR to the cloud), and search and indexing of webpages.  (von Lohmann 2008; Samuelson 2018) Promoting Innovation (Empirical) More open user rights environments are associated with higher firm revenues in information industries, including software and computer systems design, and in complementary industries (e.g., ISPs, web hosts) by legally allowing consumers to copy and share content. This in turn promotes investments in new technological innovation (Flynn and Palmedo 2019; Palmedo 2021) Bibliography  The pdf version follows below:
- [Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate?](https://knowledgegov.org/is-the-draft-broadcast-treaty-consistent-with-the-general-assembly-mandate/): The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as document SCCR/47/3 in preparation for the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR/47) in December 2025. The draft does not differ in its main provisions from previous drafts, and this raises questions as to whether the document fulfils the mandate given to the SCCR by previous WIPO General Assemblies. Below we provides an analysis of the chair’s draft edits. We focus on the substantive changes in SCCR 47/3 as well as on the more controversial provisions, most of which are unchanged in this draft. The central question for the Broadcasting Treaty, in line with the 2007 General Assembly Mandate, is whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” to warrant a recommendation for a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The 2006 WIPO General Assembly mandated that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006). Key issues include whether the treaty should include any exclusive rights, rather than only general obligations to prevent piracy (similar to its current Art. 10 and to the substance of the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite); whether it should extend to rights of fixation and to “stored programmes”; whether to enable remuneration schemes for retransmissions; and how to broaden the limitations and exceptions to ensure that broadcast rights cannot prohibit uses permitted by copyright exceptions. To download or print this analysis, see the pdf below. Analysis and commentary by section on the latest draft of the Broadcast Treaty Updated Broadcast Treaty. New text in SCCR 47/3 in green.   Comments and Suggestions 2. Definitions SCCR 47 added:  2.06 In the Draft Text, there is no definition of the term “broadcast”.  The object of protection of the Treaty is the transmission of the programme-carrying signal, which constitutes the broadcast.  The broadcast represents the output of the activity in which a broadcasting organization is engaged, namely “broadcasting”, which is already defined in item (a). Furthermore, the term “broadcast” is not employed in the Draft Text. (g) “stored programmes” means programmes, which a broadcasting organization owns or regarding which it has acquired transmission rights with the intention of including them in its linear transmission, or which have originally been transmitted in a linear transmission by a broadcasting organization, For those that want to extend protections of the treaty to streaming on the Internet, a key challenge is how to achieve this goal while limiting any protection to traditional broadcasters rather than to streaming companies such as YouTube, Spotify, etc.  The definition of a broadcasting organization applies to any organization that “takes the initiative and has the editorial responsibility for the transmission, …; the programmes of a broadcasting organization form a linear programme-flow.” “Linear program flow” means scheduled programming. Internet streaming companies often show some scheduled programming and thus could be considered covered broadcasting organizations. The definition of “stored programmes” attempts to limit application to more traditional broadcasters by requiring that such programs be owned or licensed “with the intention of including them in its linear transmission.” Most of the content from streaming companies is not intended to be included in a linear transmission.  There is a policy question about why there is a need to cover stored transmissions at all. As the definition notes, such programs are normally either owned or licensed by the broadcaster, which then would have all copyright rights to combat piracy of the programs.  Commenters have offered changes to restrict the scope of the treaty to traditional broadcasting. Hugenholtz (2023) proposes that the definition of covered broadcasts exclude transmission of stored programs on demand by covering only “simultaneous reception by the general public of a programme-carrying single, where the programmes are provided in a prescheduled and linear order.” This is similar to the Rome Convention, which defines “rebroadcasting” as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another.”  Love advises adding that the signal be “from a single source point to multiple recipient points,” which would exclude on demand point-to-point transmissions.  Article 3: Scope of Application (2) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply as well to the protection of programme-carrying signals of the broadcasting organizations used in their transmissions when providing access to the public to the stored programmes of the broadcasting organizations.… (6) Contracting Parties may, in a notification deposited with the Director General of WIPO, declare that they exclude broadcasting organizations that exclusively transmit their linear programme-carrying signals by means of computer networks from the scope of application of this Treaty.  Such notifications may be deposited at the time of ratifications, acceptance or accession, or at any time thereafter; in the last case, it shall become effective six months after it has been reposited. The treatment of webcasters has long been a controversial issue in the negotiation, with some arguing that to be limited to traditional broadcasting the treaty should exclude application to webcasts that never make use of traditional airwave-based broadcasting. Proponents of such extension point to the transition of some providers to web-only transmission.   The draft makes clear that countries may exclude webcasters through a reservation.  To limit the text to traditional broadcasting, Art. 3(2) and (6) could be deleted.  Article 6 Right of Retransmission to the Public […]  (2) Any Contracting Party that, before the entry into force of this Treaty, did not provide a right under paragraph (1) to broadcasting organizations in respect of entities that merely retransmit programme-carrying signals for the reception by the public while providing reasonable remuneration to rightholders of the programmes carried by such signals, may continue such a domestic legislative arrangement. One problem with giving broadcasters a right to prevent retransmissions to the public of their signals is that many countries require such retransmissions, for example to carry public broadcasts over cable, internet, or other forms of service that
- [Four new proposals for SCCR 47](https://knowledgegov.org/four-new-proposals-for-sccr-47/): The World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) has published four new proposals on ways forward for some of its key work streams in the Standing Committee on Copyright and related Rights (SCCR), to take place from 1st to 5th December 2025. The proposals concern:(i) Exclusive rights for Broadcasting Organisations to protect their content(ii) Addressing Disparities in the Remuneration of Performers(iii) Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright to promote Education, Research and Access to Knowledge, and(iv) Ensuring Fair Copyright Royalties for Creators in the digital environment across the world. Here are the proposals in more details, with links to the source documents and to our analysis. Document Number Title Description Submitted by SCCR/47/3 A new draft of the WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty. This aims to reflect the views of member states expressed at the previous SCCR and also at the WIPO General Assembly in July 2025. It addresses the issue of enhanced and updated protection for broadcasting organizations concerning their programme-carrying signals, which has been on the WIPO agenda since 1998. But does it give broadcasters and streamers too many exclusive rights? See our analysis of the latest draft. SCCR Chair, Vice-Chair, and facilitators SCCR/47/4 A proposal for a Study on the Rights of Audiovisual Performers and their Payment Mechanisms for the Exploitation of their Performances. This requests WIPO to commission a study on the situation of audiovisual performers, examining the legal and economic frameworks governing performers’ rights worldwide, and how these influence payments received for the use of audiovisual performances, especially on digital and on-demand platforms. It aims to assess the impact of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances and identify best practices in ensuring performers receive fair payment. African Group SCCR/47/5 A draft Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries, Archives, Museums, Education and Research Institutions and People with Disabilities. The draft instrument recognizes the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, such as education, research, and access to information. It specifies permitted uses for education and research, cultural heritage, and for people with any disability that requires accessible formats.See our summary of justifications for L&Es. African Group SCCR/47/6 A proposal for a Legally Binding Instrument on the Governance of Copyright Royalty in Digital Environment: Promoting a Fair Chance in a Globalized World. This working paper proposes a legally binding international instrument to govern copyright royalties in the digital environment. It addresses the disparity between developed and developing countries regarding royalty collection and distribution mechanisms. It identifies four key challenges: the governance of royalty collection and distribution, mechanisms for royalty allocation, the centralization of a global copyright database, and disparities in copyright royalty valuation.Watch our contributions to the remuneration debate Indonesia
- [Case Studies of AI for Good and AI for Development](https://knowledgegov.org/case-studies-of-ai-for-good-and-ai-for-development/): Today the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance presents a series of Case Studies on AI for Good in Africa and the Global South. These grew out of our work on Text and Data Mining and our policy work in support of the Right to Research. Researchers in the Global South are responding to local and global challenges from health and education to language preservation and mitigation of climate change. In all these case computational methods and Artificial Intelligence (AI) play a leading role in finding and implementing solutions. A common thread that runs through all the cases is how intellectual property laws can support innovation and problem solving in the public interest, whilst protecting the interests of creators, communities and custodians of traditional knowledge. In addition several practitioners are looking at how to redress data imbalances, where large companies in the Global North have much greater access to works, for historical, legal and economic reasons. The cases include: Each of our case studies in written up in the form of a report, combined with a video exploration of the case study in the words of its leading practitioners.
- [The AI Remuneration Debate: Three Perspectives](https://knowledgegov.org/the-ai-remuneration-debate-three-perspectives/): The rapid development of generative AI has sparked intense debate over how, or even if, creators should be compensated when their copyrighted works are used to train commercial AI systems. This issue pits the drive for technological innovation against the fundamental rights of authors to benefit from their creations, leading to diverse proposals for legal and economic frameworks that seek to strike a fair balance. The following three presentations from the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium in June 2025 explore this complex landscape from distinct legal, philosophical, and geopolitical perspectives. The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property bring you three contributions to the AI Remuneration Debate. PART 1: Christophe Geiger approaches the problem from a human rights perspective, arguing for a balance between the right to develop AI for cultural and scientific progress and the author’s right to benefit from their work. He critiques current systems, noting the “all-or-nothing” nature of the US “fair use” doctrine and the EU’s “bizarre” opt-out rule for text and data mining, which he believes fails to secure fair compensation for authors due to unequal bargaining power with publishers and producers. His central proposal is to replace the EU’s opt-out system with a mandatory statutory remuneration scheme for the commercial use of works in AI training. Drawing on the success of similar “remunerated exceptions” in Europe, which generate significant revenue, Geiger proposes that income from this scheme be distributed directly to creators. Geiger contends this model would uphold authors’ human right to fair remuneration without stifling innovation. PART 2: Zachary Cooper reframes the debate by arguing that traditional copyright concepts are becoming obsolete in an age of infinite digital remixing and AI-driven content creation. He contends that focusing on authorship thresholds is futile because the line between human and machine creation is hopelessly blurred and impossible to audit reliably. Methods like watermarking are technically weak and easily circumvented. For Cooper, the real issue is the massive scale of AI generation, which makes copyright enforcement impractical and weakens creators’ negotiating power. He describes copyright as “a dam in an infinite river,” an outdated barrier against a constant flow of transformation. Instead of rigid ownership rules, Cooper suggests the future lies in collective licensing models and a greater emphasis on attribution and visibility, which would allow creators to capture value as their work spreads across massive platforms. PART 3: Vitor Ido situates the remuneration debate within the political and economic context of Brazil and Latin America, presenting it as a crucial tool for regulating corporate power and protecting national creative industries. He explains that for GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), the issue is not just about copyright but about challenging the dominance of large, foreign-based platforms that exploit local content with little to no payment to creators. The discussion also encompasses cultural sovereignty, such as protecting the dubbing industry from AI-generated voices, and safeguarding the traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities from misappropriation. Ido highlights Brazil’s draft AI Bill, which proposes an inverse of the EU’s system: a mandatory remuneration right that includes a reciprocity clause and ties the payment amount to the size of the AI company, directly targeting the market power of major corporations. This approach frames remuneration as a strategic element in a broader agenda of economic justice and cultural preservation in the Global South.
- [Italy updates its copyright law to address AI](https://knowledgegov.org/italy-updates-its-copyright-law-to-address-ai/): On September 18, 2025, the Italian Senate definitively approved the country’s first comprehensive framework law on artificial intelligence (AI). The new law also reflects Italy’s commitment to aligning its domestic legal system with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), ensuring coherence between national rules and the emerging European regulatory framework. Law no. 132 of September 23, 2025 (Provisions and delegations to the Government regarding artificial intelligence), has been published in the Official Gazette no. 223 of September 25, 2025, and it will enter into force on October 10, 2025. It consists of 6 chapters and 28 articles, not only establishing ethical and regulatory frameworks for AI across various sectors but also bringing several changes to the field of copyright law. In particular, Chapter IV, titled “Provisions for the Protection of Users and Copyright,” modifies Article 1 of Law No. 633/1941 (Italy’s Copyright Act) and introduces a new Article 70-septies, adapting the legal framework to the evolving challenges posed by AI-generated content and data mining. Emphasising human authorship The first major change introduced by Article 25,  a), of the new AI law is a revision to Article 1 of the Italian Copyright Act. The phrase “human” has been explicitly added, clarifying that only works of human creativity are eligible for protection under Italian copyright law. The amended text now reads: This law protects works of human creativity in the fields of literature, music, figurative arts, architecture, theatre, and cinematography, whatever the mode or form of expression, even when created with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, provided they are the result of the author’s intellectual effort. This addition is not merely semantic. It codifies a crucial principle: while AI can be a tool in the creative process, copyright protection remains reserved for human-generated intellectual effort. This positions Italian law in alignment with the broader international trend, seen in the EU, U.S., and UK, of rejecting full legal authorship rights for non-human agents such as AI systems. In practice, this means that works solely generated by AI without significant human input will likely fall outside the scope of copyright protection. Regulating text and data mining for AI The second key innovation is provided by Article 25,  b), of the new AI law, which introduces Article 70-septies in the Italian Copyright Act, providing clarity on the legality of text and data mining (TDM) activities used in the training of AI models. The provision states: 1. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, reproductions and extractions from works or other materials available online or in databases to which one has lawful access, for the purposes of text and data mining by AI systems, including generative AI, are permitted in accordance with Articles 70-ter and 70-quater. This provision essentially reaffirms that text and data mining (TDM) is permitted under certain conditions, namely where access to the source materials is lawful and the activity complies with the existing TDM exceptions under EU copyright law, as already implemented in Articles 70-ter and 70-quater of the Italian Copyright Act. It mirrors the spirit of the EU Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which created specific exceptions for TDM, notably distinguishing between scientific and general uses. By formally reiterating the TDM exceptions for the use of AI, Italy seeks to balance the promotion of AI development with the protection of content creators’ rights. However, challenges remain regarding the definition of ‘lawful access’ and the ability of rightsholders to effectively exercise their opt-out rights in relation to TDM activities. Conclusion The recent amendments to Italy’s Copyright Act mark an important step toward harmonising traditional legal frameworks with the realities of emerging technologies, such as AI. By emphasising human authorship and providing clearer legal pathways for text and data mining, the new provisions aim to foster both innovation and respect for intellectual property. The law shall enter into force on the fifteenth day following its publication in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic. This article was reposted from the original at https://communia-association.org/2025/10/01/italy-updates-its-copyright-law-to-address-ai/
- [A Paradigm Shift with an Uncertain Future: Prof Wend Wendland on the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge](https://knowledgegov.org/a-paradigm-shift-with-an-uncertain-future-prof-wend-wendland-on-the-wipo-treaty-on-genetic-resources-and-associated-traditional-knowledge/): On 25 September 2025, Professor Wend Wendland, delivered the 14th Peter Jaszi Distinguished Lecture at American University in Washington D.C.. The event was hosted by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. For over 25 years at WIPO, Prof. Wendland played a critical role in the area of traditional knowledge, including as the Director of the Traditional Knowledge Division and Secretary of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC). His lecture, titled “Beyond Adoption: Why it Matters and What’s Next for the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge?”, celebrated the recent adoption of this landmark agreement. In his lecture, Professor Wendland described the Treaty as a ‘historic’ event and a ‘paradigm shift’ in intellectual property. He highlighted that it is the first international IP treaty championed by developing countries and Indigenous Peoples, making them policy-makers rather than policy-takers. The Treaty’s core feature is a new mandatory requirement for patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. This aims to combat biopiracy and reconcile innovation with biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit-sharing. This transparency is expected to improve the patent system’s quality and efficacy, while also contributing to environmental, economic, and social justice by acknowledging the role of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of biodiversity. Despite his enthusiasm, Wendland acknowledged the Treaty’s limitations, noting that it does not create new rights in traditional knowledge, and does not directly ensure compensation for provider countries and Indigenous Peoples. It represents what could be agreed upon by consensus after a 25-year struggle, demonstrating strategic pragmatism. The adoption itself is significant, marking a step forward in the evolution of the IP system and providing a platform for a more inclusive conversation about the future of IP. However, Wendland cautioned that the treaty’s adoption alone is not enough; its true significance will depend on its practical implementation and effectiveness. Finally, Wendland discussed the path forward, stressing the immediate need for the Treaty to come into force, which requires ratification by 15 countries. He expressed concern that this process might be slower than hoped, with some major countries like the USA, Japan, and the Republic of Korea opposing the treaty, and others like India and China not yet signing it. Potential hurdles for ratification include political reluctance to recognise Indigenous Peoples, conflicts with existing national laws, and pressure from trading partners. Wendland concluded by urging policymakers, patent offices, and the international community to work towards bringing the Treaty to life, ensuring its paradigm-shifting potential is realised in practice. Watch the full presentation here.
- [25 Sept 2025: Beyond Adoption: Why it Matters and What is Next for Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge](https://knowledgegov.org/announcement-of-launch-event-in-dc/): On 25 September, former Director of the Traditional Knowledge Division at the World Intellectual Property Organization Wend Wendland will deliver a lecture on the landmark World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, which was adopted in May 2024. He will address the treaty’s significance in policy making and knowledge governance. The talk is part of the Peter A. Jaszi Distinguished Lecture on Intellectual Property series, hosted by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University (PIJIP). The reception after the event will feature an announcement of the newly launched Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance (see below, in PDF).
- [INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL, DERECHOS DE AUTOR Y EL FUTURO DE LA CREATIVIDAD: APUNTES DE LA FERIA INTERNACIONAL DEL LIBRO DE PANAMÁ](https://knowledgegov.org/inteligencia-artificial-derechos-de-autor-y-el-futuro-de-la-creatividad-apuntes-de-la-feria-internacional-del-libro-de-panamapor-andres-izquierdo/): Por Andrés Izquierdo Durante la segunda semana de agosto, fui invitado a hablar en la Feria Internacional del Libro de Panamá, un evento organizado por la la Oficina del Derecho de Autor de Panamá, el Ministerio de Cultura y la Asociación Panameña de Editores con apoyo de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Mi presentación se centró en la cada vez más compleja intersección entre las leyes de derechos de autor y la inteligencia artificial (IA), un tema ahora en el centro del debate legal, cultural y económico mundial. Esta publicación resume los argumentos principales de esa presentación, basándose en litigios recientes, investigaciones académicas y desarrollos de políticas, incluyendo el informe de mayo de 2025 de la Oficina de Derechos de Autor de EE. UU. sobre IA generativa. ¿Cómo deberían responder las leyes de derechos de autor al uso generalizado de obras protegidas en el entrenamiento de sistemas de IA generativa? El análisis sugiere que hay debates emergentes en varias áreas clave: los límites del uso justo y las excepciones, la necesidad de derechos de remuneración aplicables, y el papel de la concesión de licencias y la supervisión regulatoria. El artículo se desarrolla en cinco partes: comienza con una visión general del contexto legal y tecnológico en torno al entrenamiento de IA; luego revisa propuestas académicas para recalibrar los marcos de derechos de autor; examina decisiones judiciales recientes que ponen a prueba los límites de la doctrina actual; resume el informe de 2025 de la Oficina de Derechos de Autor de EE. UU. como respuesta institucional; y concluye con cuatro consideraciones de política para la regulación futura. UN ESCENARIO LEGAL Y TECNOLÓGICO EN TRANSFORMACIÓNLa integración de la IA generativa en los ecosistemas creativos e informativos ha expuesto tensiones fundamentales en la ley de derechos de autor. Los sistemas actuales ingieren rutinariamente grandes volúmenes de obras protegidas —como libros, música, imágenes y periodismo— para entrenar modelos de IA. Esta práctica ha dado lugar a preguntas legales no resueltas: ¿Puede la ley de derechos de autor regular de manera significativa el uso de datos de entrenamiento? ¿Se extienden las doctrinas y disposiciones legales existentes—como el uso justo, o excepciones y limitaciones—a estas prácticas? ¿Qué remedios, si los hay, están disponibles para los titulares de derechos cuyas obras se utilizan sin consentimiento? Estas preguntas siguen abiertas en todas las jurisdicciones. Si bien algunos tribunales y agencias reguladoras han comenzado a responder, una parte sustancial del debate está siendo moldeada ahora por la investigación académica  jurídica y por los litigios, cada uno proponiendo marcos para conciliar el desarrollo de la IA con los compromisos normativos del derecho de autor. Las siguientes secciones examinan este panorama evolutivo, comenzando con propuestas académicas recientes. PERSPECTIVAS ACADÉMICAS: HACIA UN EQUILIBRIO RENOVADOAl revisar la literatura académica, han emergido varios temas claros. Primero, algunos autores concuerdan en que deben fortalecerse los derechos de remuneración para los autores. Geiger, Scalzini y Bossi sostienen que, para garantizar verdaderamente una compensación justa para los creadores en la era digital, especialmente a la luz de la IA generativa, la ley de derechos de autor de la Unión Europea debe ir más allá de las débiles protecciones contractuales y, en su lugar, implementar derechos de remuneración robustos e inalienables que garanticen ingresos directos y equitativos a autores e intérpretes como cuestión de derechos fundamentales. Segundo, varios académicos subrayan que la opacidad técnica de la IA generativa exige nuevos enfoques de remuneración para los autores. Cooper argumenta que, a medida que los sistemas de IA evolucionen, será casi imposible determinar si una obra fue generada por IA o si una obra protegida específica se utilizó en el entrenamiento. Advierte que esta pérdida de trazabilidad hace que los modelos de compensación basados en atribución sean inviables. En cambio, aboga por marcos alternativos para garantizar que los creadores reciban una compensación justa en una era de autoría algorítmica. Tercero, académicos como Pasquale y Sun sostienen que los responsables de formular políticas deberían adoptar un sistema dual de consentimiento y compensación: otorgar a los creadores el derecho a excluirse del entrenamiento de IA y establecer un gravamen sobre los proveedores de IA para asegurar el pago justo a aquellos cuyas obras se utilizan sin licencia. Gervais, por su parte, defiende que los creadores deberían recibir un nuevo derecho de remuneración, asignable, por el uso comercial de sistemas de IA generativa entrenados con sus obras protegidas por derechos de autor; este derecho complementaría, pero no reemplazaría, los derechos existentes relacionados con reproducción y adaptación. También hay un consenso creciente sobre la necesidad de modernizar las limitaciones y excepciones, en particular para educación e investigación. Flynn et al. muestran que una mayoría de los países del mundo no tienen excepciones que permitan la investigación y enseñanza modernas, como el uso académico de plataformas de enseñanza en línea. Y en Science, varios autores proponen armonizar las excepciones de derechos de autor internacionales y domésticas para autorizar explícitamente la minería de texto y datos (TDM) para investigación, permitiendo el acceso lícito y transfronterizo a materiales protegidos sin requerir licencias previas. En la OMPI, el Comité Permanente sobre Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos (SCCR) ha tomado medidas en este ámbito aprobando un programa de trabajo sobre limitaciones y excepciones, actualmente en discusión para el próximo SCCR 47. Y en el Comité de Desarrollo y Propiedad Intelectual (CDIP), está aprobado un Proyecto Piloto sobre TDM para Apoyar la Investigación e Innovación en Universidades y Otras Instituciones Orientadas a la Investigación en África – Propuesta del Grupo Africano (CDIP/30/9 REV). Mi propio trabajo, al igual que el de Díaz & Martínez, ha enfatizado la urgencia de actualizar las excepciones educativas latinoamericanas para dar cuenta de usos digitales y transfronterizos. Eleonora Rosati sostiene que el entrenamiento con IA no licenciada queda fuera de las excepciones de derechos de autor existentes en la UE y el Reino Unido, incluidas el Artículo 3 (TDM para investigación científica) de la Directiva DSM, el Artículo 4 (TDM general con exclusiones) y el Artículo 5(3)(a) de la Directiva InfoSoc (uso para enseñanza o investigación
- [Tracking AI for Good in the Global South: Our TDM Case Studies are Online](https://knowledgegov.org/is-there-ai-for-good-in-the-global-south-our-tdm-case-studies-are-online/): The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance has been researching cases of Computational Research (or Text and Data Mining) aimed at public interest outcomes in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. From a health chatbot in South Africa to a culturally-sensitive LLM for Chile and Latin America, we document the work of AI developers, especially in the Global South. This is part of our work to analyse whether and how copyright and AI policies need to contain provisions which consider the social impact of AI. See our Case Studies on Text and Data Mining.
- [How will Gen-AI lawsuits Impact Copyright?  We Help You Keep Track.](https://knowledgegov.org/how-will-the-gen-ai-lawsuits-impact-copyright-we-help-you-keep-track/): Are you trying to keep track of all the litigation by rights holders and creators against Generative AI companies? Litigation is under way covering a range of works, from musical compositions to books and journalism. In some cases the arguments presented and judgements handed down in these cases may begin to define the likely policy direction for copyright in the age of AI. In the first of a series of articles and papers on this topic, Geneva Centre counsel Andrés Izquierdo wrote an Infojustice blog entitled AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book Fair. Watch this space for more.
- [It is Official: The Centre will Launch between September and November 2025](https://knowledgegov.org/its-official-the-centre-will-launch-between-september-and-november-2025/): It is official – the Centre on Knowledge Governance will be launching in the coming months. In September and October 2025 we expect to publish some of our new research, including our case studies of Computational Research and AI for Good in the Global South. In November and December we will be present at the upcoming WIPO meetings, including the CDIP and SCCR47. Watch this space for announcements and for special events in Geneva and online. See our calendar for all upcoming events: https://knowledgegov.org/events/
- [AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book Fair](https://knowledgegov.org/ai-copyright-and-the-future-of-creativity-notes-from-the-panama-international-book-fair/): AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book FairDuring the second week of August, I was invited to speak at the Panama International Book Fair, an event hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Panama Copyright Office, the Ministry of Culture, and the Panama Publishers Association. My presentation focused on the increasingly complex intersection between copyright law and artificial intelligence (AI)—a topic now at the center of global legal, cultural, and economic debate. This post summarizes the core arguments of that presentation, drawing on recent litigation, academic research, and policy developments, including the U.S. Copyright Office’s May 2025 report on generative AI. How should copyright law respond to the widespread use of protected works in the training of generative AI systems? The analysis suggests there are emerging discussions around several key areas: the limits of fair use and exceptions, the need for enforceable remuneration rights, and the role of licensing and regulatory oversight. The article proceeds in five parts: it begins with an overview of the legal and technological context surrounding AI training; it then reviews academic proposals for recalibrating copyright frameworks; it examines recent court decisions that test the boundaries of current doctrine; it summarizes the U.S. Copyright Office’s 2025 report as an institutional response; and it concludes by outlining four policy considerations for future regulation. A Shifting Legal and Technological LandscapeThe integration of generative AI into creative and informational ecosystems has exposed foundational tensions in copyright law. Current systems routinely ingest large volumes of copyrighted works—such as books, music, images, and journalism—to train AI models. This practice has given rise to unresolved legal questions: Can copyright law meaningfully regulate the use of training data? Do existing doctrines and legal provisions—fair use, or exceptions and limitations—extend to these practices? What remedies, if any, are available to rightsholders whose works are used without consent? These questions remain open across jurisdictions. While some courts and regulatory agencies have begun to respond, a substantial part of the debate is now being shaped by legal scholarship and litigation, each proposing frameworks to reconcile AI development with copyright’s normative commitments. The following sections examine this evolving landscape, beginning with recent academic proposals. Academic Perspectives: Towards a New Equilibrium In reviewing the literature, several clear themes have emerged. First, some authors agree that remuneration rights for authors must be strengthened. Geiger, Scalzini, and Bossi argue that to truly ensure fair compensation for creators in the digital age, especially in light of generative AI, EU copyright law must move beyond weak contractual protections and instead implement strong, unwaivable remuneration rights that guarantee direct and equitable revenue flows to authors and performers as a matter of fundamental rights. Second, some scholars highlight that the technical opacity of generative AI demands new approaches to author remuneration. Cooper argues that as AI systems evolve, it will become nearly impossible to determine whether a work was AI-generated or whether a particular copyrighted work was used in training. He warns that this loss of traceability renders attribution-based compensation models unworkable. Instead, he calls for alternative frameworksto ensure creators are fairly compensated in an age of algorithmic authorship. Third, scholars like Pasquale and Sun argue that policymakers should adopt a dual system of consent and compensation—giving creators the right to opt out of AI training and establishing a levy on AI providers to ensure fair payment to those whose works are used without a license. Gervais, meanwhile, argues that creators should be granted a new, assignable right of remuneration for the commercial use of generative AI systems trained on their copyrighted works—complementing, but not replacing, existing rights related to reproduction and adaptation. There is also a growing consensus on the need to modernize limitations and exceptions, particularly for education and research. Flynn et al. show that a majority of the countries in the world do not have exceptions that enable modern research and teaching, such as academic uses of online teaching platforms. And in Science, several authors propose harmonizing international and domestic copyright exceptions to explicitly authorize text and data mining (TDM) for research, enabling lawful, cross-border access to copyrighted materials without requiring prior licensing.  At WIPO, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has been taking steps in this area by approving a work program on L&E´s, under current discussions for the upcoming SCCR 47. And in the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), there is a Pilot Project approved on TDM to Support Research and Innovation in Universities and Other Research-Oriented Institutions in Africa – Proposal by the African Group (CDIP/30/9 REV). My own work, as well as that of Díaz & Martínez, has emphasized the urgency of updating Latin American educational exceptions to account for digital and cross-border uses.  Eleonora Rosati argues that unlicensed AI training falls outside existing EU and UK copyright exceptions, including Article 3 of the DSM Directive (TDM for scientific research), Article 4 (general TDM with opt-outs), and Article 5(3)(a) of the InfoSoc Directive (use for teaching or scientific research). She finds that exceptions for research, education, or fair use-style defenses do not apply to the full scope of AI training activities. As a result, she concludes that a licensing framework is legally necessary and ultimately unavoidable, even when training is carried out for non-commercial or educational purposes. Finally, policy experts like James Love warn that “one-size-fits-all” regulation risks sidelining the medical and research breakthroughs promised by artificial intelligence. The danger lies in treating all training data as equivalent—conflating pop songs with protein sequences, or movie scripts with clinical trial data. Legislation that imposes blanket consent or licensing obligations, without distinguishing between commercial entertainment and publicly funded scientific knowledge, risks chilling socially valuable uses of AI. Intellectual property law for AI must be smartly differentiated, not simplistically uniform. Litigation as a Site of Doctrinal Testing U.S. courts have become a key venue for testing the boundaries of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence. In the past two years, a growing number of cases
- [Ethical Sourcing of African Language Data: Lanafrica and the NOODL licence](https://knowledgegov.org/ethical-sourcing-african-language-data-lanafrica-noodl/): Over 2,000 African languages are spoken by approximately 1.4 billion people on the continent, showing how linguistic diversity underpins African democracy, development, and cultural life. As artificial intelligence becomes central to progress in areas like healthcare, agriculture and education, new methods for collecting and sharing African language data are urgently needed—methods that support innovation while protecting community interests. In this video we look at two pioneering initiatives in the field of ethical data sourcing in Africa. The Mining Mindset: From Extraction to Partnership Historically, many dataset projects have adopted an extractive approach: gathering language data from communities with little return or recognition for the contributors. Professor Gloria Emezue, Research Lead at Lanafrica, diagnoses this approach: “We saw the whole idea of exploitation of data as something of a mindset. When you’re out to mine something, you’re actually exploiting that thing. We now say, okay, let’s have a new approach, which we call data farming.” Rather than “mining” communities for linguistic resources, Lanafrica works to “farm” data collaboratively—turning village squares into living laboratories, involving contributors directly, and ensuring that partnerships support further community-driven research. A practical example is NaijaVoices: over 1,800 hours of curated audio data in Nigerian languages, sourced through relationships built on respect and transparency. For Lanafrica, research access is free, but commercial use involves agreements that channel support back to the language communities, creating a virtuous cycle of benefit and ongoing dataset growth. Who Owns the Data—and Who Reaps the Rewards? Behind every local dataset is a web of legal and ethical questions about ownership and benefit sharing. Dr Melissa Omino, Director at the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), Strathmore University, notes the paradox that emerges when communities contribute their voices but lose control over how their words are used: “Where do you get African languages from? Your first source would be the communities that speak the African languages, right? So you go to the community, record them, the minute you make the recording, then you have created a copyrighted work, and whoever who has made the recording owns the copyright..” According to Professor Chijoke Okorie of the Data Science Law Lab at the University of Pretoria, What ends up happening is that the communities that created these datasets end up paying for products that are built on the datasets that they created. Addressing these inequities requires new licensing models that prioritize context, impact, and fair division of benefits. NOODL Licence: Reimagining Access and Justice The Nwolite Obodo Open Data Licence (NOODL) breaks new ground in recognising African realities. It creates a two-tier licensing system: broad, cost-free access for African users, and negotiations or royalties for wealthy, commercial or international users. Communities remain central, not secondary. Professor Chijoke Okorie describes the ethos of NOODL: “Nwolite Obodo is Igbo… for community raising, community development. We’ve grown from a research group at the University of Pretoria to a research network of researchers from both Anglophone and Francophone Africa.” NOODL’s design puts community benefit at the forefront. As Dr Melissa Omino explains: “If you are from a developing country, let’s say you’re from Brazil, and you want to use the data that is licenced under this regime, then you can use it under Creative Commons licence. If you are a multi-million dollar tech company that wants to use the licence, then you need to negotiate with the AI developers who collected the data. And the licence also ensures that the community gets a benefit.” Towards More Equitable Language Data If African language data is simply extracted and exported, local voices risk exclusion—both from representation and from the benefits of digital innovation. By refocusing efforts on partnership and fair licensing, projects like Lanafrica and NOODL demonstrate that ethical, sustainable language technology is achievable. Their experiences may help guide how other communities and researchers engage with digital resources and cultural heritage—ensuring language data works for those who speak it.
- [Dams In the Infinite River: Limits to Copyright's Power Over the Next-Generation of Generative AI Media](https://knowledgegov.org/genai-and-authorship-dams-in-the-infinite-river/): Can copyright effectively govern creative works in an age of infinite digital remixing? Is it possible—or even reasonable—to audit how creators use AI in their art? Should copyright law adapt to prioritize attribution and visibility over strict ownership? What new models are needed for artists to capture value in a world of mass, AI-driven content? Questions raised by Zachary Cooper in his presentation. Watch the video or read the transcript below. Zachary Cooper, a researcher at the Amsterdam Law and Technology Institute (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), delivered a provocative address at the recent User Rights Conference in Geneva in June 2025 entitled “Dams for the Infinite River.” Cooper’s talk challenged conventional debates in copyright law by spotlighting the seismic impact of AI on media creation. Instead of focusing on traditional authorship thresholds, Cooper urged legal scholars and policy-makers to grapple with deeper issues emerging as generative AI lets anyone remix, alter, and mass-produce creative content with unprecedented ease. His research was supported by the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin and the Copyright Society. Throughout his presentation, Cooper highlighted the profound difficulties facing rights holders in auditing creative works crafted with AI, questioning both the feasibility and ethics of tools like watermarking. He noted that legal frameworks around the world are ill-equipped to handle the blurred boundaries between human and machine authorship, which can vary dramatically from one country—or even one creative tool—to the next. As technology enables infinitely variable, interactive content, Cooper argued that copyright law is rapidly losing its power to define, control, and protect creative output. Cooper concluded by suggesting that copyright is akin to “a dam in an infinite river”—an increasingly obsolete barrier in a world defined by endless remix and transformation. He warned that unless legal and industry leaders embrace collective licensing models and prioritize attribution and visibility, platforms with massive network effects will continue to undercut the negotiating power of original creators. The talk raised urgent questions about the future of artistic value and legal protection in the era of generative AI. Cleaned-Up Full Transcript Below is the transcript, with minor clean-up for clarity, grammar, and removal of interruptions (for example, fixing sentence structure and omitting interjections like “Maybe some of you guys already know this song. Is it coming through? Oh, hold on.” unless directly relevant). I’ll also clarify some sentences and remove redundancy and filler where possible. Stage directions (music playing, technical interruptions) will be omitted unless needed for meaning. I’m Zach Cooper from the Amsterdam Law and Technology Institute at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This research has also been sponsored and supported by the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin and the Copyright Society. I’ve titled the presentation “Dams for the Infinite River.” What do I mean by that? I’ve been trying to reframe the conversation around what I believe are the actual challenges as AI dramatically changes the ways we consume and produce media in the 21st century. Instead of focusing on longstanding debates about authorship thresholds, I argue that a collection of unspoken challenges will more fundamentally shape the issues facing rights holders over the coming decade—some already present, others just emerging. As a cultural reference, I was encouraged to revisit Taylor Swift’s music, and her work offers a useful metaphor for my argument. With new technologies, it’s possible to change a song’s structure, lyrics, or style almost instantly. For instance, I was able to alter one of her songs for this presentation much faster than it took us to listen to it here. That example raises a fundamental question: Now that we can so easily transform any media, what role does intellectual property play? How can it govern such a fluid world? It’s become widely accepted that pressing a button to generate content isn’t the same as creating something as an artist. However, definitions differ worldwide. In China, a lengthy and detailed AI prompt might count as authorship. In the US, AI is considered a tool, but the boundaries between “human” and “AI-generated” work remain undefined. Europe has largely avoided the issue, though courts have denied copyright to works made by AI without human involvement. The problem with all these approaches is that they split copyright protection based on how much AI was used. In reality, professional creative software has countless generative and non-generative tools, and creators often use many in combination. At present, pressing one set of buttons might grant copyright; pressing another might not—yet how can we audit those choices? When people talk about “AI,” they imagine a single function, but AI can do anything: from mastering music to generating drumlines, altering instrument sounds, or even creating new genres. The spectrum of creative tools and applications is vast. And generative art isn’t simply “slop” made thoughtlessly; sometimes, the act of generation itself creates entirely new forms of art. Artists like Databots stream infinitely generated music, turning the process and the model itself into the artwork. Labeling something as “AI-generated” doesn’t reveal anything meaningful about the creator’s relationship to the work. Judges, copyright offices, and others cannot just ask whether someone used generative AI—they need to know exactly how it was used, down to the specifics of each prompt or button pressed. Currently, there’s no way to reliably track or audit these creative decisions. The available methods are either to trust creators to self-report their practices, which is unreliable, especially for older works, or to track every creative act—a solution that invades privacy and may stifle creativity. Watermarking is frequently proposed but is technically weak; watermarks can be stripped from images or audio files, and existing protocols like C2PA are dependent on metadata, which is easy to remove. Even with robust watermarking, creators could simply recreate works without relying on AI, bypassing any AI-detection entirely. Thus, the system is inconsistent and essentially unworkable. Current enforcement tries to assign rights based on the use of AI features that remain unauditable and poorly defined, never truly capturing the creator’s intent or involvement. Alternatively, we accept new creative models and ask: What are the real
- [The Global Evolution of AI Fact-Checking: Copyright and Research Gaps](https://knowledgegov.org/ai-fact-checking/): Abstract The propagation and evolution of AI-powered fact-checking tools worldwide has foregrounded the issue of access to quality training data. While many of the most widely adopted systems have originated in the Global North, there are also notable and growing efforts in the Global South to develop and adapt fact-checking technologies. As AI tools develop in new regions, they raise important questions about the differential impact of factors such as copyright on training data access, pointing to persistent obstacles and areas needing further research. 1. Introduction The spread of AI-powered fact-checking tools marks a significant shift in how misinformation is detected and addressed, transforming practices in journalism and civil society across continents. Systems that began in research institutions and newsrooms in the Global North are now being adapted and implemented in local contexts—including Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. Although some widely used technologies originated in the North, emerging initiatives in the Global South are beginning to shape the landscape through locally designed and customized tools. This evolution brings renewed attention to longstanding questions: Which factors shape obstacles or biases within training data?  Do factors like resources constraints or copyright laws shape who can access, adapt, and benefit from these AI fact checking systems? As adoption extends to newer regions, the risk of unequal impact increases —not only due to linguistic and technical barriers, but also because of differences in copyright policies and regulatory environments. When it comes to copyright, there is a need for further research, especially as global partnerships and technology transfer intensify. 2. The Evolution and Impact of North-South AI Fact-Checking Partnerships Recent years have seen the emergence of global collaborations for AI-powered fact-checking bridging expertise between the Global North and South. One example began with the development and piloting of AI technologies by Full Fact—a UK-based fact-checking organization—and was then extended through partnerships with organisations such as Africa Check (Africa), Chequeado (Latin America), and the Arab Fact-Checking Network (Middle East). While most early implementation focused on English-language media monitoring and elections in developed countries, philanthropic support and local adaptations have greatly expanded reach and relevance. Scale and Spread: 3. Concrete Examples of AI Fact-Checking through Partnerships Nigeria (Africa Check) During Nigeria’s 2023 elections, Africa Check deployed AI-powered claim detection and transcription systems (developed in partnership with Full Fact) to monitor over 40,000 daily “fact-checkable claims” from more than 80 media sources. These claims were algorithmically screened for verification potential; a subset were selected for intensive human review and public debunking. This enabled fact-checkers to respond at unprecedented scale to viral misinformation and political rumors, with documented improvements in election monitoring and rapid rebuttal. Argentina (Chequeado) In Latin America, Chequeado integrated the partnership’s core AI technologies—adapting them into their “Chequeabot” system for Spanish-language fact-checking. Used during major televised debates and news events, Chequeabot supplied journalists with real-time claim detection and prioritization, flagging misleading or controversial statements for timely investigation and reporting. Middle East (Arab Fact-Checking Network) The Arab Fact-Checking Network and affiliated organizations have recently adopted the same AI tools for live tracking and countering misinformation in Arabic-language media. During national elections and crises, these technologies enabled rapid, high-volume monitoring of broadcast and online claims, supporting collaborative efforts to uphold media integrity and provide accurate information under pressure. 4. The Impact of Copyright Restrictions on Training Data Quality A critical challenge for AI-powered fact-checking is that legal and financial constraints, including copyright restrictions, can limit access to high-quality, rigorously verified journalism. Leading news sources may be behind paywalls or subject to licensing requirements, making them difficult or costly to include in AI training sets. By contrast, low-quality sensationalised content can be more easily available, promoted by online algorithms. This discrepancy between access to low quality vs. verified information sources partly explains the increased need for AI fact checking. But it also presents the danger that automated fact checking tools may be skewed though their training data toward unreliable sources. Without intentional curation and targeted copyright exceptions and/or ethical licensing, automated systems risk amplifying lower-quality information or missing key local knowledge. Projects must prioritize source verification, data provenance transparency, and partnerships with credible media to preserve integrity—while more research is needed on how copyright affects access and outcomes in different regions. 5. Obstacles Facing AI Fact-Checking Tools in the Global South Where large-scale AI fact-checking tools are initially optimized for English and major European languages, this can lead to gaps in coverage and effectiveness for smaller languages and markets. Both imported and locally developed systems must contend with: 6. The Differential Impact of Copyright on AI Fact-Checking Tools Access to high-quality training data is essential for developing effective AI fact-checking tools. However, obtaining this data typically requires either formal licenses from content owners or reliance on specific copyright exceptions, allowing for legally sanctioned use. Copyright exceptions vary widely across jurisdictions. When it comes to Generative AI more broadly, recent court decisions illustrate both possibilities and limits in use of copyright exceptions to access training data. Notably, the US case of Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence found that commercial use of copyrighted legal content for AI training may not qualify as fair use, whereas Kadrey v. Meta Platforms acknowledged “highly transformative” uses may be protected. In Europe, the Hamburg Regional Court and Hungarian Municipal Court have upheld TDM exceptions for AI research under EU law in non-commercial contexts, setting important precedents for lawful data mining and access. 7. Research Agenda: Questions for Future Study This brief analysis surfaces several areas urgently in need of deeper research and empirical investigation as AI-powered fact-checking spreads globally: 8. Conclusion The propagation of AI-powered fact-checking across borders—exemplified by the evolution and international spread of major partnership models—demonstrates both promise and persistent complexity. Language coverage, training data disparities, and legal constraints play significant roles in shaping who benefits from new technologies and whose voices are heard. The differential impact of copyright law is a newly urgent research challenge, likely affecting access, effectiveness, and equity in media verification globally. Ongoing empirical study and
- [An Open Letter to the ICANN Community: Not the Community Priority Evaluation We Intended](https://knowledgegov.org/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-community-not-the-community-priority-evaluation-we-intended/): This post was originally published on CircleID by Kathy Kleiman To the ICANN Community, Today, I share a warning about serious changes to the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. They are not driven by public comment, but by a few voices within the SubPro Implementation Review Team—and they are very likely to lead to disastrous misappropriation of well-known community names, including those of Tribes, Indigenous Peoples and NGOs around the world. The reason why is that we (the ICANN Community) envisioned.CHEROKEE for the Cherokee Nation and other tribes, peoples and NGOs, not a group that loves their Grand Cherokee and Jeep Cherokee cars and jeeps. But the policy written by the SubPro PDP Working Group (2016-2020) and accepted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board recently was deeply changed—and replaced with a scoring system that eliminates the ability of well-known communities to stop unrelated groups, or a fraction of their community, or a group completely opposed to them from using the same name as a new gTLD, provided the applicant has some semblance of internal organization and activity. This change will result in the misappropriation of well-known community names and great harm that we never intended when we wrote the policy. The Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (meeting 2016-2020) was fairly balanced in its recommendations for both the applicant and communities that might oppose the CPE application. I share some of the language showing the independence of the Community Experts on the CPE panel to research and other communities and tribes to send comments and letters of opposition and raise concerns—all to be taken into account in the CPE evaluation. Final Report, 2020. Unfortunately and very recently, a few members of the SubPro Implementation Review Team (“IRT”), a group charged with implementing policy, not rewriting it, made change after change to the language, terms and scoring of the Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) rules. In April, they stripped out carefully negotiated policies and balances to create an unfair advance for applicants—including by new rules telling the CPE Panelists to greatly limit the use their expertise and independent research skills and not to weigh heavily external opposition and comments they may receive. The changes are buried in Module 4: Contention Set Resolution, 4.4 Community Priority Evaluation, pages 133-150, of the final draft of the Applicant Guidebook now out for public comment. If you look at the new CPE scoring system—called Community Priority Evaluation Criteria (Section 4.4.7, p.139 in draft AGB)—in the edited versions (“redlines” that I share from the IRT on April 14, 2025, and April 30, 2025, and a special redline combining both sets of edits that I created), you will see the hands of the CPE Panelists are newly “tied” and they cannot engage in the research and application of their knowledge that the adopted policy requires. Sadly, under the new changes: And these are just a few examples. Under this new language—newly shared with the community and not arising from public comment—self-identified communities will win CPE. What a prize for the applicant (no auction) and what a tragedy for the peoples, tribes and NGOs of the same name and for far longer than the applicant! Overall, if these rules are adopted, we can predict that letters and comments of heartfelt opposition against CPE applicants will pour into ICANN, only to be systematically ignored by the Panel because of these recent changes to scoring and evaluation criteria. As shared above, this April editing came not from accepted policy, but from a few strong voices on the SubPro IRT. I fear disastrous misappropriation of the well-known names of peoples, tribes and communities if recent changes to CEP text and scoring are not reversed, and the original language is not restored. If you agree, I ask you to write a small set of comments—and share you how to do it below—as it will make a different. Thank you for reading and caring, Kathy Kleiman, Co-Founder ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Constituency To Submit a Comment in ICANN’s Open Proceeding on the Final Draft of the Applicant Guidebook, due July 23rd. Thank you! Footnotes
- [Ethical Data Scraping for Research – Expert Workshop held in Amsterdam](https://knowledgegov.org/ethical-data-scraping-for-research-expert-workshop-held-in-amsterdam/): A unique, expert-led workshop on ethical data scraping was organized by Professor Niva Elkin-Koren and Dr. Maayan Perel and hosted by the Shamgar Center of Digital Law and Innovation, Tel Aviv University. The workshop was made possible by the generous support of the Right to Research in International Copyright Law coalition at the American University, especially Professor Sean Flynn, the Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP). An interdisciplinary group of information law experts gathered in Amsterdam’s beautiful Volks hotel on July 2, 2025, to discuss data scraping for research and innovation and its ethical boundaries. The event aligned with the agenda of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which promotes public interest strategies, coordinated action, and research, and seeks to inform public policy on legal exceptions and limitations for researchers. Data scraping is an essential research tool for academics and scientists across a wide range of disciplines. It is also critical for training artificial intelligence (AI) models and developing innovative research methodologies. The legal boundaries of data scraping attract considerable attention, not only from academics but also from policymakers, governments, courts, technology companies, and data providers worldwide. The boundaries of ethical data scraping— often dependent on the type of data being scraped, the technologies being used, the purpose of scraping, and the applicable legal framework—remain unclear. Consequently, researchers are left to navigate the potential legal risks and changing technological barriers set by tech giants, such as Cloudflare (recently adopting a permission-based approach to data scraping). As a result, researchers may be deterred from engaging in lawful data scraping, at the cost of not engaging in research that can serve the public interest. Moderated by Dr. Maayan Perel and Professor Eldar Haber, the workshop aimed to bring greater clarity to what ethical data scraping is and should be. The workshop applied practical and technical insights from real-world data scraping, analyzed the legal implications of various transatlantic approaches, and proposed guidelines for promoting ethical data scraping for research and development. To obtain a better understanding of how data scraping models work in practice, participants explored a test case model from Bright Data, an international data scraping company, whose model was also discussed in recent litigation with X and Meta. In a stimulating presentation, Bright Data representatives described their publicly available data scraping technology, elaborated on their ethical policies, and presented their “data for good” initiative, which offers scraping opportunities for researchers as well as other stakeholders. To encourage a productive dialogue between academic and business participants, the discussion followed a “red teaming” approach. Red teaming, a concept we adapted from the cybersecurity realm, essentially aims to help organizations proactively identify weaknesses and strengthen their security posture before actual attacks occur. Applying red-teaming’s critical approach, the participants identified potential legal challenges in Bright Data’s data test case model from various perspectives, including intellectual property law, competition law, privacy law, and data protection law, while also identifying points of legal tension between the US and the EU frameworks. The issues highlighted included the legal application of copyright law to information copying and storage; questions of competition law arising from the dominant market actors’ ability to adjust behavior and match prices; and the scope of privacy protection in personal information that data providers voluntarily make publicly accessible.   Next, insights from Bright Data’s test case were used to draw broader observations about what constitutes ethical data scraping in practice, especially for AI training. Key issues included: The workshop concluded with a broader discussion of potential legal, technical, and institutional strategies to promote ethical data scraping for academic research and technological development. Participants identified the need to distinguish between questions of access to data and questions of the use of the data, as each raises different legal issues. Key suggestions included: Participants: Tanya Aplin, Mor Avisar, Balazs Bodo, Sharon Bar Ziv, Sean Flynn, Eldar Haber, Uri Hacohen, Bernt Hugenholtz, Aline Iramina, Matthias Leistner, Dana Mazia, Maayan Perel, Mando Rachovista, Pamela Samuelson, Martin Senftleben, Ben Sobel, Streffan Verhultz, Amit Zac
- [Balanced Copyright Protection in the UK-India CETA](https://knowledgegov.org/balanced-copyright-protection-in-the-uk-india-ceta/):             The full text of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the United Kingdom-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, signed on July 24, 2025, is now available for review. Overall, it is much more favorable to balanced copyright protection and user rights than previously released drafts and summaries.             The provision for copyright exceptions is the same limited language that first appeared in the UK’s proposed text for the IP chapter leaked in 2022. Article 13.68 Limitations and Exceptions 1. A Party may provide limitations or exceptions in its law to the rights provided for in this Section, but shall confine those limitations or exceptions to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of covered subject matter, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. 2. This Article is without prejudice to the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions to any rights permitted by the TRIPS Agreement and WIPO administered treaties to which a Party is party.             However, the Chapter contains other important language that promotes balance. Thus, Article 13.2(a), setting forth the Objectives of the Chapter, states: the objectives of this Chapter are … that the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations….  (Emphasis supplied.)             The Chapter then sets forth Principles the Parties may follow in formulating amending their laws. First, the Article 13.3(1) provides that a Party may adopt measures necessary “to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to its socio-economic and technological development….” Presumably these sectors would include cultural heritage, research, and education.             Second, Article 13.3(2) incorporates language similar to TRIPs Article 40 that appropriate measures may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.             Next, Article 13.4 recites a list of Understandings in respect of the Chapter: [T]he Parties recognise the need to: (a) promote innovation and creativity; (b) facilitate the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, content, culture and the arts; (c) foster competition and open and efficient markets; (d) maintain an appropriate balance between the rights of intellectual property right holders and the legitimate interests of users and the public interest; (e) establish and maintain transparent intellectual property systems; and (f) promote and maintain adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights to provide confidence to right holders and users, through their respective intellectual property systems, while respecting the principles of transparency and due process, and taking into account the interests of relevant stakeholders, including right holders, service providers, users, and the general public. (Emphasis supplied.) The parties reached these Understandings “having regard to the underlying public policy objectives of their national systems, while recognizing the different levels of economic development and capacity and differences in national legal systems….”             As noted above, the Agreement does not contain detailed obligations concerning copyright exceptions. Nonetheless, Article 13.71 requiring each Party to provide adequate legal protection against unauthorized circumvention of effective technological measures does permit the Parties to take appropriate measures to ensure that beneficiaries may enjoy exceptions and limitations provided for them. Similarly, Article 13.103 requires each Party to maintain a system to limit the liability of Online Service Providers for infringements of copyright committed by users of their services.             Moreover, the language concerning Objectives, Principles, and Understandings provide both the UK and India with sufficient flexibility to adopt robust exceptions that effectively balance the interests of all stakeholders.
- [Excerpts from Delegation Statements on the SCCR at the 2025 General Assembly](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-general-assembly-meeting-on-sccr-expresses-consensus-for-progress-on-broadcast-and-le-instruments-appendix-excerpts-from-delegation-statements-on-the-sccr-at-the-2025-general-assembly/): 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 work in trying to reach a
- [WIPO General Assembly Meeting on SCCR Expresses Consensus for Progress on Broadcast and L&E Instruments](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-general-assembly-meeting-on-sccr-expresses-consensus-for-progress-on-broadcast-and-le-instruments/): Sean Flynn, Luca Schirru, Talia Deady The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held its General Assembly (GA) this week, including a review of the progress and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). The GA affirmed its mandates to the Committee to continue working on instruments on the protection of broadcasting organizations and limitations and exceptions (L&Es) for libraries, archives, museums, education and research institutions, and for people with disabilities other than visual impairments. Analysis of the statements of regional groups and delegations shows that there is a growing consensus for conclusion of the Broadcasting Treaty under a narrowed form and for pairing it with progress toward at least an instrument on L&Es. This article summarises and analyses the statements of delegations on the SCCR’s work. A companion article provides fuller excerpts of the statements quoted here.  Context   The GA is the apex decision-making body of WIPO. Among other work, at each meeting, the Assembly reviews and affirms or alters its mandates to Standing Committees on the ongoing work. The SCCR is operating under two sets of mandates from the General Assembly.  Decisions from 2006 and 2007 instruct the Committee to seek “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” on a basic text of a treaty for the protection of broadcast organizations (WO/GA/34/16, 2007) “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, 2006).  A decision from 2012 instructs the Committee to work toward an “appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)” on uses by libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14). In SCCR 43, the Committee adopted a Work Program on Limitations and Exceptions (SCCR/43/8), including a process to draft “objectives, principles, and options” for instruments. SCCR agendas regularly include work on a number of other agenda items, most of which have been approved in some form by GAs for SCCR discussions, but only Broadcasting and L&Es are subject to GA mandates for the drafting of international instruments.  Broadcasting Organizations Consensus for Concluding a Treaty There continues to be a consensus within the SCCR in favor of concluding the Broadcast Treaty, with many calling for more speed in reaching a conclusion. The groups and countries that spoke in favor of concluding a Broadcasting Treaty included the Asia Pacific Group (APG), Group B, Central European and Baltic States (CEBS), Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), African Group (AG), China, European Union (EU), Colombia, Iran, Russian Federation, Mexico, United States, Japan, India, Malawi, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cameroon, Botswana, France, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Algeria, and Samoa.  Several statements called for speeding progress toward the Treaty’s conclusion. France called for “the Committee to speed up in a constructive manner the work on the draft Treaty.” The Russian Federation called for the Committee “to step up work on the draft WIPO Treaty.” The African Group, Cameroon, Botswana, Kenya, and South Africa expressed concern on the slow progress of work of the SCCR on both broadcasting and L&Es.  Several speakers explicitly endorsed a Diplomatic Conference in the near term. These included both CEBS and the EU, which each mentioned their long-term support for convening of a Diplomatic Conference. China expressed a desire to reach “an agreement on substantive issues … to lay a foundation for the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.” Saudi Arabia specifically supported “holding two sessions in 2025 regarding protecting broadcasting organizations because this will bridge gaps among Member States and will pave the way in order to hold a Diplomatic Conference on this matter.” The Asia Pacific Group, however, urged “continued constructive engagement … without prejudging whether the Committee is in a position to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.”  Debate Over the Internet Provisions  The main sticking point on the Treaty has long involved the provisions that extend to Internet streaming.  The countries of the EU and CEBS, which support the Internet provisions, have supported convening a diplomatic conference on the current draft text. The EU expressed its support for a “worthwhile” Treaty “which responds to the technological realities of the 21st century.” Similarly, the CEBS group expressed support for a Treaty that “reflects the technological realities of the 21st century,” is “future-oriented,” “accommodates the challenges posed by the digital environment,” and “provides equal protection for transmissions over computer networks.” Many of the groups and countries signaled their opposition to the Internet provisions by calling for closer adherence to the 2006 and 2007 GA decisions.  The US was most explicit in its objections. It stated that the current draft text “exceeds the General Assembly mandate with its inclusion of articles that provide a new right of fixation and that protect signals used in making available to the public stored programs.” It called instead for the Treaty to be “limited to providing traditional broadcasting organizations with a single exclusive right to authorize simultaneous retransmissions to the public of their linear broadcast signals.” Referring to the terms of the 2007 GA’s prerequisites for the recommendation of a diplomatic conference, the US argued that there continue to be “significant questions and concerns … regarding the proposed instrument’s objectives, rights to be granted, and scope of protection.” Accordingly, it called for “much more work” on “these fundamental issues” to make the draft text “acceptable to all Member States.” Japan echoed the statement of the US in observing “different views among Member States on the fundamental issues” and opined that “a flexible approach is needed allowing each Member State to join the treaty while taking into account international and regional circumstances.”  The Asia Pacific Group, represented by Pakistan, recognized “the need to narrow gaps and build consensus in line with the mandate of the Committee.” Iran called for “moving the Committee closer to fulfilling the 2007 General Assembly mandate … limited to the traditional broadcasting organizations and based on a signal-based approach.” Mexico similarly called for an approach “focusing on
- [Tanuja Garde Appointed Director of WTO’s IP Division](https://knowledgegov.org/tanuja-garde-appointed-director-of-wtos-ip-division/): In July 2025, Tanuja Garde assumed the role of Director of the Intellectual Property, Government Procurement and Competition Division at the World Trade Organization (WTO). She holds a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Duke University and a Juris Doctor from the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. Before joining the WTO, Garde was Vice President of IP and Information Governance at Boeing (2022–2025) and an advisor to the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (2019–2025). According to the WTO website, the division is “responsible for the WTO’s work in trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), government procurement and competition policy,” and “also maintains and develops lines of communication with other intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, intellectual property practitioners and the academic community.” Garde succeeds Antony Taubman, who directed the WTO division from 2009 to 2024. Before that, Taubman was Director of Global Intellectual Property Issues at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2002–2009).
- [Torres Strait Islander climate change decision by Fed Court at odds with UN](https://knowledgegov.org/torres-strait-islander-climate-change-decision-by-fed-court-at-odds-with-un/): 16 July 2025 QUT legal expert Professor Mathew Rimmer is available to speak on the yesterday’s decision: · Judge doubted negligence law appropriate vehicle to deal with climate change matters · Judge said action on climate change a political matter for Fed Govt · The judge maintained Torres Strait Islanders’ only recourse was via ‘the ballot box’.” · An appeal court could further explore comparative international developments in climate litigation. In the landmark case of Pabai Pabai v Commonwealth, Justice Michael Wigney of the Federal Court of Australia doubted whether the law of negligence was the appropriate vehicle to deal with matters of climate change. QUT legal expert Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Matthew Rimmer said that judge held that the Commonwealth did not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from climate change. “Judge Wigney acknowledged that the Commonwealth’s response to the threat of climate change to the Torres Strait Islands and their traditional inhabitants has been wanting,” Professor Rimmer said. “However, Judge Wigney stressed that the question of action on the reduction of greenhouse gases was ultimately a political matter for the Federal Government. “The judge warned there could be little, if any, doubt that the Torres Strait Islands face a bleak future if urgent action is not taken. The judge maintained that the only recourse that Torres Strait Islanders have is via ‘the ballot box’.” Professor Rimmer said that the case recognised that the Torres Strait Islands had been ravaged by the impacts of climate change. “The judge also noted that climate change is having ‘a devastating impact on the traditional way of life of Torres Strait Islanders and their ability to practices Ailan Kastom, their unique and distinctive body of customs, traditions, observances and beliefs.’ “The judge doubted, though, the applicants could obtain relief — ‘in respect of their loss of fulfilment of Ailan Kastom’. Professor Rimmer said the protection of traditional knowledge, cultural heritage, and Indigenous intellectual property warranted greater consideration. “The judge showed a significant amount of judicial humility, maintaining that a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia could not change the law. “The judge did observe that the law could change through ‘the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellate courts, or by the enactment of legislation.’ “The judge said the plaintiffs could take this case further to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, and ultimately, the High Court of Australia (which has previously engaged in judicial innovation in the Mabo case).’ Professor Rimmer said an appeal could explore the consistency of the decision with comparative law and international law. “An appeal court could further explore comparative developments in climate litigation.” Professor Rimmer said yesterday’s decision was also at odds with the successful 2019 Urgenda decision in the Netherlands in which the Dutch Supreme Court held that the Dutch government had an obligation to urgently reduce greenhouse emission in line with its human rights obligations. The decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Pabai Pabai v Commonwealth could be contrasted with the decision of 2022 Torres Strait Eight case of Daniel Billy and others v Australia. Professor Rimmer said that in the Torres Strait Eight case the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s failure to adequately protect Torres Strait Islander people from adverse climate impacts violated their human rights. “The Committee found that under the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia ratified in 1980, Australia had violated their human rights, in particular their cultural rights, and rights to be free from arbitrary interferences with their private life, and family, and home,” Professor Rimmer said. Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796 Decision — https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0796 Summary — https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0796/summaries/2025fca0796-summary For reactions of defendants, see The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy, Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator for the Northern Territory, ‘Joint statement on Pabai Pabai v Commonwealth’, Australian Government, 15 July 2025https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/media-releases/joint-statement-pabai-pabai-v-commonwealth For reactions of plaintiffs, see Joseph Gunzier, ‘‘My Heart is Broken’: Climate Case Dismissed Despite Findings of Cultural Loss’, National Indigenous Times, 16 July 2025, https://nit.com.au/15-07-2025/19140/my-heart-is-broken-climate-case-dismissed-despite-findings-of-cultural-loss Niki Widdowson, ‘Torres Strait Islander climate change decision by Fed Court at odds with UN’, Media Alert, QUT,16 July 2025, https://drrimmer.medium.com/torres-strait-islander-climate-change-decision-by-fed-court-at-odds-with-un-4d1da4c805a2
- [A first look into the JURI draft report on copyright and AI](https://knowledgegov.org/a-first-look-into-the-juri-draft-report-on-copyright-and-ai/): This post was originally published on COMMUNIA by Teresa Nobre and Leander Nielbock Last week we saw the first draft of the long-anticipated own-initiative report on copyright and generative artificial intelligence authored by Axel Voss for the JURI Committee (download as a PDF file). The report, which marks the third entry of the Committee’s recent push on the topic after a workshop and the release of a study in June, fits in with the ongoing discussions around Copyright and AI at the EU-level. In his draft, MEP Voss targets the legal uncertainty and perceived unfairness around the use of protected works and other subject matter for the training of generative AI systems, strongly encouraging the Commission to address the issue as soon as possible, instead of waiting for the looming review of the Copyright Directive in 2026. A good starting point for creators The draft report starts by calling the Commission to assess whether the existing EU copyright framework addresses the competitive effects associated with the use of protected works for AI training, particularly the effects of AI-generated outputs that mimic human creativity. The rapporteur recommends that such assessment shall consider fair remuneration mechanisms (paragraph 2) and that, in the meantime, the Commission shall “immediately impose a remuneration obligation on providers of general-purpose AI models and systems in respect of the novel use of content protected by copyright” (paragraph 4). Such an obligation shall be in effect “until the reforms envisaged in this report are enacted.” However, we fail to understand how such a transitory measure could be introduced without a reform of its own. Voss’s thoughts on fair remuneration also require further elaboration, but clearly the rapporteur is solely concerned about remunerating individual creators and other rightholders (paragraph 2). Considering, however, the vast amounts of public resources that are being appropriated by AI companies for the development of AI systems, remuneration mechanisms need to channel value back to the entire information ecosystem. Expanding this recommendation beyond the narrow category of rightholders seems therefore crucial. Paragraph 10 deals with the much debated issue of transparency, calling for “full, actionable transparency and source documentation by providers and deployers of general-purpose AI models and systems”, while paragraph 11 asks for an “irrebuttable presumption of use” where the full transparency obligations have not been fully complied with. Recitals O to Q clarify that full transparency shall consist “in an itemised list identifying each copyright-protected content used for training”—an approach that does not seem proportionate, realistic or practical. At this stage, a more useful approach to copyright transparency would be to go beyond the disclosure of training data, which is already dealt with in the AI Act, and recommend the introduction of public disclosure commitments on opt-out compliance. A presumption of use—which is a reasonable demand—could still kick in based on a different set of indicators. Another set of recommendations that aims at addressing the grievances of creators are found on paragraphs 6 and 9 and include the standardization of opt-outs and the creation of a centralized register for opt-outs. These measures are very much in line with COMMUNIA’s efforts to uphold the current legal framework for AI training, which relies on creators being able to exercise and enforce their opt-out rights. Two points of concern for users At the same time that it tries to uphold the current legal framework, the draft report also calls for either the introduction of a new “dedicated exception to the exclusive rights to reproduction and extraction” or for expanding the scope of Article 4 of the DSM Directive “to explicitly encompass the training of GenAI” (paragraph 7). At first glance, this recommendation may appear innocuous—redundant even, given that the AI Act already assumes that such legal provision extends to AI model providers. However, the draft report does not simply intend to clarify the current EU legal framework. On the contrary, the report claims that the training of generative AI systems is “currently not covered” by the existing TDM exceptions. This challenges the interpretation provided for in the AI Act and by multiple statements by the Commission and opens the door for discussions around the legality of current training practices, with all the consequences this entails, including for scientific research. The second point of concern for users is paragraph 13, which calls for measures to counter copyright infringement “through the production of GenAI outputs.” Throughout the stakeholder consultations on the EU AI Code of Practice, COMMUNIA was very vocal about the risks this category of measures could entail for private uses, protected speech and other fundamental freedoms. We strongly opposed the introduction of system-level measures to block output similarity, since those would effectively require the use of output filters without safeguarding users rights. We also highlighted that model-level measures targeting copyright-related overfitting could have the effect of preventing the lawful development of models supporting substantial legitimate uses of protected works. As this report evolves, it is crucial to keep this in mind and to ensure that any copyright compliance measures targeting AI outputs are accompanied by relevant safeguards that protect the rights of users of AI systems. A win for the Public Domain One of the last recommendations in the draft report concerns the legal status of AI-generated outputs. Paragraph 12 suggests that “AI-generated content should remain ineligible for copyright protection, and that the public domain status of such works be clearly determined.” While some AI-assisted expressions can qualify as copyright-protected works under EU law —most importantly when there’s sufficient human control over the output—many will not meet the standards for copyright protection. However, these outputs can still potentially be protected by related rights, since most have no threshold for protection. This calls into question whether the related rights system is fit for purpose in the age of AI: protecting non-original AI outputs with exclusive rights regardless of any underlying creative activity and in the absence of meaningful investment is certainly inadequate. We therefore support the recommendation that their public domain status be asserted in those cases. Next steps Once the draft report is officially published and presented in JURI on
- [Danish Bill Proposes Using Copyright Law to Combat Deepfakes](https://knowledgegov.org/danish-bill-proposes-using-copyright-law-to-combat-deepfakes/): Recently, a Danish Bill has been making headlines by addressing issues related to deepfake through a rather uncommon approach: copyright. As stated to The Guardian, the Danish Minister of Culture, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, explained that they “are sending an unequivocal message that everybody has the right to their own body, their own voice and their own facial features, which is apparently not how the current law is protecting people against generative AI.” According to CNN, the minister believes that the “proposed law would help protect artists, public figures, and ordinary people from digital identity theft.” Items 8, 10, and 19 of the proposal include some of the most substantive changes to the law. Among other measures, Item 8 proposes adding a new § 65(a), requiring the prior consent of performers and performing artists to digitally generate imitations of them and make these available to the public, establishing protection for a term of 50 years after their death. Item 10 introduces a new § 73(a), focusing on “realistic digitally generated imitations of a natural person’s personal, physical characteristics,” requiring prior consent from the person being imitated before such imitations can be made available to the public. This exclusive right would also last for 50 years after the death of the imitated person and would not apply to uses such as caricature, satire, parody, pastiche, criticism, or similar purposes. It could be argued that this approach is uncommon because several countries, including those in the European Union, already have laws regulating personality rights and, more specifically, personal data. Copyright is known for regulating the use of creative expressions of the human mind, not the image, voice, or likeness of a person when considered individually, i.e., outside the context of an artistic performance. According to CNN “Engel-Schmidt says he has secured cross-party support for the bill, and he believes it will be passed this fall.”  A machine-translated version of the Proposal is below:  Notes:
- [User Rights Network on SCCR Calls for Progress](https://knowledgegov.org/user-rights-network-on-sccr-calls-for-progress/): 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.
- [WIPO DDG Expresses “Frustration” and “Bitterness” and Calls for Risk Taking for Progress](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-ddg-expresses-frustration-and-bitterness-and-calls-for-risk-taking-for-progress/): The World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly’s consideration of the work of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) began with a report by Ms. Sylvie Forbin, Deputy Director General for the Copyright and Creative Industry Sector, expressing “frustration” and “bitterness” about the Committee’s slow pace of work, and ended with a call for risk taking.  Ms. Forbin’s opening statement focused on the Committee’s inability to reach conclusions on two long-standing agenda items — protection of broadcast organizations and promotion of limitations and exceptions — that have been on its agenda since the Committee’s formation in 1998. Her comments opened by describing “a strange paradox” between the significant and growing participation of member states and observers in the Committee’s meetings, which are indeed among the most attended WIPO meetings each year, and “that it is more difficult than it was in the past to take decisions that will help us to achieve progress in our work.”  Her comments focused first on the long-stalled treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations. The issue of protecting broadcasting organizations was removed from the 1996 Diplomatic Conference and moved to the SCCR’s agenda when that committee was created by the GA in 1998. A draft Treaty was approved for a Diplomatic Conference by the GA in 2006, but the SCCR failed to approve a draft text “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006). The SCCR now operates under the GA’s 2007 decision to call a diplomatic conference only after there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” in a draft instrument (WO/GA/34/16). As reflected in the Chair’s Summary of the 45th meetings of the Committee, there continue to be significant differences between countries on the basic terms of the treaty. In particular, there is significant disagreement with the inclusion of articles creating fixation and post-fixation rights, including an exclusive right to make available stored programs on the Internet. It appears likely that a draft treaty would be approved for a diplomatic conference if these clauses were taken out. But the draft treaty produced by the Chair’s facilitators continues to be far broader than the consensus of the Committee will allow.  Ms. Forbin expressed “frustration” at this state of affairs:  I think that you will understand that we are experiencing a certain level of frustration given that there is no concrete result after intense discussions on the draft Treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations which our Committee has been working on for more than a quarter of a century. A quarter of a century, I repeat. That is a very long period of time.  She rhetorically asked in her statement whether the lack of progress is due to flawed modalities — “to the fact that perhaps only one or two meetings a year is not really the ideal framework for negotiations that are as technical as they are” — or “”the very raison d’être of this Treaty?” She added: “Is there not a real risk that this treaty in its current configuration is leading us down a path that has no end?” She next turned to the issue of limitations and exceptions. This topic has also been on the agenda of the Committee since it was created in 1998, with the GA approving an agenda item on Copyright, Related Rights, and Digital Technology “from the viewpoint both of owners and managers of rights, and of users and the général public.” The agenda produced the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled in 2013. SInce 2012, it has been working under a GA mandate “to work towards an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments” on limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives, museums, education and research institutions and people with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14). Work on the agenda has increased it pace in recent years, including through a Work Program adopted by the Committee to produce “objectives, principles and options” for an instrument on “priority” issues of preservation, digital exceptions, and people with disabilities.  Ms Forbin acknowledged the “fixed mandate as set out by the General Assembly in 2012,” although she did not identify its objective to produce binding or non-binding “international legal instrument(s).” She pointed to the Secretariat’s production of “thematic studies,” “typologies” and “regional meetings and an international conference” which “enabled us to hold a very rich exchange of views and to identify a roadmap for the future we are currently working on.” But she lamented that “for a number of sessions now that there is in fact a misunderstanding” over the goals of the agenda. She therefore appeared to call for a reevaluation of the purpose of the agenda item:   We need to clarify our expectations while taking into account, of course, that they are not necessarily the same for all members of our committee. Is it not a good idea to try and have a sensible understanding of what could be common ground for us?  After discussing the new calls for the Committee to address artificial intelligence and other digital copyright issues, Ms. Forbin returned to a darker tone, expressing “bitterness” at the lack of progress: Our analysis of the situation is that it’s proving to be difficult to gather all of the necessary dynamics to reach consensus. What we have seen in this Committee is that we are wasting our energy and resources to a certain degree. We are obliged to note with some bitterness that we are losing out on valuable opportunities despite the efforts of some of you to breathe new vitality and life into our work. Given the major issues that are being posed on the issue of copyright during this extremely rich and complex period which require cross -cutting analysis and feedback both from professionals as well as from institutional managers – is the SCCR still not a key forum for seeking solutions
- [WIPO GA Opening Statements Signal Debates Ahead](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-ga-opening-statements-signal-debates-ahead/): The World Intellectual Property Organization’s General Assembly finished the opening statements of Member States and is now moving toward its substantive work. This note includes quotes of some of the opening statements on key issues facing the General Assembly and in WIPO’s work head.  Support SCCR work on Broadcast and L&E Instruments With the conclusion of two treaties this year  – on disclosure of genetic resources in patents and, on design law – the focus on WIPO’s norm setting is shifting to the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). A key issue in the past several General Assemblies has involved whether to recommend that the current draft treaty be the subject of a diplomatic conference, and if so, whether it will be linked with progress toward an instrument in the lng-stalled limitations and exceptions agenda. The work on Broadcasting is guided by decisions of the GA in 2006 and 2007, calling for “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” (WO/GA/34/16) on a draft text “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006). The work on limitations and exceptions is guided by the 2012 decision of the GA to work toward an “appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)” on uses by libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14).    Broadcast Denmark, on behalf of the EU  “WIPO can count on the continued and active engagement of the EU and its Member States in strengthening the normative agenda of WIPO’s work. We are committed and support moving towards the prompt conclusion of a broadcasting organizations treaty.” Estonia, on behalf of CEBS “We would express our strong support for the timely conclusion of the broadcasting organizations treaty.” India “India remains hopeful for meaningful progress on all pending issues including finalization of a balance[d] Treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations.” Trinidad and Tobago  “We remain committed to working as well towards a broadcasting treaty.” Hungary “We stand ready to support work towards the adoption of the broadcasting treaty.” Australia “Australia continues to support working towards the Treaty on the Protection of broadcasting organizations”  France “We are attached to the key role of the organization in supporting creative economies and the work of the Standing Committees, particularly when it comes to developing a broadcasting treaty.” Philippines “The Philippines encourages discussions on the proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and strongly supports SCCRs in its endeavors. To recall, the preparatory process was initiated in 1997 in a symposium in Manila. Meanwhile, advances in technologies have generated more piracy, illegal signals and irresponsible use of artificial intelligence. IP protection needs to outpace these advances.” Italy  “The WIPO normative agenda includes the negotiation for a treaty dedicated to broadcasting organizations. Italy supports the adoption of an effective anti-piracy instrument aimed at enhancing the international protection of broadcasting organizations IP content, and thereby contributing to strengthening the principle of territorial exclusivity, which plays a crucial role in securing financing for IP content’s development and distribution.” Finland “In the SCCR Committee, we consider that all necessary preparatory work has been done to finalize a broadcasting treaty.” L&E African Group  The African Group supports advancing discussions on limitations & exceptions for libraries and archives and imitation & exceptions for educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. Limitations and exceptions are of crucial importance to the African Group. And we acknowledge the support of education and research and for fostering innovation, competition, and economic development, while also supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, including the SDG4 and SDG10.” Arab Group (represented by Algeria)  “We are very much interested in the conclusion of a legally binding text as regards exceptions and limitations so that we can maintain a balance between copyright and society in general.” Cameroon “We call for text-based negotiation for the adoption of an international instrument on limitation and exceptions in copyright regarding research, education, museum, archives and people with other disabilities. disabilities as mandated. Delivering on this long overdue subject should be our immediate priority so as to give room for commencement of in-depth discussion on other contemporary topics on IP.” Nigeria “Nigeria supports swift progress in SCCR on balance, limitation and exceptions for education and research.”  Algeria “We support having a balanced approach when it comes to copyrights with priorities to exceptions and limitations mentioned in a legally binding instrument.” Cote d’Ivoire  “My country highlights the importance of guaranteeing equitable access to knowledge and to technologies for developing countries and we encourage WIPO to promote inclusive mechanisms that enable broadened access to works protected by copyright and to essential technologies.” Debate shapes over SDGs and voting on the WIPO Budget In the last meeting of the Program and Budget Committee, the United States opposed references to the SDGs in the Budget, stating  “The United States does not support any proposal unrelated to WIPO’s mandate and intended to advance the implementation of the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals advanced a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.”  In what might be seen as an explicit rejection of the US position, a number of countries specifically embraced WIPO’s inclusion of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as guiding posts of its work. Support for SDGs Namibia (for African Group) “We acknowledge WIPO’s efforts toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and encourage the reflection of these efforts across all the activities of the organization, including the program and budget for 2026.” Pakistan “We commend WIPO’s sustained focus on the Development Agenda and its alignment with the 2030 Agenda. Project-based demand-driven support are practical tools for enhancing IP awareness and strengthening ecosystems that drive innovation and economic growth.”  Jamaica “Intellectual Property both generates and drives economic opportunities that are intrinsically linked to Jamaica’s national
- [WIPO Report on UDRP lacks structural separation and data, and throws aside clear free speech protections in the global domain name system](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-report-on-udrp-lacks-structural-separation-and-data-and-throws-aside-clear-free-speech-protections-in-the-global-domain-name-system/): Twenty-five years ago, the then-new Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) adopted a virtual dispute policy for domain names as its first “consensus policy” and that policy is now due to be reviewed. A comment filed last week by PIJIP professors and fellows Christine Farley, Kathryn Kleiman and Patricia Aufderheide, together with Rebecca Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Michael Karanicolas, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, and Mitch Stoltz, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, laid bare a deep set of concerns about the troubling role of WIPO in writing this report and key recommendations that it made. In this report , WIPO casts itself as the leader of the review of ICANN’s Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, or “UDRP,” yet as pointed out in the PIJIP comments, the role of WIPO raises key structural concerns as WIPO is the world’s leading provider of domain name dispute services.  Specifically, the comment calls for structural separation: “[In 1999] WIPO became the first ICANN-approved generic top level domain (gTLD) domain name dispute providers, and changed its role from rule-maker to dispute forum. This changes the place of WIPO in the process – as a forum convener, not a rule creator… which means that it is difficult—if not impossible—for WIPO to ask hard questions about core structures and to make comparisons to other existing (NIC Chile) and possible systems.” The comment also questions the lack of comprehensive data analysis in the WIPO-ICA Review – analysis of data that after 25 years is available in abundance:   “After 25 years and over 64,000 UDRP cases brought to WIPO for domain names in the generic top level domain (gTLDs), we expected data: substantive, clear, neutral and statistically valid data. After all, as the first ICANN-approved UDRP dispute provider, WIPO holds this data from the very first UDRP dispute in December 1999 to current ones in June 2025… Yet, this WIPO-ICA Report defaults to the old method of anecdotal evidence: Interviews with the ‘usual suspects’ of well-known people who spend a considerable part of their lives thinking about the UDRP.” Further, the comment raises deep free speech concerns about a recommendation by WIPO to reveal the names of speakers without their consent. It calls for all UDRP Providers in the future to follow the current practices of WIPO (privately adopted) and disclose the names of domain name registrants against whom a UDRP is filed with very limited exceptions (data now redacted due to GDPR and other comprehensive data protection laws).  Our comment strongly disagreed on free speech grounds: “For the cost of a UDRP filing, currently $1500 for a single-panelist at WIPO, the report recommends that rules and ethics protecting privacy, anonymity and free speech be thrown aside. The identity of a person or party speaking, critiquing, or criticizing can be revealed to the complainant, even if the registrant is fully protected under their national laws and rights of free expression and privacy, including the right to anonymity and pseudonymity.” This is only the first volley in UDRP review that is likely to take place over the next few years at ICANN. If you are interested in this material, and especially the fairness and balance of future UDRP rules, and would like to be involved in further discussion, please contact Kathryn Kleiman, Senior Policy Fellow of PIJIP, at Kleiman@american.edu. Links: [1] WIPO-ICA UDRP Review Report of April 2025 can be found here. [2] Our comments can be found here. [3] All comments to this report can be found here.
- [The GRULAC proposal on remuneration rights at WIPO SCCR: Understanding the interface with national debates and the issue of corporate power](https://knowledgegov.org/the-grulac-proposal-on-remuneration-rights-at-wipo-sccr-understanding-the-interface-with-national-debates-and-the-issue-of-corporate-power/): 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
- [Unfair Licensing Practices in the Library Sector](https://knowledgegov.org/unfair-licensing-practices-in-the-library-sector/): Teresa Nobre outlines a chilling range of practices by publishers to try to restrict the ability of researchers to conduct computational research. From ‘choice of law’ clauses which seek to circumvent EU law, to increased liability and penalties on libraries which fail to police their users. Nobre suggests a series of urgent measures to tip the balance back in favour of libraries and their users, and ultimately in favour of the right to research. This presentation was delivered at the User Rights meeting in Geneva on 17 June 2025. The full text is available below. The transition to licensing We have transitioned from a sales-based model in printed publications to a licence-based model in digital publications. What happens is that even if you have a fit-for-purpose framework that allows libraries to make certain uses of copyrighted works, they still need to rely on licences to have a first access to the material, and that gives publishers a lot of power in determining what libraries can and cannot do with the licensed materials, even if you have exceptions that allow them to make certain uses. Communia’s research We know that these licences tend to be subject to confidentiality agreements, which means that we don’t know what are the terms of these licences.  Communia is a non-profit based in Brussels, we have been involved in copyright reform for many years, we have been coming to the SCCR for many years, and we decided in February this year, we invited licensing managers, so people that are from the library sector, public library and academic library sector in Europe, we invited them to come to Brussels and we held a Chatham House rules meeting. We also invited the European Commission to attend this meeting and observe this meeting. And this environment where people could not attribute each other was the right environment for licensing managers to come and talk about the issues that they are facing with the licences, so the unfair licensing practices, the unfair terms that they are being subject to. So I will be mentioning some of those practices, and I will start with a very hot topic right now, which is the topic of AI, but also text and data mining for scientific research. Maybe I should also tell you that in addition to inviting librarians to come and talk to us in private, in front of the Commission, we also invited them to share with us in confidence clauses that they considered unfair, clauses that are part of those licensing agreements or licensing offers. Efforts to Circumvent the European TDM Directive Maybe here for those that are not European, I should give you a bit of a legal context of Europe. In Europe, six years ago we passed a new directive that guarantees that researchers in Europe can make text and data mining uses of copyrighted materials for scientific research. So we have a mandatory exception for these research uses. And this mandatory exception is protected against contractual overrides. And what does that mean? It means that if a licence says that you cannot make those uses, you don’t need to follow the licence because the law, the European law, protects you.  And what we realised, and we were very surprised, that publishers were actually concerned about prohibiting these uses in Europe when we have a law that allows these uses and prohibits contractual overrides. But that was indeed the case. So we noticed, and they told us, that since 2023, so place it at the same time where generative AI is raising, suddenly all the contracts are saying library users cannot conduct text and data mining on e-books and e-journals that are available in the libraries.  They cannot conduct any related AI uses with those materials.  ‘Choice of Law’ clauses And surprisingly, what was interesting to see was that, well, they were actually concerned about putting those prohibitions in those contracts, although the law would not allow for those prohibitions, because they could circumvent the EU policy, the EU law, and our contractual overrides prohibition by selecting a law that’s outside of Europe. So we know that ‘choice of law’ is typically a clause that the parties need to negotiate and takes time to negotiate. Everyone wants to choose their own law. But in this case, by choosing a law that’s not the national law where the library is located, meaning that’s not the EU law which would protect these uses against contractual overrides, they are able to circumvent basically the EU law and the prohibition of contractual overrides. And that’s enough. So imagine all of the work that we have done throughout the years to have exceptions in place, exceptions that are protected against contractual overrides, is simply circumvented by a choice of law clause. I’m going to give you an example of what prohibition of AI uses in these licences means. And, you know, there’s different ones. And you can see in our report, we gave some examples of it. Prohibition of AI-enabled browsers But publishers go as far as prohibiting the use of browsers with connected AI functionality. People, nowadays, there’s no browsers that do not use AI.  And publishers are prohibiting the library users from using browsers with AI functionality. This is how far it goes. We saw different variations of this. For instance, you see one that’s very simple, straightforward. You cannot conduct text and data mining, which is exactly what the EU law allows you to do. And when it comes to the choice of law, I think typically what we are seeing is that they are choosing U.S. law, maybe because the U.S. law right now, it’s not very clear if it allows these sort of uses or not. If it’s a UK publisher, they will select the U.K. law, which also doesn’t permit as many text and data mining uses as the EU law. So this is the first, let me say, the first category of obstacles and really
- [Malaysia exhorts Human Rights Council to prioritize the primacy of public health and human rights over commercial interests](https://knowledgegov.org/malaysia-exhorts-human-rights-council-to-prioritize-the-primacy-of-public-health-and-human-rights-over-commercial-interests/): This post was originally published on KEI Online by Thiru Balasubramaniam On Tuesday afternoon, 24 June 2025, the Core Group (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand) convened an informal consultation to consider the revised version draft resolution, “Access to medicines, vaccines and other health products in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” in Room XXVII of the United Nations Palais des Nations. At the informal, Malaysia proposed textual amendments to the resolution and highlighted the limits of certain voluntary licensing arrangements, most notably Gilead and lenacapavir. Malaysia acknowledges that voluntary licensing arrangements have in some instances contributed to expanded access to medicines. However, we must express our reservation that these arrangements have too often failed to ensure adequate, affordable, and timely access to life-saving medical technologies for many developing countries. As noted in the report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, right holders frequently retain the unilateral authority to exclude countries from license agreements—effectively denying access to those most in need. This practice fails to meet the principles of equity and solidarity that global health governance aspires to uphold. A stark illustration of this issue is the case of Gilead Sciences and its antiretroviral drug, Lenacapavir. Despite being a promising long-acting injectable treatment for HIV, Gilead’s voluntary license explicitly excluded developing countries, including Malaysia and many others in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. These are regions with growing HIV burdens and constrained health budgets, yet they are excluded from generic supply due to the originator’s commercial strategy. Such exclusions highlight a systemic problem: when commercial interests are prioritized in voluntary licensing models, the public health needs of developing countries are marginalized. Therefore, we propose language that tackles the structural shortcomings of voluntary licensing, underscores the pressing concerns of many developing countries in accessing life-saving medicines, and advocates for a more equitable, transparent, and needs-driven framework for access to critical medical innovations. In moving forward, we reaffirm the need for legally certain, transparent, and inclusive mechanisms that prioritize public health over commercial discretion—ensuring that no country is left behind in accessing life-saving medicines, vaccines, and technologies. With respect to the draft resolution, Malaysia stated underscored the exigent need for “strengthened international cooperation and solidarity that prioritizes the primacy of public health and human rights over commercial interests”. Malaysia asserted that TRIPS-plus provisions in trade agreements effectively infringe on the right to health and called on developed countries to “refrain from exerting pressure—whether through trade negotiations, diplomatic influence, or investment agreements—on developing countries to adopt intellectual property protections that exceed TRIPS obligations”. We acknowledge the important guidance provided in the 2009 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health (A/HRC/11/12), which calls upon developing and least developed countries to refrain from introducing TRIPS-plus provisions into national law, and urges developed countries to desist from promoting such provisions through bilateral or regional trade and investment agreements. We express deep concern that TRIPS-plus provisions—including extended patent terms, data exclusivity, patent linkage, and restrictions on compulsory licensing—go beyond the minimum standards required by the TRIPS Agreement, and risk undermining public health safeguards, delaying access to affordable generic medicines, and increasing healthcare costs, thereby infringing upon the right to health, particularly in developing countries already struggling to meet the health needs of their populations. We caution against increasing trends of developed countries to circumvent international based IP rule through bilateral trade agreements to impose their own IP agendas such as TRIPS plus provisions on developing nations, potentially undermining the multilateral system. We further emphasize that developed countries should refrain from exerting pressure—whether through trade negotiations, diplomatic influence, or investment agreements—on developing countries to adopt intellectual property protections that exceed TRIPS obligations. Such practices restrict national policy space, compromise the ability of States to protect public health, restricting access to affordable health products, and risk undermining the integrity of the multilateral rules-based system. Malaysia calls for strengthened international cooperation and solidarity that prioritizes the primacy of public health and human rights over commercial interests. We urge all Member States to ensure that their trade and intellectual property policies are aligned with their obligations under international human rights law, including the right to health, and to reaffirm their commitment to preserving policy space, resisting TRIPS-plus measures, and working toward an international system that places human dignity and health equity at its core. Malaysia proposed the insertion of the following language including a peace clause in Op 4 bis. New PP Acknowledging that voluntary licensing arrangements, while beneficial in some contexts, have often failed to provide adequate, affordable, and timely access to life saving medicines for some developing countries that are usually excluded from the scope of licenses, as right holders reserve the right to identify countries where they intend to sell the product directly or through other agreements; (part from the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines) New PP Acknowledging the 2009 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health that calls for developing and least developed countries to not to introduce TRIPS-plus provisions in their national laws and developed countries should not encourage developing countries and LDCs to enter into TRIPS-plus FTAs and should be mindful of actions which may infringe upon the right to health.; (Ref A/HRC/11/12 pg 29 para 109)New PP Recalling the 2021 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS that calls for ensuring that intellectual property rights provisions in trade agreements do not undermine existing flexibilities, as confirmed in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (A/RES/75/284 para 68(a)) New Op 4 bis: Call upon States to exercise restraint in undertaking international legal obligations which directly or indirectly undermines the freedom to make use of the TRIPS flexibilities and also urges States to monitor the implications of voluntary licenses in facilitating availability, accessibility and affordability
- [Latest Developments on Training GenAI with Copyrighted Works and Some 'What Ifs?'](https://knowledgegov.org/latest-developments-on-training-genai-with-copyrighted-works-and-some-what-ifs/): ‘Boring’ is not a word that can be used to describe the past few days for those interested in litigation involving copyright issues in the development and use of Generative AI systems. Two major cases saw significant updates, issuing orders that addressed one of the main questions raised in these lawsuits: is the use of copyrighted materials to train Generative AI systems fair use? This blog post aims to briefly describe each case’s key points related to fair use and to highlight what was left unresolved, including all the ‘what if’ scenarios that were hinted at but not decided upon Bartz, Graeber & Johnson v. Anthropic Judge William Alsup’s order on fair use addressed not only the different copies of copyrighted material made for training generative AI systems but also uses related to Anthropic’s practice of keeping copies as a “permanent, general-purpose resource”. It also distinguished between legally purchased copies and millions of pirated copies retained by Anthropic, applying a different fair use analysis to each category. Regarding the overall analysis of fair use for copyrighted works used to train Anthropic’s Generative AI system, Judge Alsup found that the use “was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use.” Among the four factors, only the second factor weighed against using copyrighted works to train the GenAI system. Concerning the digitization of legally purchased books, it was also considered fair use not because of the purpose of training AI systems, but for a much simpler reason:  “because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies”. For this specific use, of the four factors, only factor two weighed against fair use, while factor four remained neutral. On the other hand, Judge Alsup clearly stated that using pirated copies to create the “general-purpose library” was not fair use, even if some copies might be used to train LLMs. All factors weighed against it. Specifically, Judge Alsup noted: “it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies. We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness).” Kadrey v. Meta At the very beginning of the order, Judge Vince Chhabria clarified that the case questions whether using copyrighted material to train generative AI models without permission or remuneration is illegal and affirmed that: “although the devil is in the details, in most cases the answer will likely be yes. What copyright law cares about, above all else, is preserving the incentive for human beings to create artistic and scientific works. Therefore, it is generally illegal to copy protected works without permission. And the doctrine of “fair use,” which provides a defense to certain claims of copyright infringement, typically doesn’t apply to copying that will significantly diminish the ability of copyright holders to make money from their works (thus significantly diminishing the incentive to create in the future).” Judge Chhabria explained further that  “by training generative AI models with copyrighted works, companies are creating something that often will dramatically undermine the market for those works, and thus dramatically undermine the incentive for human beings to create things the old-fashioned way.” According to him, this would primarily affect not classic works or renowned authors but rather the market for the “typical human-created romance or spy novel,” which could be substantially diminished by similar AI-created works.  However, all these points were framed as “this Court’s general understanding of generative AI models and their capabilities”, with Judge Chhabria emphasizing that “Courts can’t decide cases based on general understandings. They must decide cases based on the evidence presented by the parties.”  Despite this general understanding that “copying the protected works, however transformative, involves the creation of a product with the ability to severely harm the market for the works being copied, and thus severely undermine the incentive for human beings to create“, Judge Chhabria found two of the plaintiffs’ three market harm theories “clear losers,” and the third, a “potentially winning” argument, underdeveloped: “First, the plaintiff might claim that the model will regurgitate their works (or outputs that are substantially similar), thereby allowing users to access those works or substitutes for them for free via the model. Second, the plaintiff might point to the market for licensing their works for AI training and contend that unauthorized copying for training harms that market (or precludes the development of that market). Third, the plaintiff might argue that, even if the model can’t regurgitate their own works or generate substantially similar ones, it can generate works that are similar enough (in subject matter or genre) that they will compete with the originals and thereby indirectly substitute for them. In this case, the first two arguments fail. The third argument is far more promising, but the plaintiffs’ presentation is so weak that it does not move the needle, or even raise a dispute of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.“ In the overall analysis of the four factors, only the second factor weighed against Meta. Summary judgment was granted to Meta regarding the claim of copyright infringement from using plaintiffs’ books for AI training. Nevertheless, Judge Chhabria clarified that “this ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful. It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.” The use of pirated copies was also addressed in Kadrey v. Meta. In this case, “there is no dispute that Meta torrented LibGen and Anna’s Archive […].” According to Judge Chhabria, while downloading from shadow libraries wouldn’t automatically win the plaintiffs’ case, it was relevant for the fair use analysis, especially regarding “bad faith” and whether the downloads benefited or perpetuated unlawful activities. Lessons
- [WIPO General Assembly 66th: Navigating a Comprehensive Agenda with Constructive Dialogue](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-general-assembly-66th-navigating-a-comprehensive-agenda-with-constructive-dialogue/): Despite the weight of a packed agenda and the significance of several recent treaty milestones, the Sixty-Sixth Series of Meetings of the WIPO General Assembly is expected to unfold key institutional decisions, including the initiation of the Director General appointment process, the adoption of procedural reforms under the Lisbon and Design systems, and the future and implementation of longstanding treaty negotiations.  Among the central governance items is the formal initiation of the process to nominate and appoint WIPO’s next Director General (A/66/4), whose term will begin in October 2026. The framework laid out in the document provides a clear timeline, beginning with a July 2025 call for nominations and concluding with an April 2026 decision. While the process is administrative at this stage, the importance of the role—and its potential to influence the agency’s direction—will shape the future of WIPO 2026-2032. In parallel, the Assembly will elect a new slate of Program and Budget Committee members for 2025–2027 (WO/GA/58/1) and appoint Chairs and Vice-Chairs for the various Assemblies and Unions (A/66/2 Prov.4). These steps ensure procedural stability, but also underscore broader Member State interest in the balance of representation across WIPO’s governance structures. One of the more consequential decisions awaiting the Assembly is whether to convene a Diplomatic Conference on the proposed Broadcasting Treaty (WO/GA/58/4). While the most recent SCCR session made strides in updating the draft text, Member States remain divided over key elements, including the scope of rights and the treatment of signal-based protections. A consensus on readiness has not yet emerged, and further consultations may be needed before formal negotiations can proceed. With regards the Work Plan on Exceptions and Limitations (SCCR/43/8 Rev.) the Chair Ms. Cohen is working to move forward the agenda by finding common grounds between the member states. The implementation of newly adopted treaties will also be on the Assembly’s radar. The WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (WO/GA/58/8), adopted in May 2024, and the Design Law Treaty (WO/GA/58/13), adopted in November 2024, both require follow-up in terms of ratification strategies, capacity-building support, and coordination among Member States. While their adoption was widely celebrated, the transition to effective implementation remains an important next step. Procedural and regulatory reforms under the Lisbon System will likewise be considered. Proposed amendments to the Common Regulations (LI/A/42/2) and the formalization of new Special Rules of Procedure for the Lisbon Working Group (LI/A/42/1) aim to streamline administration and ensure coherence with WIPO’s broader framework.  Standing committee discussions continue across multiple fronts. The Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (WO/GA/58/5) will report on ongoing work relating to patent exceptions, inventorship in research collaborations, and the broader implications of AI in innovation systems. The Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks (WO/GA/58/6) will revisit longstanding debates over the protection of country names and geographic terms, though consensus remains elusive. In the technical sphere, the Committee on WIPO Standards (WO/GA/58/9) presents a set of new and revised standards for approval. Given the growing complexity and volume of its mandate, the committee also recommends prioritizing certain tasks and deferring others—a recognition that capacity, both technical and political, must be managed carefully. The Assembly will also review a number of oversight and budgetary matters carried forward from the 39th Program and Budget Committee. These include approval of recommendations from PBC Sessions 38 and 39 (A/66/7), review of oversight reports from WIPO’s Independent Advisory Oversight Committee and Internal Oversight Division (WO/GA/58/2, WO/GA/58/3), and follow-up on financial governance issues raised in the External Auditor’s report (A/66/6). Member States continue to emphasize the importance of accountability and transparency, particularly in budget execution and internal controls. Several programmatic matters also require attention. The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (WO/GA/58/7) has approved a new wave of projects and evaluations, many focusing on creative industries, tourism, and small and medium enterprises. Meanwhile, the Advisory Committee on Enforcement (WO/GA/58/10) seeks approval for its future work plan, and the Secretariat will report on PLT-related technical assistance provided by developed countries to developing and least-developed countries (WO/GA/58/12). On the administrative front, the Hague Union will consider its participation in WIPO’s Digital Access Service (H/A/45/1), a move intended to facilitate the digital exchange of priority documents and reduce the burden on applicants. Similarly, the Madrid Union will examine targeted amendments to its Regulations, including the mandatory provision of email addresses and more responsive recalculations of fees based on currency fluctuations (MM/A/59/1). Beyond regulatory updates, the Assembly will also take note of WIPO’s ongoing support to Ukraine (A/66/8), which includes tailored technical assistance and reaffirmed commitments to territorial integrity in WIPO communications and services. The report reflects both resilience in Ukraine’s IP ecosystem and the role of international cooperation in post-crisis recovery. Finally, WIPO’s arbitration and mediation services (WO/GA/58/11) continue to gain relevance, with increased uptake among SMEs and IP offices reinforcing the value of accessible dispute resolution in a diversifying innovation landscape. As the WIPO General Assembly addresses a broad agenda spanning governance, treaty implementation, and procedural reforms, it sets the stage for the organization’s work in the coming years. While many items remain at a preparatory or consultative stage, the decisions taken—particularly on the Director General appointment process, committee leadership, and follow-up to recent treaties—will shape the institution’s capacity to respond to Member State priorities. Continued dialogue, transparency, and balanced representation will be essential to ensure progress across the Organization’s diverse and evolving mandate.
- [LATAM-GPT: A Culturally Sensitive Large Language Model for Latin America](https://knowledgegov.org/latam-gpt-a-culturally-sensitive-large-language-model-for-latin-america/): LATAM-GPT is a groundbreaking large language model developed by the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) in Chile, in partnership with over thirty institutions and twelve Latin American countries. The initiative aims to create an open-source AI model that reflects the region’s diverse cultures, languages—including Spanish, Portuguese, and Indigenous tongues—and social realities. Using ethically sourced, regionally contributed data, LATAM-GPT seeks to overcome the limitations and biases of global AI models predominantly trained on English data. The project is designed to empower local communities, preserve linguistic diversity, and support applications in education, public services, and beyond. Its development highlights the importance of ethical data practices, regional collaboration, and policy frameworks that foster inclusive, representative AI. A video version of this case study is available below. 1. Background: Digital Inequality and AI in Latin America Latin America faces unique challenges in digital inclusion, with significant linguistic, cultural, and infrastructural diversity across the region. Global AI models often fail to capture local nuances, leading to inaccuracies and reinforcing stereotypes. Many Indigenous and minority languages are underrepresented in mainstream technology, exacerbating digital exclusion. LATAM-GPT addresses these gaps by building a model tailored to the region’s needs, aiming to democratize access to advanced AI and promote technological sovereignty. 2. Technology and Approach LATAM-GPT is based on Llama 3, a state-of-the-art large language model architecture. The model is trained on more than 8 terabytes of regionally sourced text, encompassing Spanish, Portuguese, and Indigenous languages such as Rapa Nui. Training is conducted on a distributed network of computers across Latin America, including facilities at the University of Tarapacá in Chile and cloud-based platforms. The open-source nature of the project allows for transparency, adaptability, and broad participation from local developers and researchers. 3. Project Overview The project is coordinated by CENIA with support from the Chilean government, the regional development bank CAF, Amazon Web Services, and over thirty regional organizations. LATAM-GPT’s primary objective is to serve as a foundation for culturally relevant AI applications—such as chatbots, virtual public service assistants, and educational tools—rather than directly competing with global consumer products like ChatGPT. A key focus is the preservation and revitalization of Indigenous languages, with the first translation tools already developed for Rapa Nui and plans to expand to other languages. 4. Data Sources and Key Resources LATAM-GPT uses ethically sourced data contributed by governments, universities, libraries, archives, and community organizations across Latin America. This includes official documents, public records, literature, historical materials, and Indigenous language texts. All data is carefully curated to ensure privacy, consent, and cultural sensitivity. Unlike many global AI models, LATAM-GPT publishes its list of data sources, emphasizing transparency and ethical data governance. 5. Legal and Ethical Challenges Copyright and Licensing:The project relies on open-access and properly licensed materials, with explicit permissions from data contributors. This approach avoids the legal uncertainties faced by models that scrape data indiscriminately from the internet. Data Privacy and Consent:CENIA and its partners ensure that sensitive personal information is anonymized or excluded, and that data collection respects the rights and wishes of contributors, especially Indigenous communities. Inclusivity and Bias:By prioritizing local languages and cultural contexts, LATAM-GPT aims to reduce biases inherent in global models. Ongoing community engagement and feedback are integral to the model’s development and evaluation. 6. International and Regional Collaboration LATAM-GPT exemplifies pan-regional cooperation, with twelve countries and over thirty institutions contributing expertise, data, and infrastructure. The project has also engaged international partners and multilateral organizations, such as the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Development Bank, to support its mission of technological empowerment and digital inclusion. 7. Emerging Technology and Policy Issues LATAM-GPT’s open-source model sets a precedent for responsible AI development, emphasizing transparency, ethical data use, and regional self-determination. The project also highlights the need for robust digital infrastructure and continued investment to ensure equitable access to AI across Latin America. As with all large language models, ongoing attention to potential biases, data privacy, and the impact on local labor and education systems is essential. 8. National and Regional Legal Frameworks While LATAM-GPT’s ethical sourcing and licensing practices minimize legal risks, the project underscores the importance of harmonized copyright and data protection laws across Latin America. Policymakers are encouraged to develop frameworks that facilitate data sharing for socially beneficial AI, protect Indigenous knowledge, and promote open science. 9. Contractual or Policy Barriers Some challenges remain in securing permissions for certain data sources, particularly from private publishers or institutions with restrictive contracts. The project’s commitment to open licensing and community engagement helps mitigate these barriers, but continued advocacy is needed to expand access to valuable regional content. 10. Conclusions LATAM-GPT represents a major step forward in creating culturally sensitive, inclusive AI for Latin America. By centering ethical data practices, regional collaboration, and linguistic diversity, the project offers a model for other regions seeking to decolonize AI and ensure technology serves local needs. Continued investment, policy reform, and community participation will be crucial to realizing the full potential of LATAM-GPT and similar initiatives. Video Version Hear from the researchers themselves. Watch the video of this case study below.
- [Blind South Africa: Apps for the Visually Impaired](https://knowledgegov.org/blind-south-africa-apps-for-the-visually-impaired/): An initiative led by Christo de Klerk at Blind South Africa focuses on promoting the use of accessible mobile and digital applications for blind and visually impaired people in South Africa. Highlighted at the 2025 Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa conference, the project addresses the importance of robust copyright exceptions and supportive legal frameworks to enable the development and use of apps that work in African languages, read aloud texts, describe images and films, and provide local information. The legal challenges – especially around copyright and licensing of accessible content and the use of visual works as AI training data – point to lessons for responsible, inclusive innovation and policy reform in assistive technology. A video version of this case study is available below. 1. Disability, Inequality, and Digital Exclusion in South Africa South Africa has a high prevalence of visual impairment and blindness, with over a million people affected. Barriers to education, employment, and public participation are exacerbated by inaccessible information and digital services. While assistive technologies offer new opportunities for inclusion, their effectiveness depends on being designed for accessibility, linguistic diversity, and local context. 2. Assistive Technology and Accessibility Assistive technology includes devices and software such as screen readers, braille displays, text-to-speech apps, navigation tools, and AI-powered applications that describe images and films. Development is shaped by international standards like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and local policy frameworks, ensuring that accessibility is built into digital tools. 3. Project Overview The BlindSA initiative focuses on raising awareness and supporting the use of existing accessible apps for blind and visually impaired users, particularly those supporting African languages and offering features like scene description and audio narration. Rather than developing new apps, the project identifies, tests, and disseminates information about effective tools. It also advocates for legal and policy changes, including strong copyright exceptions, to empower developers and users in South Africa’s multilingual communities. Community participation and user feedback are central to the approach. 4. Data Sources and Key Resources Apps promoted by the initiative draw on diverse data sources: public domain texts, government information, community-generated content, and web-scraped text and images, including photographs, artworks, and films. Many apps use AI to generate scene descriptions and audio narration, opening up previously inaccessible content. The initiative emphasizes tools that support African languages, providing read-aloud and real-time information (such as weather and news) in Zulu, Sotho, and others. However, reliance on copyrighted materials for AI training and accessible formats raises pressing legal questions about copyright exceptions, licensing, and the need for inclusive legal frameworks. 5. Legal and Ethical Challenges Copyright and Licensing:Many resources needed for accessible apps—books, newspapers, educational materials, artworks, photographs, and films—are protected by copyright. South Africa’s current law offers limited exceptions for accessible formats, making it difficult to legally convert works into braille, audio, large print, or described video without explicit permission. Outdated copyright laws have long denied blind South Africans equal access to information, highlighting the need for robust legal exceptions. Contractual Restrictions:Even when content is publicly available, licensing terms may prohibit adaptation or redistribution in accessible formats. Absence of Research and Accessibility Exceptions:Unlike countries that have ratified and implemented the Marrakesh Treaty, South Africa’s copyright regime remains restrictive. BlindSA’s Constitutional Court case challenged these limitations, emphasizing that the right to read is a fundamental human right and that lack of access excludes blind people from education, employment, and society. 6. The Marrakesh Treaty and the Struggle for Equality The Marrakesh Treaty, adopted by WIPO in 2013, requires signatory countries to create copyright exceptions for accessible formats and enables cross-border sharing. It is a milestone in addressing the “book famine” for blind people and affirms access to information as a fundamental right. South Africa signed the Treaty in 2014, but as of 2025, has not fully implemented it into national law, leaving the blind community at a disadvantage. BlindSA has been at the forefront of advocacy for these reforms, including a Constitutional Court challenge to the country’s copyright law. 7. Generative AI, Copyright Backlash, and the Accessibility Exception The rise of generative AI has sparked backlash from creators concerned about unauthorized use of their works as training data and the risk of AI-generated content substituting for original works. However, experts and advocates for the visually impaired emphasize the importance of copyright exceptions for accessibility. When AI is used for accessible formats—such as describing images or reading text aloud—there is no substitution effect, only an expansion of access and rights. Copyright policy and AI regulation should distinguish between commercial, substitutive uses of AI and socially beneficial uses that enable access for the visually impaired. The Marrakesh Treaty and proposed South African reforms recognize the need to balance creators’ interests with the transformative potential of AI for inclusion. 8. National Legal Reform The Copyright Amendment Bill proposes new exceptions for creating and distributing accessible format copies, as well as a general fair use provision. If enacted, these reforms would significantly improve access to information for the visually impaired in South Africa. 9. Contractual or Policy Barriers The initiative highlights the need for open licensing and permissions from publishers and content providers. Some government and educational materials remain inaccessible due to restrictive licenses or outdated contracts. 10. Conclusions Despite legal and policy challenges, BlindSA’s work has raised awareness of accessible apps and digital resources, including text-to-speech tools, navigation apps, and AI-powered scene description in South African languages. User participation is emphasized: “Accessibility is not a luxury or an afterthought—it is a right.” BlindSA’s experience highlights the urgent need for harmonized copyright exceptions, open standards, and inclusive digital policy. Policymakers, funders, and technology developers should prioritize accessibility and the rights of people with disabilities in all digital innovation efforts. Video Version Hear from the researchers themselves. Watch the video of this case study below.
- [A Talking Health Chatbot in African Languages: DSFSI, University of Pretoria](https://knowledgegov.org/dsfsi-pretoria-health-chatbot/): A project at the Data Sciences for Social Impact (DSFSI) group, University of Pretoria, led by Professor Vukosi Marivate, is developing a talking health chatbot in African languages to provide accessible, culturally relevant health information to underserved communities. Central to the initiative is the planned use of health actuality TV and radio programmes produced by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) as training data, which introduces legal and ethical considerations around the use of publicly funded broadcast materials in AI. In the absence of South Africa’s pending copyright reforms, the project may be held up, pointing to the need for harmonised legal frameworks for AI for Good in Africa. 1. Health Inequality in South Africa and the Role of AI South Africa experiences some of the world’s highest health inequalities, shaped by historical, economic, and social factors. Urban centers are relatively well-resourced, but rural and peri-urban areas face critical shortages of health professionals and infrastructure. Language and literacy barriers further exacerbate disparities, with many unable to access health information in their mother tongue. Digital health interventions, especially those using artificial intelligence, offer a way to bridge these gaps by delivering accurate, on-demand health information in local languages. An AI-powered chatbot can empower users to make informed decisions, understand symptoms, and navigate the healthcare system, promoting greater equity in health outcomes. 2. What is Natural Language Processing (NLP)? Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subfield of artificial intelligence that enables computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language. NLP powers applications such as chatbots, voice assistants, and automated translation tools, making it crucial for digital inclusion, especially for speakers of underrepresented languages. 3. Project Overview The DSFSI health chatbot project aims to build an AI-powered conversational agent that delivers reliable health information in multiple African languages. The project’s mission is to address health literacy gaps and promote equitable access to vital information, particularly in communities where language and resource barriers persist. 4. Data Sources and Key Resources A distinctive feature of the project is its intention to use health actuality programmes broadcast by the SABC as primary training data. These programmes offer authentic dialogues in various African languages and cover a wide range of health topics relevant to local communities. However, the use of SABC broadcast material introduces significant legal and ethical complexities. The DSFSI team has spent years negotiating with the SABC to secure permission for use of these programmes as training data, but obtaining a definitive answer has proven elusive, leaving the project in a state of legal uncertainty. 5. Legal and Ethical Challenges Copyright and LicensingSABC’s health actuality programmes are protected by copyright, with all rights typically reserved by the broadcaster. Using these materials for AI training without explicit permission may constitute copyright infringement, regardless of educational or social impact goals. Contractual RestrictionsEven if SABC content is publicly accessible, the broadcaster’s terms of use or licensing agreements may explicitly prohibit reuse, redistribution, or data mining. Absence of Research ExceptionsSouth African copyright law currently lacks robust exceptions for text and data mining (TDM) or research use, unlike the European Union’s TDM exceptions or the United States’ Fair Use doctrine. Data Privacy and Community EngagementIf the chatbot is later trained on user interactions or collects personal health information, the project must also comply with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and ensure meaningful informed consent from all participants. 6. Public Funding and the Public Interest Argument A significant dimension in negotiations with the SABC is the broadcaster’s funding structure. The SABC operates under a government charter and receives substantial public subsidies, with direct grants and bailouts accounting for about 27% of its 2022/2023 revenue. This strengthens the argument that SABC-produced content should be accessible for public interest projects, particularly those addressing urgent challenges like health inequality and language inclusion. Many in the research and innovation community contend that publicly funded content should be available for projects benefiting the broader public, especially those focused on health literacy and digital inclusion. 7. The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: A New Layer of Complexity The international copyright landscape is evolving, with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) currently negotiating a Broadcasting Treaty. Recent drafts propose granting broadcasters—including public entities like the SABC—new, additional exclusive rights over their broadcast content, independent of the underlying copyright. Some drafts suggest these new rights could override or negate existing copyright exceptions and limitations, including those that might otherwise permit uses for research, education, or public interest projects. If adopted in its current form, the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty could further restrict the ability of researchers and innovators to use broadcast material for AI training, even when the content is publicly funded or serves a vital social function. 8. The Copyright Amendment Bill: Introducing Fair Use in South Africa A potentially transformative development is the Copyright Amendment Bill, which aims to introduce a Fair Use doctrine into South African law. Modeled after the U.S. system, Fair Use would allow limited use of copyrighted material without permission for research, teaching, and public interest innovation—the core activities of the DSFSI health chatbot initiative. If enacted, the Bill would provide a much-needed legal pathway for researchers to use materials like SABC broadcasts for AI training, provided the use is fair, non-commercial, and does not undermine the market for the original work. However, the Bill has faced significant opposition and delays, and is currently under review by the Constitutional Court, leaving its future uncertain. 9. Contractual or Policy Barriers In the absence of clear research exceptions, the project team must review and potentially negotiate with the SABC to secure permissions or licenses for the intended use of broadcast content. Without such agreements, the project may be forced to exclude valuable data sources or pivot to community-generated content. 10. Cross-Border and Multi-Jurisdictional Issues If the chatbot expands to use or serve content from other African countries, it will encounter a patchwork of copyright and data protection laws, further complicating compliance and cross-border collaboration. 11. Conclusions The challenges faced by the DSFSI health chatbot project
- [Masakhane: Use of the JW300 Dataset for Natural Language Processing](https://knowledgegov.org/masakhane-projects-use-of-the-jw300-dataset-for-natural-language-processing-copyright-issues-contract-overrides-and-cross-border-implications/): The Masakhane Project showcases the transformative power of open, collaborative efforts in advancing natural language processing (NLP) for African languages. However, its reliance on the JW300 dataset—a vast multilingual corpus primarily comprising copyrighted biblical translations—uncovered significant legal and ethical challenges. These challenges focused on copyright restrictions, contract overrides, and the complexities of cross-border data use. This led to the discontinuation of JW300’s use within Masakhane, prompting a shift toward community-generated data. The experience illustrates the urgent need for robust copyright exceptions, clear legal frameworks, and ethical data sourcing to foster innovation and inclusivity in global NLP research. A video version of the case study is available below. 1. What Is Natural Language Processing? Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a branch of computer science and artificial intelligence focused on enabling computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language, both written and spoken. NLP integrates computational linguistics with machine learning, deep learning, and statistical modeling, allowing machines to recognize patterns, extract meaning, and respond to natural language inputs in ways that approximate human comprehension. NLP underpins many everyday technologies, including search engines, digital assistants, chatbots, voice-operated GPS systems, and automated translation services. NLP is crucial for breaking down language barriers and has become integral to the digital transformation of societies worldwide1. 2. Masakhane Project Overview The Masakhane Project is an open-source initiative dedicated to advancing NLP for African languages. Its mission is to democratize access to NLP tools by building a continent-wide research community and developing datasets and benchmarks tailored to Africa’s linguistic diversity. By engaging researchers, linguists, and technologists across the continent, Masakhane ensures that African languages are not marginalized in the digital age. The project employs advanced sequence-to-sequence models, training them on parallel corpora to enable machine translation and other NLP tasks between African languages. The distributed network of contributors allows Masakhane to address the unique challenges of Africa’s linguistic landscape, where many languages lack sufficient digital resources. A notable achievement is the “Decolonise Science” project, which creates multilingual parallel corpora of African research by translating scientific papers from platforms like AfricArxiv into various African languages. This initiative enhances access to academic knowledge and promotes the use of African languages in scientific discourse, exemplifying Masakhane’s commitment to African-centric knowledge production and community benefit. 3. JW300 Dataset and Its Role The JW300 dataset was pivotal to Masakhane’s early work. It offers around 100,000 parallel sentences for each of over 300 African languages, mostly sourced from Jehovah’s Witnesses’ biblical translations. For many languages, JW300 is one of the only large-scale, aligned text sources available, making it invaluable for training baseline translation models such as English-to-Zulu or English-to-Yoruba. Masakhane utilized automated scripts for downloading and preprocessing JW300, including byte-pair encoding (BPE) to optimize model performance. Community contributions further expanded the dataset’s coverage, filling language gaps and improving resource quality. JW300’s widespread use enabled rapid progress in building machine translation models for underrepresented African languages. 4. Copyright Infringement Discovery Despite JW300’s open availability on platforms like OPUS, its use was legally problematic. In 2023, a legal audit by the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology (CIPIT) in Nairobi revealed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website explicitly prohibited text and data mining in its copyright notice. This meant Masakhane’s use of JW300 was unauthorized. When Masakhane’s organizers formally requested permission to use the data, their request was denied. This highlighted a fundamental tension between Masakhane’s open research ethos and the proprietary restrictions imposed by the dataset’s owners, forcing the project to reconsider its data strategy. 5. Copyright Exceptions and Limitations: The Role of TDM Exceptions and Fair Use Many jurisdictions provide copyright exceptions and limitations to balance creators’ rights with the needs of researchers and innovators. The European Union’s text and data mining (TDM) exceptions and the United States’ Fair Use doctrine are prominent examples. The EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Directive (EU) 2019/790) introduced two mandatory TDM exceptions. The first allows research organizations and cultural heritage institutions to conduct TDM for scientific research, regardless of contractual provisions. The second permits anyone to perform TDM for any purpose, provided the rights holder has not expressly opted out. Recent German case law clarified that an explicit reservation in a website’s terms is sufficient to exclude commercial TDM, but the exception remains robust for research contexts. In the U.S., the Fair Use doctrine allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship, or research. Courts increasingly recognize that using copyrighted works to train AI models can qualify as Fair Use, especially when the use is transformative and does not harm the original work’s market. Had Masakhane operated in the EU or U.S., these exceptions might have provided a legal basis for using JW300 for non-commercial research. However, most African countries lack clear TDM provisions or Fair Use recognition, exposing researchers to greater legal uncertainty and risk. The Masakhane experience underscores the need for African nations to adopt or clarify copyright exceptions that support research and digital innovation. 6. Contract Overrides Contract overrides occur when contractual terms—such as website terms of service—impose restrictions beyond those set by statutory copyright law. In JW300’s case, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website terms explicitly prohibit text and data mining, overriding any potential exceptions or fair use provisions. For Masakhane, this meant that even if their use could be justified under fair use or research exceptions in some jurisdictions, the contractual terms imposed stricter limitations. Only in jurisdictions where statutes prevent contracts from overriding copyright exceptions (such as the EU’s TDM provision for research institutions) could these terms be challenged. This highlights the importance of reviewing all terms of service and data use agreements before using third-party datasets, especially in open, cross-border research projects. 7. Cross-Border Use The cross-border nature of datasets like JW300 adds further legal complexity, especially for open research projects with contributors across multiple countries. Masakhane operates in a pan-African context, with team members and users in different nations. Copyright and data use laws vary widely. What is permissible under fair
- [WIPO Budget Committee Concludes Without Agreement on Indigenous Participation Funding](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-budget-committee-concludes-without-agreement-on-indigenous-participation-funding/): At the close of WIPO’s 39th Program and Budget Committee (PBC) session, a modest yet symbolically significant proposal—to allocate regular budget funds, on an exceptional basis, to support the participation of Indigenous Peoples in sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC)—was withdrawn. Despite wide cross-regional support and a week of intensive consultations, consensus remained elusive. The proposal, introduced initially by Colombia on behalf of GRULAC, aimed to address a persistent problem: the underfunding of the Voluntary Fund, which currently serves as the only dedicated mechanism to support Indigenous and Local Community (IPLC) participation in WIPO negotiations. The initiative would have allowed up to three IPLC representatives to be funded from unallocated regular budget resources—only when the Voluntary Fund lacked resources and under strict procedural safeguards. A cross-regional group including Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, Switzerland, and the African Group expressed support, citing the urgent need for more inclusive representation in negotiations that directly affect Indigenous rights. Mexico later introduced a refined version of the proposal, limiting its application to moments when the Voluntary Fund is depleted and capping participation at three Indigenous representatives per IGC session. The revised language included safeguards: no new assessments, clear reporting obligations, and strict adherence to WIPO’s Financial Regulations. “Guaranteeing the participation of Indigenous Peoples is not just a symbolic gesture,” said the delegate from Mexico. “It’s a basic precondition for our discussions to reflect the reality on which we are supposedly adopting rules.” In withdrawing the proposal, Mexico lamented the “lack of agreement from just a few states,” despite what it called a “balanced measure subject to strict conditions and aligned to the rules of the organization.” The Australian delegation expressed disappointment: “While this proposal could not reach consensus, the discussions this week confirmed a widely shared view on the importance of the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.” Australia further emphasized the constructive tone of the negotiations: “The proposal demonstrated that we can work together and bridge differences across groups.” Canada called the initiative “a valuable proposal and one that provides a creative pathway to supporting the essential participation of Indigenous Peoples as unique voices within the IGC.” Despite broad interregional support, it regretted that the measure could not “generate consensus.” Canada described the proposal as “purpose-driven and limited in scope… financially responsible, transparent, and supported by Member States across regions.” Peru, speaking as a GRULAC member, underscored that “this is a question of principle.” It warned that the IGC’s legitimacy could be undermined “if we cannot hear the voices of the custodians of the knowledge we aim to protect.” The African Group, through Namibia, noted that “the continued lack of funding remains a serious concern and will hinder the effective participation and meaningful contribution of IPLCs.” The group of Like-Minded Countries, represented by Indonesia, echoed this regret, noting that the proposal aimed “to enhance inclusivity and ensure balanced participation… essential for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the process.” Despite such broad support, some delegations raised objections. The United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden opposed using core budget funds for observer participation. Their position, consistently restated throughout the week, was that such support should be confined to the Voluntary Fund or voluntary Member State contributions. The U.S. delegation, in particular, argued that the core budget should not be used to fund non-state actors, raising concerns about precedent and financial governance. Other delegations, such as Japan (on behalf of Group B), Italy, France, and Estonia (on behalf of CEBS), stopped short of opposing the proposal outright but requested additional time to analyze its legal and budgetary implications. “We seek clarity on how such a reallocation could be conducted under WIPO’s Financial Regulations,” noted France. Japan emphasized the need for “specific implementation mechanisms and procedural transparency,” while CEBS said more time was needed to form a group position. Still, many Member States signaled that the proposal had moved the conversation forward. “This is a moment of normative clarification,” said Peru. “The participation of Indigenous Peoples is not an accessory—it is central to the legitimacy of the IGC’s work.” As the Committee adopted its final report, the Chair acknowledged that the proposal had been formally withdrawn. Several delegations, including Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Peru, Namibia (for the African Group), and others, reiterated their continued commitment to Indigenous inclusion and called for renewed contributions to the Voluntary Fund. As WIPO heads into its 66th General Assemblies, the question lingers: Can the organization evolve its financial architecture to match its commitment to inclusive governance? The outcome underscores both the promise and the limitations of consensus-based governance at WIPO. While the proposal did not move forward, it reframed the terms of debate: from whether Indigenous Peoples should be included, to how WIPO can sustainably fund that inclusion within its institutional framework. 
- [No Breakthroughs at WIPO: Budget Committee Defers Core Disputes](https://knowledgegov.org/wipos-pbc-39-ends-with-more-questions-than-answers/): Despite a full agenda and spirited debate, WIPO’s 39th Program and Budget Committee ended with little to show in terms of any concrete modifications to the proposed 2026/2027 Program and Budget. Key issues—including budget transparency, integration of development goals, Indigenous participation, language access, and technical assistance—remained unresolved or were deferred for future negotiation. While Member States voiced the need for reform and greater equity, the session closed without any policy changes, underscoring a familiar pattern of careful dialogue but persistent deadlock at the heart of WIPO’s governance. One of the recurring topics at this year’s session was WIPO’s move from a detailed 31-program budget to a broader 8-sector model. China, Brazil, and Canada, among others, continued to call for more granular reporting—especially on how funds are transferred within and between sectors. The Secretariat defended the new approach as more efficient and coherent, and offered  an ongoing dialogue rather than any immediate changes. For now, the push for greater transparency in budget documents remains unresolved, with Member States requesting more detail in future cycles. The place of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in WIPO’s work also sparked debate. While most countries, including Brazil, Nigeria, and Mexico, insisted that explicit SDG language is appropriate for a UN agency, the United States argued for removing all such references to keep WIPO’s mandate narrowly focused on intellectual property. In the end, references to the SDGs were retained in the approved Program and Budget for 2026/27, reflecting the majority view but signaling an ongoing divide over the agency’s development role. A cross-regional proposal to allow WIPO’s regular budget to support Indigenous participation in the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) if the Voluntary Fund runs dry was another unresolved issue. Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico led the effort in representation of most GRULAC countries, but ultimately the proposal was withdrawn after it became clear there was no consensus, with some Member States wary of setting a precedent. As a result, no change will be made for the 2026/27 biennium, though further consultation is expected. The question of multilingualism in the Brands and Designs Sector was equally contested. China, Russia, Brazil, and others pushed for strong commitments to expand language services and pre-allocate resources for future language additions, arguing that this would promote equity and better align with UN values. However, Group B, CEBS, and others favored a step-by-step approach, avoiding binding commitments. The final text recognizes the value of multilingualism but leaves further expansion and funding decisions to be considered in future working groups. Financial sustainability for the Lisbon System, which covers the international registration of geographical indications, was also on the agenda. The United States called for stricter self-sufficiency and more robust forecasting methods, aiming to prevent cross-subsidization from other, better-resourced Unions. Brazil, France, Egypt, and other developing countries defended the current approach as vital for development objectives. In the absence of consensus, the status quo prevails and the issue will remain under review. Discussions on technical assistance and performance indicators saw Member States, including China, Russia, and Nigeria, calling for improvements—whether through more balanced KPIs across global IP systems or a more proactive, needs-based model for technical assistance. While these points were acknowledged, no formal changes were adopted, and the Secretariat promised only to consider the feedback going forward. Efforts to expand WIPO’s external offices again resulted in a deadlock. Some countries, such as India, Colombia, and Iran, advocated for greater geographic equity and delinking evaluation from expansion. Others, led by Group B and CEBS, insisted that careful evaluation must come first. With no consensus, the issue was deferred to future sessions. There was at least modest progress in the area of oversight and governance. WIPO’s Internal Oversight Division closed 66 recommendations in 2024, drawing praise from Member States. Still, there were calls to accelerate recruitment for key evaluation and investigation roles and to address ongoing concerns around cybersecurity and internal controls. No new oversight mandates were issued, but the Secretariat was urged to maintain its focus on improvement. Given the absence of consensus, the PBC decided to refer several unresolved issues to the upcoming 66th series of WIPO Assemblies for further discussion and decision. These include proposals by the United States to remove all references to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and SDGs from the budget document, to adjust estimated applications and income for the Lisbon System and the budget for the Lisbon Union, and to remove the Development Acceleration Fund and associated references and budget lines. These matters now await further negotiation and possible resolution at the Assembly level. In the end, PBC/39’s proceedings reflect the ongoing complexity of multilateral governance at WIPO. While Member States continue to debate critical issues—transparency, development, inclusion, and accountability—the session closed with more questions than answers. The true test for WIPO will be whether continued dialogue eventually yields the substantive reforms that many are calling for.
- [Highlights from the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium 2025: Principles for Digital Copyright](https://knowledgegov.org/highlights-from-the-global-expert-network-on-copyright-user-rights-symposium-2025-principles-for-digital-copyright/): 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.
- [Promoting AI for Good in the Global South - Highlights](https://knowledgegov.org/promoting-ai-for-good-in-the-global-south-highlights/): Across Africa and Latin America, researchers are using Artificial Intelligence to solve pressing problems: from addressing health challenges and increasing access to information for underserved communities, to preserving languages and culture. This wave of “AI for Good” in the Global South faces a major difficulty: how to access good quality training data, which is scarce in the region and often subject to copyright restrictions. The most prominent AI companies are in the Global North and increasingly in China. These companies generally operate in jurisdictions with more permissive copyright exceptions, which enable Text and Data Mining (TDM), often the first step in training AI language models. The scale of data extraction and exploitation by a handful of AI mega-corporations has raised two pressing concerns: What about researchers and developers in the Global South and what about the creators and communities whose data is being used to train the AI models? Ethical AI: An Opportunity for the Global South? At a side event in April at WIPO, we showcased some models of ‘ethical AI’ aimed at: The event took place in Geneva in April 2025. This week we released a 15 minute highlights video. Training data and copyright issues At the start of the event, we cited two Text and Data Mining projects in Africa which have had difficulty in accessing training data due to copyright. The first was the Masakhane Project in Kenya, which used translations of the bible to develop Natural Language Processing tools in African languages. The second was the Data Sciences for Social Impact group at the University of Pretoria in South Africa who want to develop a health chatbot using broadcast TV shows as the training data. Data Farming, The NOODL license, Copyright Reform The following speakers then presented cutting edge work on how to solve copyright and other legal and ethical challenges facing public interest AI in Africa: The AI Act in Brazil: Remunerating Creators Carolina Miranda of the Ministry of Culture in Brazil indicated that her government is focused on passing a new law to ensure that those creators in Brazil whose work is used to train AI models are properly remunerated. Ms Miranda described how Big Tech in the Global North fails to properly pay creators in Brazil and elsewhere for the exploitation of their work. She confirmed that discussions of the AI Act are still ongoing and that non profit scientific research will be exempt from the remuneration provision. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International suggested that to avoid the tendency of data providers to build a moat around their datasets, a useful model is the Common European Data Spaces being established by the European Commission. Four factors to Evaluate AI for Good At the end of the event we put forward the following four discriminating factors which might be used to evaluate to what extent copyright exceptions and limitations should allow developers and researchers to use training data in their applications: The panel was convened by the Via Libre Foundation in Argentina and ReCreate South Africa with support from the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) at American University, and support from the Arcadia Fund. We are currently researching case studies on Text and Data Mining (TDM) and AI for Good in Africa and the Global South. Ben Cashdan is an economist and TV producer in Johannesburg and the Executive Director of Black Stripe Foundation. He also co-founded ReCreate South Africa.
- [WIPO Program and Budget Committee : US opposes all references to the SDGS from the Proposed Program and Budget for 2026/2027](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-program-and-budget-committee-us-opposes-all-references-to-the-sdgs-from-the-proposed-program-and-budget-for-2026-2027/): 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
- [WTO: Brazil, India and Peru call for the inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in the WTO TRIPS Agreement](https://knowledgegov.org/wto-brazil-india-and-peru-call-for-the-inclusion-of-a-mandatory-disclosure-requirement-in-the-wto-trips-agreement/): This post was originally published on KEI Online by Thiru On 18 March 2025, the World Trade Organization (WTO) published a communication (IP/C/W/719) by Brazil, India, and Peru entitled, “Revising discussions on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and Convention on Biological Diversity“. Brazil, India, and Peru have called for the inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in the TRIPS Agreement based on a 2011 proposal (TN/C/W/59) by Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Peru, Thailand, the ACP Group and the African Group in 2011 to amend Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement. The paper makes no explicit reference to digital sequence information (DSI). While this topic was broached at the March 2025 TRIPS Council meeting, this topic will be addressed at the next TRIPS Council meeting (26-27 June 2025). In the chapeau of the March 2025 paper, the demandeurs (Brazil, India, and Peru) articulated the interplay between traditional medical knowledge, modern medicine, traditional and complementary medicine use, the misappropriation of genetic resources, intellectual property, and biopiracy: 2. A WTO-WIPO-WHO joint study of 2020 titled ‘Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation’ notes the profound influence of traditional medical knowledge on modern medicine. With 88% of WHO members acknowledging traditional and complementary medicine use, international trade in these products is growing rapidly. However, the study notes that this has come on the back of the rampant misappropriation of genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (TK). Some prominent examples of biopiracy include neem (India), turmeric (India), kava (Pacific Islands-Fiji and Vanuatu), ayahuasca (Brazil), quinoa (Peru), and hoodia (South Africa). Assessing the economic loss to developing countries due to biopiracy is a complex task involving multiple factors, such as the loss of intellectual property (IP) rights, restricted access to genetic resources, negative impact on traditional industries, and discouragement of research and development in the country of origin. In relation to biodiversity, the co-sponsors of IP/C/W/719 quoted a WHO Global Report on Traditional and Complementary Medicine from 2019, “developing countries, especially those with rich biodiversity in Asia, Africa, and South America, supply approximately two-thirds of the plants used in western and global medical systems”. Furthermore, the demandeurs noted: While recent data is publicly unavailable, a 1999 report by the United Nations Development Program estimates that if a 2% royalty were charged on genetic resources developed by local innovators in the South, the North would owe over USD 300 million in unpaid royalties for farmers’ crop seeds and more than USD 5 billion in unpaid royalties for medicinal plants. In the 719 paper, Brazil, India, and Peru described the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol as having a “significant shortcoming” noting that the CBD and Nagoya Protocol do not “link these requirements with the patent system, resulting in the grant of erroneous patents to biopiracy-based inventions and lack of enforcement of the PIC and ABS commitments, particularly in a transboundary context.” 4. The CBD (1992) marked the first step towards recognising the sovereign rights of states over their biological resources. It conditioned access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge with prior informed consent (PIC) and access and benefit sharing (ABS) with local communities, who are the rightful holders of such knowledge. The Nagoya Protocol, which came into force in 2014, further developed the legal framework established under the CBD to operationalise the requirements of PIC and ABS. A significant shortcoming of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol is that it does not link these requirements with the patent system, resulting in the grant of erroneous patents to biopiracy-based inventions and lack of enforcement of the PIC and ABS commitments, particularly in a transboundary context. The 719 paper points to the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, adopted in May 2024, as the culmination of over two decades of work to address some of the shortcomings in the CBD and Nagoya Protocol. 6. The WIPO treaty requires patent applicants to disclose the source of the genetic resources and traditional knowledge on which their claimed invention is based. The disclosure requirement, if complied with by the applicant, would aid the patent office in conducting a prior art search. It would help prevent the patenting of inventions based on genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge that do not fulfil the requirements of novelty and inventiveness. Genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge obtained from one country are often used as a basis for seeking a patent in another. In such situations, the disclosure requirement would make the patent office the checkpoint to identify instances of transboundary utilisation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. While hailing the WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, the 719 demandeurs are cognizant that the WIPO treaty “does not offer recourse to international dispute settlement if states fail to establish the disclosure requirement under their domestic patent systems”. The demandeurs call for the amending of the TRIPS Agreement to integrate the mandatory disclosure requirement into the WTO’s institutional architecture, including its binding dispute settlement system. 7. While a progressive instrument, the WIPO treaty could be further strengthened by integrating these commitments under the TRIPS Agreement. First, the WIPO treaty does not offer recourse to international dispute settlement if states fail to establish the disclosure requirement under their domestic patent systems. Second, the WIPO treaty does not address the requirements to obtain PIC under mutually agreed terms (MAT). Hence, even though the treaty introduces the disclosure requirement, it does not provide for compliance with the ABS requirements. The WIPO treaty shifts the burden to ensure compliance on the government agencies and local communities of the provider country, who must monitor published patent applications worldwide to ensure compliance and enforce ABS through PIC under MAT. Thus, amending the TRIPS Agreement to integrate the mandatory disclosure requirement could subject this commitment to the WTO’s legal framework. Further, the TRIPS Agreement could build on the WIPO treaty to require evidence of PIC and benefit-sharing arrangements as a prerequisite for patent grant or commercialization, thereby reinforcing the
- [Ensuring Indigenous Participation at WIPO: GRULAC Proposal at PBC/38](https://knowledgegov.org/ensuring-indigenous-participation-at-wipo-grulac-proposal-at-pbc-38/): 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.
- [Fair Use Isn’t Optional: Judges Can Help Reclaim It for Creators](https://knowledgegov.org/fair-use-isnt-optional-judges-can-help-reclaim-it-for-creators/): 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
- [Malaysia-EFTA Economic Partnership Agreement (MEEPA) Would Tie Malaysia’s Hands on Access to Medicines](https://knowledgegov.org/malaysia-efta-economic-partnership-agreement-meepa-would-tie-malaysias-hands-on-access-to-medicines/): Brook K. Baker, Prof. Emeritus, Northeastern U. School of Law, Senior Policy Analyst, Health GAP The MEEPA is a tentatively concluded trade agreement between Malaysia and EFTA (the European Free Trade Association of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) that may soon be signed by the Malaysian government. Malaysian negotiators have accepted intellectual property (IP) protections above those required by the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which will adversely and needlessly affect affordable and equitable access to medicines in Malaysia for generations.  The Malaysian government should instruct its negotiators to reject all of the TRIPS-plus measures discussed below. The TRIPS-plus demands of EFTA are in line with similar demands from the European Union and the United States in their trade agreements that seek to extend monopoly power for Northern biopharmaceutical companies.  These companies seek to expand IP that prevents competition so that they can impose exorbitant (and often secret) prices on middle-income countries like Malaysia.  The result is gross profiteering at the expense of governments, insurers, and patients, who are often priced out of the market. Contrary to MEEPA Article 7.1, Malaysia Should be Permitted to Retain its Existing Right to Issue Compulsory Licences for Failure to Work a Patent Locally Article 7.1 of MEEPA would prevent Malaysia from relying on Section 49 of its Patent Law to issue compulsory licences for failure to work the patent through local manufacture when such manufacture is feasible. Article 7.1 of MEEPA states: ‘In line with TRIPS Article 27 (1), importation and offering on the market shall be considered a way of exploiting the patent in the country of importation. Accordingly, a compulsory licence may not be granted on the sole ground that a product protected by a patent or a product incorporating a patented process is being imported and not locally produced or used.’ In contrast, Section 49(1) of the Malaysian Patents Act states: At any time after the expiration of three years from the grant of a patent, or four years from the filing date of the patent application, whichever is the later, any person may apply to the Registrar for a compulsory licence under any of the following circumstances: (a)  where there is no production of the patented product or application of the patented process in Malaysia without any legitimate reason; (b)  where there is no product produced in Malaysia under the patent for sale in any domestic market, or there are some but they do not meet public demand without any legitimate reason. Article 5A(2) of the Paris Convention, which is incorporated by reference into the TRIPS Agreement via Article 2.1, authorizes countries to provide for compulsory licences in case of failure by the patentee to work the patent domestically. [1] There are time limits affecting when such licences can be issued: the last of either four years from the filing of the patent application or three years after it grant. Although the scope of working rules is not without some controversy,[2] an interpretation that local working requires at least some degree of in-country manufacturing and is TRIPS compliant, at least with respect to the issuance of compulsory licences, has broad support.[3] India, Brazil, Malaysia itself, and other countries, including the Philippines, still have laws allowing compulsory licenses when a patent is not worked via local manufacture or licensed to a local producer.[4]  Likewise, Malaysia should fight to retain the right to issue compulsory licences on the grounds that a patent is not manufactured locally even though it is economically feasible to do so.  Allowing compulsory licenses for failure to manufacture locally enables Malaysia to secure technology transfer, to expand its biopharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, and to help ensure security of supply, including it cases like the COVID-19 pandemic when foreign producers preferentially supplied high-income country demand. Contrary to MEEPA Article 7.3(a), Malaysia Should Maintain the Right to Have an Exception to Patent Rights for Therapeutic Uses of Patented Products. Article 7.3(a) of the MEEPA IP Chapter permits excluding methods of treatment from patentability: “Each Party may also exclude from patentability: any invention of a method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or for diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body.”  But subsection (a) also adds a disabling exception to this exclusion that would ultimately require Malaysia to issue evergreening use patents on biopharmaceutical products: “This provision (i.e. the exclusion) shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.” Article 27.3(a) of the TRIPS Agreement allows each WTO Member State, including Malaysia, to exclude from patentability: “diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals.”  This exclusion has been consistently interpreted to allow countries to disallow patents on uses, including new uses, of previously patented biopharmaceutical products.  As a result, many countries limit patents on new or additional uses of known substances (in the pharmaceutical context new indications), and many experts and expert reports have recommended that low- and middle-income countries adopt per se exclusions for patents on new uses or methods of use.[5]  Exclusion of new use or method of use patents is expressly permitted by Article 27.3(a) of the TRIPS Agreement, which permits exclusions of patents on “diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods.” Under this approach, “there is no real difference between patent claims relating to the use of a substance and those relating to a therapeutic method: in both cases a new medical activity is claimed, i.e. a new way of using one or more known products.”[6] Andean Community patent law explicitly stipulates that both products and processes already patented and included in the state of the art may not be the subject of a new patent on the sole ground of having been put to a use different from that originally contemplated by the initial patent.  India explicitly prohibits patenting of all new uses and methods of use under section 3(d) of its Amended (2005) Patents Act as does Argentina, Pakistan, and the
- [WIPO-IGC 51st Sessions Breaks Jinx, Recommends Mandate Renewal](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-igc-51st-sessions-breaks-jinx-recommends-mandate-renewal/): by Chidi Oguamanam* First Published by ABS Canada here. Republished on Infojustice with the permission of the author. Delegates to the World Intellectual Property Organization Special Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC) resumed and concluded their last deliberations for the 2024-2025 biennium on May 30-June 5. Most of the first day was used for the traditional opening statements through which major negotiating blocs and delegations signalled to one another their expectations for the 6-day meeting. No Appetite for Impasse The 51st session was unique in many ways. It was co-chaired by Anna Vuopala (Finland) and Erika Patriota (Brazil). Respectively, each of the two Chairs superintended over two failed IGCs – IGC 49 and IGC 50. Their co-chairing of the last and final sessions of the IGC for the biennium was expected to draw from their experiences from the two failed previous sessions in a row. The odds were in their favour. Neither of the hardliner demandeur nations or blocs nor their non-demandeur counterparts were disposed to filibuster negotiations. Any such outcome would potentially result in non-renewal of the IGC mandate for the next biennium (2026-2027).  It was clear to the delegates that mandate renewal was the biggest issue on the agenda listed under item 6 for the session (Taking Stock of Progress and Making a Recommendation to the General Assembly). Tension on Rights-based and Measures-based Approaches Remains Yet, despite the priority of mandate renewal, there was no let up to the tensions that partly led to the two failed IGCs. The United States, Japan and their Group B allies as well as CEBs, and Switzerland were bent on enumerating a litany of measures in the text in preference to rights. They construed a measures-based approach as having priority over a rights-based approach to the protection of TK and TCEs. At the 50th session, the US delegation, with the active support of Japan, Korea, Canada and Switzerland introduced the language of “safeguarding” to further entrench their measures-based approach and conceivably to water their expectation for a soft and non-binding instrument. This sentiment is also shared by the EU as a bloc. The attempt to center a measures-based approach stoked tension and resistance on the part of the broad coalition of the Indigenous Caucus, African Group, Group of Like-Minded Countries, China, the Group of Latin American and Carbbean Countries, some members of the Asian Pacific Group and New Zealand. It also nearly derailed the 51st sessions with demandeurs insisting on blocking those safeguarding aspects of measures-based languages regarding TK and TCEs. Nigeria deplored the deliberate attempt at regime duplication as a ploy to undermine the IGC mandate on TK and TCEs which is clear on effective protection of the subject matters. For Nigeria and the Africa Group, safeguarding of TK and TCEs is dealt with at the UNESCO. As a compromise, those textual drafts on safeguarding and measures-based were taken on board by the three facilitators of the 51st sessions (Ghana, US and Colombia) in an ambiguous procedural circumstance and kept in square brackets under “Alternative X”. This was to preserve the sanctity of the Facilitators’ Alternatives carried over from the IGC 49 texts (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/4; WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/5 which was the default working document and same as from IGC 47) around which there remains a broad coalescing of understanding. Thus, the two texts (TK and TCEs) from the 51st session did little to close gaps. In sum, the delegations agreed on modest progress on the two texts of the TK and TCEs from the 51st sessions. The progress included modest striking out of a few texts that did not have the backing of any interested bloc as well as the bracketing of the US and allies-backed Alternative X.  The remaining two days were devoted to mandate negotiations. United States-led Charge to Weaken IGC Mandate The mandate was negotiated through a combination of deliberations at the informal sessions with ratifications at the plenary. The United States delegation left no doubt regarding their determination to limit the IGC meetings and to whittle down its mandate, a move that was strongly supported by Japan, Switzerland and some Group B allies. The United States went as far as proposing a maximum of two meetings, arguing for resetting the IGC for lack of progress. From the perspective of demandeurs, if there was lack of progress, the blame lies with non-demandeurs whose strategy for scuttling progress remained obvious. For the demandeurs, there was need to keep the momentum created by the two recent WIPO treaties of 2024 – the GR Treaty and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty. These developments called for more meetings and not less. Framing GRs in the TK/TCEs Mandate After GR Treaty In addition to different narratives of progress and dissonance over the number of meetings, another issue of contention for the mandate was how to frame GRs into the mandate given the conclusion of the GR treaty. For IPLCs through the Indigenous Caucus, the conceptual holism of TK, TCEs and GRs is not undermined by the fact that a GR treaty has been concluded within the framework of patents. For the Caucus, the Africa Group, GRULAC and LMCs and other demandeurs, discussions about GRs cannot be severed from TK and TCEs notwithstanding the conclusion of the GR treaty.  As a compromise position, delegates agreed that GRs will continue to be part of the IGC mandate, save that there will be no normative negotiations capable of reopening the GR text. Debate over an Evidence-based Method The next most prominent issue in the mandate negotiations was the palpable suspicion among demandeurs and non-demandeurs on the language regarding collection of evidence to inform negotiations.  Evidence-based methodology has been an integral part of the mandate and the work of the IGC. Demandeurs insisted that there is a deluge of real-world evidence and studies, now increasingly magnified by emergent national and regional regimes on the protection of GRs, TK and TCEs. They maintained that the tendency by non-demandeurs to fixate on an
- [The NOODL license: Licensing African datasets to support research and AI in the Global South](https://knowledgegov.org/the-noodl-license-licensing-african-datasets-to-support-research-and-ai-in-the-global-south/): With the increasing prominence of AI in all sectors of our economy and society, access to training data has become an important topic for practitioners and policy makers. In the Global North, a small number of large corporations with deep pockets have gained a head start in AI development, using training data from all over the world. But what about the creators and the communities whose creative works and languages are being used to train AI models? Shouldn’t they also derive some benefit? And what about AI developers in Africa and the Global South, who often struggle to gain access to training data? In an effort to try to level the playing field and ensure that AI supports the public interest, legal experts and practitioners in the Global South are developing new tools and protocols which aim to tackle these questions. One approach is to come up with new licenses for datasets. In a pathbreaking initiative, lawyers at the University of Strathmore in Nairobi have teamed up with their counterparts at the University of Pretoria to develop the NOODL license. NOODL  is a tiered license, building on Creative Commons, but with preferential terms for developers in Africa and the Global South. It also opens the door for recognition and a flow of benefits to creators and communities.  NOODL was inspired by researchers using African language works to develop Natural Language Processing systems, for purposes such as translation and language preservation. In this presentation, Dr Melissa Omino, the Head of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT) at Strathmore University in Nairobi, Kenya, talks about the NOODL license.  This presentation was originally delivered at the Conference on Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa and the Global South, in Johannesburg in February 2025. The full video of the presentation is available here.  Licensing African Datasets to ensure support for Research and AI in the Global South Dr Melissa Omino Introduction [Ben Cashdan]: We have Dr. Melissa Omino from CIPIT at the University of Strathmore in Nairobi to talk a little bit about a piece of work that they’re doing to try and ensure that the doors are not closed, that there is some opportunity to go on doing AI, doing research in Africa, but not necessarily throwing the doors open to everybody to do everything with all our stuff. Tell us a little bit about that.  [Dr Melissa Omino] Well, I really like that introduction. Yes, and that was the thinking behind it. Also, it’s interesting that I’m sitting next to Vukosi [Marivate, Professor of Computer Science at University of Pretoria] because Vukosi has a great influence on why the license exists. You’ve heard him talking about Masakhane and the language data that they needed. In the previous ReCreate conference, where we talked about the JW300 dataset, I hope you all know about that. If you don’t know, this is a plug for the ReCreate YouTube channel so that you can go and look at that story. That’s a Masakhane story. Background: The JW300 Dataset To make sure that we’re all together in the room, I’ll give you a short synopsis about the JW300 dataset. Vukosi, you can jump in if I get something wrong. Essentially, Masakhane, as a group of African AI developers, were conducting text data mining online for African languages so that they could build AI tools that solve African problems. We just had a wonderful example right now about the weather in Zulu, things like that. That’s what they wanted to cater for and the solutions they wanted to create. They went ahead and found [that there are] very minimal datasets or data available online for African problem solving, basically in African languages. But they did find one useful resource, which was on the Jehovah’s Witness website, where it had a lot of African languages because they had translated the Bible into different African languages. They were utilizing this in what was called the JW300 dataset. However, somehow, I don’t know how, you guys thought about copyright. They thought about copyright after text data mining. They thought, hey, can you actually use this dataset? That’s how they approached it. The first thing we did was look at the website. Copyright notices excluding text and data mining Most websites have a copyright notice, and a copyright notice lets you know what you can and can’t do with the copyright material that is presented on the website. The copyright notice on the Jehovah’s Witness website specifically excluded text data mining for the data that was there. We went back to Masakhane and said, sorry, you can’t use all this great work that you’ve collected. You can’t use it because it belongs to Jehovah’s Witness, and Jehovah’s Witness is an American company registered in Pennsylvania. They asked us, how is it that this is African languages from different parts of Africa, and the copyright belongs to an American company, and we cannot use the language? I said, well, that’s how the law works. And so they abandoned the JW300 dataset. This created a new avenue of research because Masakhane did not give up. They became innovative and decided to collect their own language datasets. And not only is Masakhane doing this, Kencorpus is also doing this by collecting their own language datasets. Building a Corpus of African Language Data But where do you get African languages from? People. You go to the people to collect the language, right? If you’re lucky, you can find a text that has the language, but not all African languages will have the text. Your first source would be the communities that speak the African languages, right? So you’re funded because collecting language is expensive – Vukosi can confirm.  He’s collecting 3,000 languages or 3,000 hours of languages. His budget is crazy to collect that. So you collect the language. You go to the community, record them however you want to do that. Copyright experts will tell you the minute you
- [The Great Flip: Can Opt-Outs be a Permitted Exception? Part II](https://knowledgegov.org/the-great-flip-can-opt-outs-be-a-permitted-exception-part-ii/): By Lokesh Vyas and Yogesh Badwal. This post was originally published on Spicy IP. In the previous part, we examined whether the opt-out mechanism, as claimed in Gen-AI litigations, constitutes a prohibited formality for the “enjoyment and exercise” of authors’ rights under Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention. And we argued no. In this post, we address the second question: Can opting out be permitted as an exception under the three-step test outlined in Article 9(2)? If you haven’t seen the previous post, some context is helpful. (Or, you can skip this part) As we mentioned in the last post, “Many generative AI models are trained on vast datasets (which can also be copyrighted works) scraped from the internet, often without the explicit consent of content creators, raising legal, ethical, and normative questions. To address this, some AI developers have created and claimed “opt-out mechanisms,” allowing copyright holders or creators to ask that their works not be used in training (e.g., OpenAI’s Policy FAQs).  Opt out under the Copyright Exception A  question arises here: What are the other ways opt-out mechanisms can be justified if the states want to make a mechanism like that? One may say that opt-outs can be valid under the Berne Convention if an exception (e.g., an AI training exception with an inbuilt opt-out possibility) passes the three-step test. And this way, opt-outs can be regarded as a legitimate limit on holders’ exclusive rights. For reference, the three-step test was created in the 1967 revision conference, later followed in Article 13 of TRIPS and Article 10 of WCT. The test creates a room for the nations to make certain exceptions and limitations. Article 9(2) authorises the member countries “to permit the reproduction” of copyright works in 1.) “certain special cases, provided that such reproduction 2.) does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and 3.) does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author”.  Although we don’t delve into the test, how opting out can be a part of an exception can be understood from an example. For instance, as Ginsburg exemplifies, if a country states that authors lose their translation rights unless they explicitly reserve or opt out of them, it would violate Article 5(2) because such rights under Berne must apply automatically, without formalities. This actually happened with Turkey in 1931, whose application for membership was rejected due to the condition of deposit for translation rights in its domestic law. (See Ricketson and Ginsburg’s commentary, paragraph 17.18.)  But if an exception (like allowing radio retransmissions in bars) already complies with Berne’s provisions and applies equally to all authors, then letting authors opt out of that exception would give them more rights than Berne requires. And this should be permissible.  Notably, introducing an exception, such as for AI training, must first pass the three-step test. Opt out can be built therein. However, remember that every exception presupposes a prima facie infringement. Within that frame, the opt-out offers the author a chance not to lose. Thus, it creates an inadvertent expansion of her rights beyond the convention.  Additionally, opt-out can fare well with the three-step test due to the factor of “equitable remuneration to authors.” As Gompel notes in his piece, “…‘opt out’ eases compliance with the three-step test because it mitigates some of the adverse effects of the proposed copyright exception. That is, it enables authors to retain exclusivity by opting out of the compensation scheme.”  Another question also exists: Did Berne contain particular provisions that directly allowed an opt-out arrangement? Well, the answer is Yes. Does opting out equal the right to reserve under Article 10bis? Not really. Setting aside the debate over formality and the three-step test, the Berne Convention contains an opt-out-style provision, albeit limited, where authors must explicitly reserve their rights to avoid specific uses of their work. Relevant here is Article 10bis of the Convention, which allows member countries to create exceptions for the reproduction of works published in newspapers on, among other topics, current economic, political, or religious issues. However, it also allows the authors to ‘expressly reserve’ their work from reproduction. Indian Copyright Act, 1957 also contains a similar provision in Section 52(1)(m). Interestingly, the right to reserve exploitation has been part of the Berne Convention since its earliest draft. It first appeared in Article 7 alongside the provision on formalities, which was numbered Article 2 in the draft. Article 7 became Article 9(2) in 1908, when formalities were prohibited and the no-formality rule entered the Berne Convention.  This historical pairing raises a strong presumption: opting out of a specific mode of exploitation cannot automatically be deemed a prohibited formality. Ginsburg confirms this, citing the 1908 Berlin Conference, which clarified that the reservation/opt-out clause (then Article 9(2)) was not considered a formality. But can this special setting (created in Article 10bis(1)) be used to open the door for general opt-out AI exception measures by countries? We doubt it. As the negotiation history of the 1967 revision conference suggests, Article 10bis(1) is a lex specialis, i.e., a narrow and specific exception (See page 1134 of Negotiations, Vol. II). This means that it may derogate from the general no-formalities rule, but it cannot serve as a model for broader declaratory measures.  Conclusion The upshot is that opt-outs may be de facto formalities. However, not all formalities are prohibited under the Berne Convention. The convention enables countries to make some formalities on “the extent of protection.” Three key points emerge from this discussion: One, opting out may not be a formality that prevents the enjoyment and exercise of rights, as Gompel and Sentfeln confirm, and Ginsburg argues otherwise. Two, it can be a part of an AI training exception if such an exception can pass the three-step test. When applying this test, opting out would support the factor of equitable remuneration. Three, Article 10(bis) on the right to reserve cannot be read expansively. While it can be used to justify the three-step test as Sentfleben does, it might not be extended generally. Okay. That’s it from our end. À bientôt’ Primary Sources:-
- [The Great Flip: Is Opt Out a Prohibited Formality under the Berne Convention? Part I](https://knowledgegov.org/the-great-flip-is-opt-out-a-prohibited-formality-under-the-berne-convention-part-i/): By Lokesh Vyas and Yogesh Badwal. This post was originally published on Spicy IP. Bonjour, Lately, we’ve been cogitating on this curious concept called the “opt-out”, which has been cropping up with increasing frequency in generative AI litigation, including in India. The EU and the UK are taking the idea seriously and considering giving it statutory teeth. On the surface, it is sold as a middle path, a small price to pay for “balance” in the system. However, at least prima facie, it seems like a legal absurdity that fractures its modern foundational logic, where authors receive default copyright without any conditions. The opt-out model, the argument goes, reintroduces formality through the back door, a de facto formality of sorts. This shifts the burden onto authors and rights holders to actively monitor or manage their works to avoid unintended inclusion in the AI training. There have been questions about whether such an opt-out scheme is compatible with the Berne Convention, which prohibits the same under Article 5(2), e.g., here, here, and here.  Given the complex nature of this issue and the fact that many such discussions happen behind paywalls, making them inaccessible to the public, we thought it would be beneficial to share our ideas on this topic and invite further reflection. This two-part post mainly focuses on the legality of opting out without addressing its implementability and applicability, which raises several questions (e.g., as discussed recently in Martin Sentfleben’s post). In short, we probe whether opt-outs violate the Berne Convention—the first international copyright law treaty binding on all members of the TRIPS and WCT.  We answer it through two questions and discuss each one separately. First, is opt-out a prohibited formality for the “enjoyment and exercise” of authors’ rights under Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention? Two, can it be permitted as an exception under the three-step test under Article 9(2)? We answer the first question in the negative and the second in the positive. Additionally, we also examine whether Berne already has a provision that can allow this without looking at the details.  This post addresses the first question. What Makes Opts Outs So Amusing – The Flip? Many generative AI models are trained on vast datasets, which can also include copyrighted works scraped from the internet without the explicit consent of content creators, raising legal, ethical, and normative concerns. To address this, some AI developers have created and claimed “opt-out mechanisms,” allowing copyright holders or creators to ask that their works not be used in training (e.g., OpenAI’s Policy FAQs).  Herein lies the catch: it requires authors and copyright holders to explicitly say “No” to training by adding a robots.txt tag to their website with specific directives that disallow web crawlers from accessing their content. (E.g., see this OpenFuture’s guide here) Thus, instead of creators being protected by default, they are supposed to opt out to prevent exploitation. One could say that this flips the logic of copyright on its head–from a presumption of protection to a presumption of permission. But that’s not so simple.  Notably, opting out is not a novel argument. In fact, it can be dated back at least to the 1960s in the Nordic countries’ model of “Extended Collective Licensing” (ECL), which mandates collective licensing while preserving the author’s right to opt out. Other notable academic literature on opt-out can be found here, here, here, and here, dating back over two decades. Swaraj also covered this issue a decade ago. In particular, we must acknowledge the scholarship of Jane Ginsburg, Martin Sentfleben, and Stef van Gompel, who have significantly influenced our thinking on the topic. Two Key Questions: Opt out as a Formality and opt out under a permitted Exception Formality Argument first.  Here, the argument goes that the opt-out is a prohibited formality under Article 5(2) and should not be allowed. However, we doubt it. Let’s parse the provision first. Which states: “(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.” (Authors’ emphasis) For context, the provision pertains to “Rights Guaranteed outside the Country of Origin” for both national and foreign authors. And the question of no-formality pertains particularly to foreign authors. In other words, by removing formality requirements in the country where protection is claimed, the provision enabled authors to automatically receive protection without needing to satisfy foreign formalities. This matters because while countries can impose conditions on their own nationals, it’s generally assumed that they will not treat their own authors worse than foreign ones. The post follows this presumption: if a country cannot burden foreign authors, it’s unlikely to impose stricter terms on its own people. Although the removal of formalities had been discussed in the international copyright law context as early as the 1858 Brussels Conference, an important event in the development of international copyright law, it was not implemented until 1908. This change addressed practical difficulties, including identifying the “country of origin” when a work was published in multiple countries, and the challenges courts faced in enforcing rights without formalities. (See International Bureau’s Monthly Magazine, January 1910) Tellingly, while a country can make formalities for its people, it cannot do so for foreign authors. It’s generally assumed that a country would not obligate its authors more than it does to foreign authors. Textual Tensions of Article 5(2) While the phrase “any formality” in the first line of the provision might suggest that all kinds of formalities—including de facto ones like opt-out mechanisms—are prohibited, that is arguably not the case. We say this because the provision is divided into two parts, and the prohibition on formalities applies only to the first part, which is germane to enjoying and exercising rights. The second part of the provision, beginning with “Consequently”, gives leeway to the states wherein they can make formalities regarding the ‘extent of protection’
- [US Proposes Limiting IGC Meetings and Mandate](https://knowledgegov.org/us-proposes-limiting-igc-meetings-and-mandate/): The United States delegation, in its opening statement to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, expressed its desire to limit the activities and mandate of the Committee. The US statement, made at the 51st meeting of the Committee, recalled that the last two meetings failed to produce a common text of an agreement on traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) for the next meeting to work on. At the 49th meeting, the Like Minded Countries Group of developing countries supporting the IGC’s work blocked further use of a complex facilitator’s text produced at that meeting that contained a large number of newly competing provisions on most of the draft’s topics. At the 50th meeting, first the US and then Nigeria blocked further consideration of a consolidated text that combined draft documents on TCEs and on TK and contained several proposed changes that would threaten the desire by some for a binding and rights based approach. The US statement cited this lack of “tangible progress on textual negotiations” as evidence of “significant divergence among Member States on the purpose of the IGC and its desired outcomes” which “warrants taking a step back and reflecting on where we are going with these negotiations.”  The IGC is not a standing committee, which means that the General Assembly must reapprove a mandate for the Committee to continue work. That mandate, for the coming General Assembly meeting in July, will be negotiated at the 51st IGC. In this context, the US opined that “the next mandate should schedule fewer sessions,” and suggested that the Committee move from the current three meetings per year to just one.  The US statement is reprinted below in full. Other countries and groups supported renewing the mandate and holding three meetings per year. The US statement indicates that the negotiation over the mandate may be hard fought. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Chair. As we discussed potential renewal of the mandate, we should keep in mind the last two IGC meetings, IGC 49 and 50, ended with no tangible progress on textual negotiations. As we mentioned this morning, this came at great expense of time and money for the WIPO Secretariat, Member States and accredited observers. This lack of progress reflects the significant divergence among Member States on the purpose of the IGC and its desired outcomes. For example, we have not even been able to agree on the basic issue of whether the TK and TCE text should reflect the views of all Member States. In our view, this lack of tangible progress warrants taking a step back and reflecting on where we are going with these negotiations. The lack of tangible progress also warrants moving the IGC in a more productive and less contentious direction. This mandate renewal discussion provides an opportunity to reset IGC dynamics which is needed if the IGC is to operate in an effective manner. To that end, the next mandate should schedule fewer sessions. It should also require the use of real world scenarios including case studies during Committee sessions to rejuvenate and refocus our discussions and to encourage participants to have a constructive exchange of views. And the next mandate should also reaffirm that all Member State proposals will be reflected in working text and along those lines should reference the reality that currently exists, namely that Member States have widely divergent positions. I will briefly elaborate on the number of meetings in the biennium. The United States calls on the IGC to recommend to the General Assembly that the mandate reduce the number of sessions in the next biennium. In our view, this will lead to better meeting preparation and attendance which will hopefully result in more productive engagement and forward progress for the Committee. Fewer meetings will also help to temper expectations given the wide divergence in views among Member States in terms of priorities, working methodologies and acceptable outcomes. Most WIPO bodies hold their meetings once a year. It’s time to bring the IGC in line with that standard. Consequently, the next biennial mandate should schedule no more than two IGC sessions for the biennium, one session per year. Next, the mandate should continue to reflect the preservation of separate texts and work streams for TK and TCEs. The mandate should also retain language on taking an evidence-based approach, having a Member State driven process, providing examples of national experiences and adopting a work program based on open and inclusive working methods. We would like Member States to agree that proposals related to IGC work streams, including those directed to biodiversity issues, should be raised in the IGC and not in WIPO’s technical bodies such as technical Committees and working groups. Over the last year, several technical bodies at WIPO have faced proposals that are duplicative of IGC discussions. This has created unnecessary confusion in those bodies and distracted them from their properly mandated work. In our view, these proposals belong only in the IGC. Participants would be confused and express opposition if patent proposals were raised in the SCCR or updates to the international patent classification were proposed in the Madrid Working Group. Proposing GR, TK and TCE-oriented changes in other bodies or WIPO contexts is no different and ignores the jurisdictional integrity of WIPO bodies. The United States believes ensuring discussions are not taking place in duplicative manners across WIPO bodies is a critical consideration in any mandate outcome moving forward. Neither the TK nor TCE subject matter is ready for a Diplomatic Conference. Instead, the current texts reflect widely divergent positions. The IGC needs to continue the discussion and negotiation process. With or without brackets, the wide range of alternatives in the working text is a compelling reminder of just how far apart Member States are on every critical aspect of these discussions. Consequently, at this time, the United States cannot support a recommendation to the WIPO General Assembly that it convene
- [EIFL publishes new provision on Secondary Publication Rights](https://knowledgegov.org/eifl-publishes-new-provision-on-secondary-publication-rights/): EIFL Draft Law on Copyright On May 27, 2025, EIFL launched an updated version of its Draft Law on Copyright, featuring a new provision on Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) (more information about the process can be found here). The new provision reads as follows:  This provision is part of the EIFL Draft Law on Copyright, a “practical guide to assist librarians, policy-makers and legislators when copyright laws are being updated.” The guide aims to support libraries and is continually updated considering recent policy and legislative developments and the impact of new technologies.  Secondary Publication Rights According to Angelopoulos (2022, p.4), a Secondary Publication Right is a “right for the author of a scientific publication to make it available online for free following a given embargo period”. Countries such as Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and, more recently, Slovenia, already have provisions addressing SPRs in their legal frameworks.  In Belgium, for example, even in cases where the author has assigned their rights to a publisher, if the research was publicly funded, the author can make the manuscript publicly available in open access after 12 months for the humanities and social sciences, and 6 months for other sciences (Belgium Code of Economic Law, Art. XI. 196 2 §). Secondary Publication Rights are also present in South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill, through the insertion of section 12D in Act 98 of 1978, as follows: SPRs are also closely linked to open access policy goals, as demonstrated by the Commission Recommendation 2018/790 on access to and preservation of scientific information. This Recommendation states that Member States should implement policies and action plans related to open access and that, as a result, “whatever the channel of publication[…], open access to publications resulting from publicly funded research be granted as soon as possible, preferably at the time of publication, and in any case no later than six months after the date of publication (no later than 12 months for social sciences and humanities).” Footnotes:
- [Fair Use and Generative AI: Reading Between the Lines of the USCO Report](https://knowledgegov.org/fair-use-and-genai-reading-between-the-lines-of-the-usco-report/): At the beginning of May, the report “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. Part 3: Generative AI Training” was released, sparking a wide range of debates due to its content and the political issues surrounding its release. In this short contribution, we aim to briefly introduce the report and touch on some of the key content and political issues currently being discussed. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT The first thing that stands out about the report appears right on its first page: “pre-publication version”: a label reported as unusual and potentially unprecedented. The 113-page document addresses one of the most controversial issues at the intersection of copyright and Generative AI: the use of protected content to train Generative AI systems.  While most sources focus on fair use, the report also includes sections on “technical background,” “infringement,” and “licensing for AI training”, all of which are a “must read,” especially for those just joining the discussion and feeling overwhelmed by the hundreds of thousands of articles, blogs, books, and other resources available on the topic. The report attempts to summarize some of the main issues in both the legal and technical fields. The approach taken by the USCO is sometimes described as “favorable to copyright owners” or as “a mixed bag”, receiving both praise and criticism on multiple fronts, as we will illustrate below. POLITICAL CONTEXT AND CONTROVERSIES The timing of the report While it may be early to determine the precise reasons behind the (unusual) release of a pre-publication version, several explanations have been speculated, though none have been confirmed. The report states that its early release was made “in response to congressional inquiries and expressions of interest from stakeholders.” However, questions have been raised that may relate to concerns about potential restrictions under Trump Administration, which is arguably aligned with positions favorable to big technology companies, as well as fear that the report could be buried in the event of the dismissal of the Register of Copyright, or the potential influence on ongoing legal cases. Regarding the latter, there have been concerns about the timing of the report and how it could interfere with the outcomes, especially the fair use analysis, of ongoing lawsuits. As noted, “it could put a thumb on the scale for how the courts will resolve these cases,” without giving the parties an opportunity to address any potential gaps in the report, which could have a significant impact on other GenAI cases. Leadership changes and copyright policy While the timing of the notice of dismissal of Shira Perlmutter (Register of Copyrights at the time the report was drafted) and the release of the report could give rise to the inference that the report was the sole reason for her dismissal, other events may have influenced the decision as well. The day before the release of the (pre-publication version of the) report, the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who had appointed Shira Perlmutter, was dismissed. Therefore, concerns about additional leadership changes may also have played a role in the decision to release the pre-publication version. An extra layer of complexity arises when one considers that Perlmutter’s position was one appointed and overseen by the legislative branch. The argument that the report may have contributed to the dismissal has often been linked to an alleged alignment between the Trump Administration’s position and that of big tech companies. This connection can be inferred from Rep. Joe Morelle’s statement, reported by POLITICO, claiming it is “no coincidence [Trump] acted less than a day after [Perlmutter] refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.” Finally, as reported by Authors Alliance, on April 30, “American Accountability Foundation urges President Trump to fire ‘deep state’ librarians, targeting Carla Hayden and Shira Perlmutter,” based on the claim that Hayden was supporting Biden policies, particularly in the areas of intellectual property and transgender rights. FAIR USE AT THE HEART OF THE DEBATE While the report addresses multiple issues, both legal and technical, the most debated (and anticipated) topics are those related to whether the use of protected content to train Generative AI systems qualifies as fair use. The fair use chapter is the longest in the report, comprising nearly half of its content. It includes a factor-by-factor analysis applied to different scenarios, with the USCO identifying the first and fourth factors as taking on particular prominence in the analysis. In the section titled “weighing the factors,” the Office states the following: “As generative AI involves a spectrum of uses and impacts, it is not possible to prejudge litigation outcomes. The Office expects that some uses of copyrighted works for generative AI training will qualify as fair use, and some will not. On one end of the spectrum, uses for purposes of noncommercial research or analysis that do not enable portions of the works to be reproduced in the outputs are likely to be fair. On the other end, the copying of expressive works from pirate sources in order to generate unrestricted content that competes in the marketplace, when licensing is reasonably available, is unlikely to qualify as fair use. Many uses, however, will fall somewhere in between.” (p.74) While there has been some agreement with certain parts of the report, such as the acknowledgment that litigation outcomes cannot be prejudged, and the view that “research and academic uses should be favored under the fair use analysis”, one of the most criticized aspects is the interpretation of the fourth factor in the fair use analysis, in which the Report concludes that original works created by AI that are not substantially similar to works used in the training may nonetheless result in “market dilution” that should weigh against a fair use analysis. According to USCO’s report: “While we acknowledge this is uncharted territory, in the Office’s view, the fourth factor should not be read so narrowly. The statute on its face encompasses any “effect” upon the potential market.373 The speed and scale at which AI systems generate content
- [The South African Copyright Amendment Bill at the Constitutional Court: Notes from the Presidential Referral of the Bill (Part II)](https://knowledgegov.org/the-south-african-copyright-amendment-bill-at-the-constitutional-court-notes-from-the-presidential-referral-of-the-bill-part-ii/): In Part I of this blogpost, I briefly set out the procedural history of the copyright reform process that led to the Presidential Referral of the Bill to the Constitutional Court. I also briefly explained the scope of Referral proceedings and the parties involved. In this Part, I discuss the issues raised during the hearing and what to expect going forward. Issues raised during the hearing In line with the Court’s past jurisprudence, the proceedings centred around the constitutionality of the two sets of provisions referred by the President on the basis that he referred them – the fair and equitable remuneration provisions and the new exceptions and limitations. I discuss the arguments raised regarding each set in turn. I focus here on the oral submissions – the full written submissions on record are available here. Fair and equitable remuneration (proposed sections 6A, 7A, 8A) On the fair and equitable remuneration provisions, the President remained concerned that these provisions apply retrospectively which, in his view, would constitute arbitrary deprivation of property. The President explained that although Parliament deleted the specific subsections that explicitly provided for the retrospective application of the provisions, he believed that the provisions were still applicable retrospectively. Retrospectivity, he argued, would constitute a substantial interference in the copyright owner’s enjoyment of their property (and the profits derived from it) as it would open up the possibility for windfall gains for authors notwithstanding whether their original historical assignment of copyright was unfair. Moreover, the President argued that the indiscriminate application of these provisions to all past and future assignments constituted an arbitrary deprivation of property. To prevent retrospective application, the President argued that it was necessary for the language of the provisions to explicitly state that they would apply prospectively. Underlying this argument, the President confirmed that in his view, copyright constituted a constitutionally protectable set of property interests. When questioned, the President conceded that should these provisions be read exclusively prospectively they would not be unconstitutional. The President’s initial position was supported by the Freedom Front Plus. It was also supported by the Democratic Alliance who argued that the only reasonable interpretation of these provisions was that they applied retrospectively to past and future profits derived from the exploitation of the work under copyright. On a prospective interpretation, the DA argued, the language that allows the existence of an agreement to the contrary in proposed section 6A(2) would render the provision a nullity. The DA also supported the proposition that these provisions ran the risk of arbitrarily depriving copyright owners of their property on the basis that there was a substantial interference with the right by significantly reducing its value, imposing uncertainty costs upon the entire industry and interfering with the contractual autonomy of the parties. Further, the DA argued that the lack of similar language in sections 7A and 8A was irrational – and although the President adopted this argument in his oral submissions, irrationality was not expressly part of the 2020 or 2024 Referral letter, raising the question whether the Court can consider it. NAB/SANEF/CFE aligned themselves with the arguments made by the President that these provisions had retrospective effect and ran the risk of arbitrarily changing the rights negotiated and acquired by broadcasters in the current regime, asserting that the broadcasting industry may face dire consequences as a result. Parliament, however, explained in their oral submissions that they had a clear legislative intent to ensure that the impugned provisions had prospective effect. This intent was demonstrated by the deletion of the relevant subsection from all three provisions, as acknowledged by the President, in addressing the reservations set out in his 2020 Referral letter. Recreate Action aligned with Parliament’s position on the deletion of the explicit retrospectivity provisions, and argued that there is a presumption against retrospectivity in the law. Where a provision can be read prospectively, it must be read in that manner. Recreate Action responded to the DA’s argument that a prospective reading of section 6A renders it a nullity by explaining that the non-obstante clause in that section would ensure its continued application. In any event, Recreate Action argued that even if the impugned provisions applied retrospectively, that did not in and of itself render them unconstitutional. To the extent that they were a deprivation of property, Recreate Action argued that even if copyright was incorporeal constitutional property, it required a lower threshold of justification for such deprivation, and that the deprivation only encompassed a single incident of ownership – the royalty right. Finally, Recreate Action responded to the claim of indiscriminate application as arbitrariness by explaining that the standards of ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’ in the text of these provisions act as levers to calibrate the application of these provisions to address unequal bargaining power and prevent any windfall gains.   In addition to testing these arguments, the Court raised concerns about the specificity of the President’s reservations with regard to these provisions. In particular, the Court was concerned as to whether Parliament had a meaningful opportunity to address the whole of these provisions – in other words, whether the President’s 2020 Referral letter flagged the whole of these provisions as triggering his reservations, or just the relevant subsection that explicitly provided for their retrospective application. If the Court were to find that the whole provisions were not referred to Parliament – to enable Parliament’s consideration of them prior to the Referral to the Court – this may bar the consideration of the merits. New exceptions including education and library exceptions (proposed sections 12A-D, 19B, C) I now turn to the second set of provisions that the President was concerned about – the new exceptions and limitations. The President argued that the exceptions and limitations sought to be introduced go too far and would conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and cause unreasonable prejudice to the rights holder. The President was also concerned that the fair use provision suffered from vagueness and introduced a level of uncertainty that could
- [The South African Copyright Amendment Bill at the Constitutional Court: Notes from the Presidential Referral of the Bill (Part I)](https://knowledgegov.org/the-south-african-copyright-amendment-bill-at-the-constitutional-court-notes-from-the-presidential-referral-of-the-bill-part-i/): On 21 and 22 May 2025, the South African Constitutional Court heard the matter of Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In re Constitutionality of the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill. The hearing in these ‘Referral proceedings’ was significant as it was only the second time in South Africa’s history that the President triggered an exceptional constitutional mechanism to refer a Bill to the Constitutional Court for a decision on the constitutionality of certain aspects instead of signing it into law. The Court’s decision in this case will determine the fate of a long drawn-out legislative reform process aiming to transform and modernise South Africa’s apartheid-era copyright law and bring it into the constitutional era. The Court adjourned to deliberate on the matter and the judgment will be handed down in a few months. In this blog post, I briefly outline the arguments advanced by the parties and amici curiae and highlight the issues for determination by the Court. While the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill is also at issue, I focus on the Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] (‘the Bill’) as the aspects of the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill that are at issue are those that incorporate the Copyright Amendment Bill. The hearing focused almost exclusively on the Copyright Amendment Bill. This blog post is in two parts: Part I deals with the procedural history that led to the Presidential Referral of the Bill and sets out an overview of the referral proceedings, and Part II deals with the issues raised during the hearing and sets out the next steps. The long and winding road to the Constitutional Court For those coming to this issue afresh, South Africa has been in the process of reforming its copyright law for over a decade, if not longer. The current Copyright Act 98 of 1978 is old-order legislation, enacted prior to democracy. While the South African Constitution allows for apartheid era legislation to be saved if it can be interpreted to be consistent with the Constitution, the Copyright Act freezes pre-constitutional economic and social relationships in the creative industry and knowledge production processes. While some parts of it may be read compatibly with the Constitution, other parts of it are in need of urgent reform. As the South African Parliament has recognised in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, the existing arrangements have had adverse impacts upon artists due to the “power imbalance, vulnerabilities and abuse taking place in the music industry”, people with disabilities, educators and researchers. In addition to addressing this, the Bill seeks to make South African copyright law consonant with “the ever evolving digital space” as the current Act is “outdated and has not been effective in a number of areas”. In doing so, the Bill clarifies in some detail the powers and functions of the Copyright Tribunal and, for the first time, regulates collective management organisations. The procedural history leading up to the Constitutional Court hearing is central to understanding why the enactment of the Bill as a whole is subject to the Court’s determination of two narrow and specific issues. I address this briefly. Parliament passed the Copyright Amendment Bill [B13B-2017] in March 2019. The President, instead of signing the Bill, triggered a constitutional mechanism to refer the Bill back to Parliament citing procedural and substantive constitutional reservations in June 2020 (‘2020 Referral letter’). At that stage, concerned about pervasive and persistent copyright discrimination being further exacerbated by the delay, Blind SA – a disability rights organisation by and for people with visual and print disabilities – launched litigation against the state for interim relief pending the conclusion of the legislative reform process. Consequently, in 2022, the Constitutional Court in Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition (‘Blind SA I’) held that the Copyright Act 1978 was unconstitutional to the extent that it unfairly discriminated against people with visual and print disabilities and read-in a court-crafted remedy to rectify this discrimination with a deadline of two years from the date of judgment for Parliament to enact legislation. The remedy drew heavily from the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (‘Marrakesh VIP Treaty’), on the basis that this treaty was in the process of being domesticated through copyright reform, though South Africa had not yet acceded to it.  In the meanwhile, over a period of approximately four years, Parliament considered and addressed the President’s constitutional reservations and additionally gave draft legislative effect to the Court’s judgment in Blind SA I passing the Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] in February 2024. The deadline set by the Constitutional Court in Blind SA I lapsed in September 2024, along with the court-crafted remedy, and although Parliament passed the Bill, the President did not take action in response to Parliament’s amended version.  Blind SA then urgently sought from the Constitutional Court a re-reading in of the same remedy or any other remedy that would be just and equitable following the lapsing of the remedy. Days later, the President opted for an exceptional constitutional mechanism by which he referred the Bill to the Constitutional Court (‘2024 Referral letter’) citing that two of his 2020 constitutional reservations had not been ‘fully accommodated’ by Parliament (‘the Referral proceedings’ discussed below). The Court passed an interim order in December 2024 reading in once again the remedy in Blind SA I until the final determination of the matter – which took place on 7 May 2025. In Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa (‘Blind SA II’), rather than further extending the Blind SA I remedy, the Court took note of the significantly advanced legislative process and the fact that the President did not have any reservations concerning the provisions regarding people with disabilities and, instead, read-in those provisions and the relevant definitions from the Bill into law, until such time as amended copyright law came into force. This ensured that
- [Asking the TK Question as a Reality Check: Echoes from the Cradle Principles](https://knowledgegov.org/asking-the-tk-question-as-a-reality-check-echoes-from-the-cradle-principles/): Traditional Knowledge (TK) has become a key consideration in discussions on intellectual property. In May 2024 the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge was adopted, requiring patent applicants to disclose the source or origin of the genetic resources and/or the associated traditional knowledge in patent applications. A provision allowing countries to request disclosure of TK in Designs was also included in the Design Law Treaty. But is the prevailing approach to TK sensitive to the real needs of people in Africa and the Global South? In this theoretical intervention Professor Oguamanam challenges the TK paradigm and urges that we ask a deeper question about the function TK plays in the hierachy of knowledge governance. Oguamanam urges that we build on the Cradle Principles to protect the fundamental human rights of knowledge producers and users through equitable dispersal of benefits and to “combat unidirectional informational resource extraction and misappropriation that aggravates inequities and injustice.” The following talk was first presented at the Conference on Copyright and the Public Interest: Africa and the Global South in Cape Town. The video of the presentation below can be watched here. Asking the TK Question as a Reality Check: Echoes from the Cradle Principles* by Chidi Oguamanam** TK is inherently and all round borderless. TK’s defiance of epistemic borders is its reality before the current melding of all kinds of boundaries – disciplinary, conceptual and a lot more. The idea of TK is itself a colonial conceit. The qualification of other peoples’ knowledge as cynically traditional presupposes the existence of an authentic or a default knowledge system. The renewed escalation of interest and consciousness around TK globally and on our continent has never been more exciting as it is equally troubling.  TK is Africa’s significant factor endowment, a strong even if less celebrated, less articulated, and less harnessed continent’s competitive edge.  Its subsistence and survival in the digital age is now a stuff for our collective challenge. I propose that while there has been a remarkable shift around TK on the teleological realm, we run the risk of undercutting TK’s optimal and enduring potential for our continent. We need to first invest in theorizing TK and in tackling the conceptual morass that saddles it. For the privilege of this intervention, I intend to sow some provocative seeds around TK. First, do we ignore the epistemic conceit and the erroneous assumptions over the taxonomy of “traditional knowledge?” May be yes, because of the inherent risk of chasing a red herring.  Second, do we engage the biggest elephant in the room, which is the scope of TK? The last question unravels a very important opportunity. It requires a full consciousness at all times of TK’s defiance of conventional borders. There has been consistent attempt to trifurcate TK into TK, properly so called, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources. This trifurcation project is a signifier of colonial influences on our epistemic autonomy. In Africa, and some non-Western civilizations our knowledge systems which, for emphasis, includes our languages, are the windows to our worldview. That worldview is fundamentally holistic, serving as a glue to our identity and much more.   The trifurcation approach is deeply problematic. It has the danger to condition our thinking and our approach to TK in ways that serve the pragmatic purpose of fitting TK within established disciplinary boundaries and knowledge governance frameworks. Trifurcation is not only an exercise that happens at WIPO or the CBD or other places where TK is on trial before Western establishments. TK has been subjugated to the characteristic inclination of western knowledge systems (the western science) to dissect ideas into their minimalist compartments and to erect artificial and often highly politicized disciplinary boundaries. And in the paradigm of pitting the west with the rest, TK is often profiled within these molecular epistemic models. The consequence of this tendency is the disembodiment of TK from its custodians and its ultimate disempowerment as a knowledge system on its own merit and integrity. Here are a few examples, when TK is framed around Genetic Resources, we are forced to pigeonhole and defend it in the court and laboratory of the life sciences. This explains why we focus on TK in agriculture, in seeds; in health, in medicines, in pharmacology; ecology, botany, forestry, horticulture and environmental sciences, etc.  To further perpetuate the conceit in each of these fields or disciplines, TK is further devalued with the “ethno-prefix”, as a knowledge system that has little prospects for scaling. We know the opposite is true. Similarly, when TK is framed in the expressive repertoire, we locate it within the established canons of the humanities, the liberal arts and aspects of the social sciences. In this compartment we focus on TK in entertainment, music, storytelling, poetry, (folk songs, folklore); arts and crafts, cuisine, gastronomy, and other miscellaneous renditions that fit within western canons and disciplinary borders. From the prism of the TWAIL, we see a highly dedicated international legal, political and institutional order (with its municipal minions) invested in deepening the balkanization project in contrast to TK’s holistic essence. These powerful institutions have carved out TK in bite sizes reflecting their politically positioned structures with nuanced jurisdictional contestation over aspects and parts of TK in the guise of latter-day TK protectionism. In these institutions, the interests of TK holders are often subjugated to the institutions’ primary loyalty in the defence of their political and economic mandates.   In trying to understand the fraught conceptual challenge around TK and its strategic weakening, the biggest evidence is the superimposition of alien knowledge governance framework over TK. The superstructure of knowledge governance is western intellectual property. It was designed without regard to TK and its producers. The international order has never given any serious attention to an alternative knowledge governance model outside the western intellectual property system. TK and its holders are summoned to the court of intellectual property to plead their validity. Objection to this approach is symbolized by the marginal appeals
- [Highlights from the USCO Report on the Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Copyright Policy (Part 1: Output Phase)](https://knowledgegov.org/highlights-from-the-usco-report-on-the-economic-implications-of-artificial-intelligence-for-copyright-policy-part-1-output-phase/): About the Report In February 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released the report “Identifying the Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Copyright Policy: Context and Direction for Economic Research”, edited by USCO’s chief economist, Brent Lutes. The report was produced after months of research, interactions among scholars and technical experts, and the outcomes of a roundtable event. By identifying the most pressing economic issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), the roundtable “aimed to provide a structured and rigorous framework for considering economic evidence so that the broader economic research community can effectively answer specific questions and identify optimal policy choices.” Considering the length of the report and the variety and complexity of the issues it addresses, we will split our analysis into two separate blog posts: one focusing on the output phase and the other on the input phase. Following the structure of the report, we will begin with the output-related topics: “Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works and Demand Displacement” and “Copyright Infringement by AI Output”, as these are most directly connected to copyright. For this reason, we will not summarize the section on “Commercial Exploitation of Name, Image, and Likeness”, and instead recommend that readers refer directly to the report for details on that topic.  Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works and Demand Displacement This chapter, whose principal contributors are Imke Reimers and Joel Waldfogel, proposes the following question: “how the emergence of generative AI technology affects the optimal provision of copyright protection?” When discussing whether AI-generated works should be copyrighted, it connects to whether they cause a net positive value, and that there would also be the need “to be weighed against the value of human-generated works displaced by the technology”. (p.10) The substitution effect is also considered, not only in cases where AI-generated works substitute human-generated ones, but also when AI-generated works are verbatim or near-verbatim reproductions of pre-existing human-generated content. Similarly, some of these near-verbatim reproductions may decrease the value of the related human work when, for example, they provide misinformation. Such a decrease in value may also reduce interest in human-generated works. On the other hand, and from an economic perspective, the report also suggests that “all of its uses would supplant revenue for human creators. Some uses will reduce deadweight loss, replacing it with consumer surplus by allowing for additional consumption that otherwise would not occur”. (p.10) One of the effects that may be seen in the long run relates to the fact that human experimentation leads to more radical stylistic innovation and experimentation, while it is not clear “whether AI-generated output can ever engage in the same sort of experimentation and innovation as humans”. (p.11) While the report acknowledges that there is a possibility that AI may reduce production costs and be a tool to promote creativity, increase productivity, and enhance quality, it warns about the risk of less experimentation, crowding out “more risky and costly experimental creations that sometimes lead to valuable innovation”. (p.11) Displacing human creators may even be harmful to the development of Gen AI, as these models are trained with human-generated works, according to the report. A first conclusion that may be drawn from this section is that further research, including empirical research, needs to be carried out to better understand issues like the value created and displacement caused by GenAI, the decrease in the value of human-generated works, the “degree to which the fixed cost recovery problem exists for AI-generated works” (p.12), and “the demand curve and cost function for creative works”. (p.14)  When it comes to offering copyright protection to these AI-generated outputs, the report suggests that it would incentivize their production and affect human output in both positive and negative ways. However, it also recalls that this may not be optimal, as “copyright inherently limits public access to existing works and thus produces a social cost”. (p.12) The report also notes that production costs may differ between human-generated and AI-generated works, and that “copyright protection only serves its economic objective if the social value of the former outweighs that of the latter. If the fixed production costs of AI-generated works are sufficiently low, the additional incentives of copyright are not necessary for reaching optimal production levels, thus, offering copyright protection would be suboptimal”. (p.12) Copyright Infringement by AI Output As previously mentioned, the report does not delve into legal issues, focusing instead on economic analysis. In the chapter primarily contributed by Joshua Gans, the author offers considerations from an economic perspective on defining the “optimal scope of what output is infringing,” noting that “copyright protection from infringement should balance the incentives to produce and the ability to consume creative works.” The author begins by explaining one of the structural dynamics of copyright, where “the mechanism used for incentivizing the production of new works (exclusive rights pertaining to the usage of a work) also limits consumers’ access to existing works”, and that the “broadest possible scope of protection could also effectively hinder new creative output for fear of liability”. (p.16) It argues that an important step in the analysis is to identify the “optimal level of market power that we wish to confer to rightsholders in the context of competing AI-generated works”, assuming this level to be the same as that used in infringement disputes involving human-generated works. The chapter proposes considering multiple, but not all, factors that may impact the balance mentioned above, and reflects on how this would be different in cases involving AI (pp.16-17) Several factors may affect the market power of the rightsholders, including but not limited to the threshold for infringement (the higher the threshold, the lower the power) and the requirements to demonstrate that the copy was infringing. On the latter, it is also argued that in the cases concerning AI-generated work, “access [to the allegedly infringed work] may be harder to dispute”. (p.17)  According to the study, these factors may be helpful to understand if a rightsholder may or may not exercise its market power, but the potential value related
- [Can One Country Block Everything in WIPO?](https://knowledgegov.org/can-one-country-block-everything-in-wipo/): One of the questions swirling around Geneva these days is whether one country can block all progress alone. In WIPO last week, the U.S. laid down a couple gauntlets that may reappear at the Program and Budget Meetings next week. The US delegation asserted that, despite WIPO being a member of the United Nations, “[t]he United States does not support any proposal … intended to advance the implementation of the SDGs.” It also took aim at so-called “DEI” projects, asserting that “the policy of the United States to use clear and accurate language that recognizes women are biologically female and men are biologically male,” and that “[t]he United States does not and will not support the implementation of any program that promotes any form of diversity, equity or inclusion, precepts or initiatives.” So, if other countries do not bend to this will and extract such expenditures from WIPO’s budget, can the US alone block progress? The quick answer is no.   Most Geneva-based institutions strive to make decisions based on consensus, which can account for the glacial pace of some policy agendas. In the World Trade Organization, the U.S. alone has ground the organization to a halt by refusing to concede to the appointment of Appellate Board members. The WTO operates based on a very strict norm of consensus. In general, WIPO strives to operate based on consensus and one or a few members can often block progress. But the rules of operation for WIPO actually allow for votes  and majority rule. There is a very recent precedent of using voting to approve the diplomatic conferences on the two most recent treaties adopted by the organization – the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (the “GRATK Treaty”), concluded at the WIPO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in May 2024, and the Design Law Treaty (DLT) adopted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on November 22, 2024. Chapter VI of WIPO’s Rules of Procedure provide for voting on “[p]roposals and amendments submitted by a delegation … if they are supported by at least one other delegation.” (Rule 25). In such voting, “one half of the States members shall constitute a quorum,” and [u]nless expressly provided otherwise in the applicable treaties or in the present General Rules of Procedure, all decisions shall be made by a simple majority.” These rules were used to sideline US opposition to moving toward diplomatic conferences on the GRATK Treaty and the DLT in the 55th Session of the WIPO General Assemblies (GAs) in July 2022. In that meeting, the US called for several votes to overcome Russia’s opposition to funding IP technical assistance in Ukraine. As Margo Bagley described in a recent article published by the Geneva Graduate Institute, these calls opened the door for voting strategies by others: But where some saw opposition, others saw an opportunity. If WIPO members were open to voting on one issue, how about another? What about a Diplomatic Conference (DipCon), or two? Diplomats from demandeur countries in the IGC conferred with diplomats from high-income countries who wanted adoption of the draft Design Law Treaty, which had been languishing for years in a different WIPO committee and proposed a horse trade: agreement to two DipCons to result in two new treaties. If each group agreed to support the combined proposal (and lobbied like-minded states to do so as well) and the matter came to a vote, there should be enough votes to pass the measure – strategic opportunism at its best. In the end, the minority of countries opposed to the diplomatic conferences, including the United States, abstained rather than vote against the proposals. But the threat of a vote and willingness to call for one enabled the majority of countries in favor of the treaties to move them forward over the protestations of a minorty. Majority rule prevailed. A similar linkage between two normative agenda items – the Broadcast Treaty and an instrument on Limitations and Exceptions – is being pursued in the SCCR. Cf https://infojustice.org/archives/44840 (WIPO IGC Director Wend Wendland noting: describing the “overt linkage between two seemingly unrelated normative agenda items, inspired by ‘package deals’ and ‘single undertakings’ agreed on in other organizations such as the WTO” as ”a novelty in WIPO”). The EU and allied countries are pushing for a diplomatic conference on the Broadcast Treaty. The African Group and allied countries took the position in the last SCCR that “an instrument on the protection of broadcasting organizations should advance to a Diplomatic Conference jointly with an instrument on limitations and exceptions that meets the 2012 General Assembly’s mandate.” https://infojustice.org/archives/46253 At the last SCCR, the US maintained its support for discussing an instrument on “objectives and principles” for limitations and exceptions, and thus it is not formally opposed to progress on an L&E instrument. But even if it changed its position to block consensus, there is a procedural avenue – through voting – to overcome the opposition. Voting is generally only called for in the General Assembly and the Broadcast Treaty and L&E instrument will not be moving at the next meeting. But if the US blocks the budget based on its opposition to sustainable development and DEI considerations, we may see more rounds of voting at the next GA this July.
- [Educational exceptions in Copyright Amendment Bill are mandated by international law and the Constitution](https://knowledgegov.org/educational-exceptions-in-copyright-amendment-bill-are-mandated-by-international-law-and-the-constitution/): By Faranaaz Veriava and Anne Marie Strohwald  The Constitutional Court [in South Africa] will on 21 and 22 May 2025 hear submissions relating to the constitutionality of the Copyright Amendment Bill that has been in the making since as far back as 2015. The National Assembly voted for the Copyright Amendment Bill in 2024 amid some intense opposition. The President, instead of signing the Bill into law, invoked his presidential prerogative in terms of section 79(5) of the Constitution and referred it to the Constitutional Court, raising reservations in respect of the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Bill, including whether the educational exceptions – that exempt activities associated with teaching and research from copyright protection – are consistent with international copyright law.  The Centre for Child Law, a public interest organisation and the Unesco Chair: Education Law in Africa, a rights-based think tank, both based at the University of Pretoria, have been admitted as the fifth amicus curiae in the matter. Interestingly, in a crowded house of eight amici that include publishers, authors, musicians and other creatives, the Centre and the Unesco Chair are the only amici that have been granted leave to make oral submissions in the court. At the core of their submissions is the assertion that while the President considers whether the Bill is compliant with international copyright treaties and whether the exception violates section 25(1), the property right clause, the President is completely silent on South Africa’s obligations in terms international human rights law and its broader constitutional obligations.  Background to the Copyright Amendment Bill referral In 2020, the President referred the Bill back to Parliament for similar reasons. In 2021, the organisation Blind SA, frustrated by the persistent impact of delays in copyright reform that prolonged a book famine wherein blind persons had access to less than 10% of available books, instituted an application to declare the 1976 Copyright Act invalid due to its failure to provide a copyright exception for persons with visual disabilities.  In 2022, the Constitutional Court in Blind SA I declared the impugned provisions, that required the permission of copyright owners – rarely provided – before their works could be reproduced in accessible formats for persons with visual and print disabilities, to be constitutionally invalid. The provision also criminalised accessible formatting without such permission. The court held that requiring the permission of the copyright owners to create accessible formats amounted to a discriminatory barrier that unfairly prevented people with visual and print disabilities from accessing copyrighted materials.  The court order suspended the declaration of invalidity for 24 months and formulated an interim remedy in the form of a reading-in of a temporary provision to the Copyright Act. The suspension period lapsed in September 2024, after being voted on in Parliament, but without being signed by the President. This necessitated that Blind SA return to the court on an urgent basis.  The Constitutional Court in Blind SA II held that the failure to enact the Bill within 24 months created a legal gap, reverting the Copyright Act to the position before Blind SA I, making people with visual and print disabilities vulnerable and having to make the impossible decision to either break the law or not have access to a books. It therefore read into the Act the carefully crafted education exception in the Bill that aims to enable accessible format shifting for persons with visual and print disabilities. This provision is not one of the educational exceptions that are the subject of the President’s current reservations and remains in place if, and until, the Bill is finally signed into law.  Educational exceptions will ease access for poor learners and students Thus, while Blind SA II is a long-awaited victory for blind people for multiple reasons, the educational exceptions are not only included in the Bill to facilitate access to learning materials for persons with print and visual disabilities, as is suggested in the President’s submissions. The educational exceptions are necessary to ensure that all learners and students, including the poorest learners and students, have access to learning materials. This category of learners and students, while including persons with print and visual disabilities, constitutes the majority of learners and students in South Africa. Copyright, therefore, exists as a barrier to access to educational materials for poor learners and students. A wide body of evidence, including from Unesco, makes clear that there is a direct correlation between educational materials and educational outcomes. Research disaggregating data on educational outcomes further highlights that educational outcomes are worse for learners and students from poorer communities lacking access to basic educational resources. For example, copyright laws preventing the making of copies of textbooks for learners and students make access to knowledge unaffordable.  The Centre and the Unesco Chair argue that the educational exceptions are necessary for South Africa to comply with international human rights law to ensure the enjoyment of three reinforcing and mutually interdependent rights: The right to education, the best interests of the child principle and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Furthermore, section 39(1) of the Constitution mandates that international laws serve as an interpretive guide to its counterparts in the Constitution. Section 233 of the Constitution also requires that, “when interpreting any legislation, every court must prefer any reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent with international law over any alternative interpretation that is inconsistent with international law”.  The right to education is recognised in several international and African regional instruments, including: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) – all of which have been ratified by South Africa, thus creating obligations for South Africa as a party to these instruments. International human rights law elaborations of the right confirm that the educational exceptions are permissible. The availability of education in international human rights law refers not only to the availability of schools, but also includes the availability of resources to facilitate teaching and learning. The accessibility
- [Counterfeit Concerns or Development Disconnect? A Look at the UK Proposal at CDIP/34](https://knowledgegov.org/counterfeit-concerns-or-development-disconnect-a-look-at-the-uk-proposal-at-cdip-34/): A debate broke out at the 34th session of WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) about a proposal from the United Kingdom on “Development of Strategies and Tools to Address Cross-Border Trade in Counterfeit Trademark Goods in Developing Countries.” The project aims to support customs enforcement against counterfeit trademark goods. If adopted, this would appear to be the first CDIP project focused explicitly on such border enforcement mechanisms. The project was criticized by many developing countries for not aligning adequately with the spirit and objectives of WIPO’s Development Agenda and was postponed until the next meeting.  The Development Agenda was adopted in 2007(WO/GA/34/16) to reorient WIPO’s IP activities to support sustainable development, emphasizing flexibilities, public domain preservation, and inclusive innovation. The Development Agenda was adopted at the same time multinational industries were pushing for new international norms on customs and border enforcement as part of the so-called “Enforcement Agenda.” See Susan K. Sell, The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play,, PIJIP Research Paper Series. No. 15, 2010), http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/15/. Around this time, developing countries often blocked efforts of developed countries to reorient IP policy discussions toward work on enforcement. In this context, only one recommendation on IP Enforcement was included in the final 45 Development Agenda Recommendations, listed under “Other Issues,” and emphasizing “broader societal interests”. To approach intellectual property enforcement in the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented concerns, with a view that “the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations”, in accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Although other WIPO Committees, primarily through the Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE), work on IP enforcement capacity building, the issue has not been adopted into the CDIP’s work. Thus, the UK’s proposal breaks some new ground for the Committee. The UK presented project CDIP/34/4 as a capacity-building initiative to help developing countries prevent the flow of counterfeit goods at their borders. It outlines a three-pillar structure: case studies on smuggling methods, operational guidelines for customs risk assessment, and training sessions tailored to national needs. According to the  UK Statement at the CDIP:  “The primary objective of the proposed project is to strengthen the technical capability of the beneficiary countries to counter the threat of counterfeit goods entering their national borders. Given the large scale of cross-border counterfeit goods trade, this project if adopted will not only help protect the domestic economy and public safety of beneficiary countries but also strengthen IP enforcement to the benefit of trademark owners globally. The project is built on three pillars. First pillar will focus on the examination of the ways in which counterfeit trade markets enter the borders of the beneficiary countries. (…)The second pillar will aim towards enhancing the counterfeit risk assessment framework of each beneficiary country through the production of bespoke operational guidelines. (…)The third and last pillar concerns the provision of the capacity building programme including virtual and on-site training. Strong concerns came from the African Group (led by Algeria), Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Lesotho, Pakistan, and others. The main arguments raised against the UK proposal focus on three core concerns.  First, the project frames counterfeiting as a problem specific to developing countries, reinforcing stereotypes and ignoring the global, transnational nature of illicit trade. For example: Lesotho: “My Delegation views this formulation as inherently discriminatory and imbalanced. By singling out Developing Countries as the locals of counterfeit trade, the proposal reinforces harmful stereotypes and overlooks the global and complex nature of counterfeiting. This is not merely an issue confined to any one region or development status. It involves supply and demand chains that spend developed and developing nations alike, including transit routes, manufacturing hubs and consumer markets across all levels of economic development. We are concerned that this approach risks stigmatizing Developing Countries, diverting attention from the need for shared responsibility, equitable cooperation and inclusive capacity building mechanisms. Moreover, it does not sufficiently account for the historical and structural trade imbalances that limit Developing Countries’ abilities to enforce Intellectual Property rights effectively.” Nigeria: “The current text concentrates on border interdiction but pays insufficient attention to identifying, analyzing, and dismantling the production and manufacturing hubs where counterfeit goods originate. Without shining a light on those upstream nodes, enforcement at the border will remain a costly game of catch-up. While enforcement capacity is important, the proposal overemphasizes seizure and risk profiling at the expense of public facing awareness, trader training, consumer education and private sector partnerships, all of which are indispensable for reducing demand and using the culture of respect for Intellectual Property. By concentrating resources on investigative and interdiction tools, the proposal risks diverting limited WIPO budget away from development-oriented priorities including MSME support, market formalization and innovation promotion.” Second, the proposal was criticized for adopting an enforcement-heavy approach that prioritizes border interdiction over development-oriented measures such as capacity building for innovation, support for informal economies, and public awareness.  Algeria (on behalf of the African Group): “The African Group is not in a position to accept this proposal in its current form. We call on more developmental goal of this project which is currently centered around enforcement aspects.” Third, it lacks alignment with the WIPO Development Agenda, particularly by failing to incorporate TRIPS flexibilities, safeguards against over-enforcement, and mechanisms to ensure proportionality and development impact. Indonesia: “First, we are concerned that this project advances a predominantly investment-oriented approach which may not fully align with the core principle and objective of the WIPO Development Agenda. In particular, we note the absence of sufficient safeguards for informal economy and the lack of adequate consideration for flexibilities provided under the Trade Agreement, both of which are crucial for developing countries, including Indonesia. Second, we are concerned that the
- [SA CONCOURT OPENS DOOR TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN COPYRIGHT CASE](https://knowledgegov.org/sa-concourt-opens-door-to-access-to-information-for-people-with-disabilities-in-copyright-case/): In its landmark ruling on 7 May 2025, the Constitutional Court has opened the doors to access to information and accessible formats for people with disabilities.  It has also paved the way for South Africa to ratify the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty. For decades, Blind SA has been lobbying against the ‘book famine’ and lack of provisions for blind and visually impaired persons in the current copyright law.  This discrimination has gravely affected their social and economic development, education, work and leisure opportunities and other aspects of their lives, including lack of equal access to reading material that sighted persons have taken for granted.  The law has in fact made copying and reuse of copyright work in accessible formats illegal, without permission from rightsholders, essentially criminalising people for needing to access information.  Historical Context: 1999 – 2019 As early as 1999, the library and educational sectors raised concerns at a multi-stakeholder workshop convened by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) about the discriminatory nature of the current copyright law against people with disabilities.   DTI proposed amendments to the Act in 2000. More restrictive provisions were proposed for education, libraries and archives, and minimal provisions were included for people with visual impairments.  A task team mandated by the South African University Vice-Chancellors’ Association of South Africa (SAUVCA) and the Committee of Technikons (CTP), predecessors of University South Africa (USAf), challenged the proposed amendments to the Act in Parliament.  These proposals were subsequently withdrawn and not included in the Amended Copyright Act of 2002, which then only addressed needle time for musicians.  The task team had already succeeded in stopping more restrictive draft Regulations being passed in 1998. From 2002 until 2009 there was a legislative impasse with regard to copyright reform. Due to many problems in the music industry, the Department of Trade and Industry decided to commence a process of reform in 2009.  It commissioned various research studies and established a Copyright Review Commission to investigate ongoing problems in the music industry.  The DTI convened workshops for stakeholder groups and input was given on various aspects of the copyright law. To ensure a holistic approach to the 1978 Act, the DTI was provided with important documents and resources relating to education, libraries and other information services, and persons with disabilities, and other relevant issues sourced from WIPO, WTO, UNESCO, Creative Commons, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL)’s Model Copyright Law, and from regional copyright project findings and local organisations. Appropriate clauses and provisions were also submitted to the DTI relating to countries with progressive copyright laws where developed countries were enjoying benefits that South Africa, a developing country, still did not have in its copyright law. In July 2015 the DTI published a draft Copyright Amendment Bill for public comment and it was also discussed at a multistakeholder workshop convened by the DTI in Gauteng.  After receipt of many submissions and necessary edits and amendments, the Bill was forwarded to Parliament in 2017.   The Bill included Section 19D with appropriate provisions for people with disabilities, including those who are blind, deaf, dyslexic or suffer from other disabilities that prevent them from accessing information. In 2013, South Africa strongly supported the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The Treaty came into effect in 2016, but South Africa did not ratify it, stating that its national copyright law would need to be amended first to include appropriate provisions for people with disabilities.  Some years later, it confirmed that once the Copyright Amendment Bill has been signed, it will move to ratify the Treaty.  Parliamentary Approval; Presidential Rejection The first Parliamentary process took over two years but the Bill was finally passed by both Houses of Parliament  in 2019.  It was then referred to the President for assent, but he did not act on the Bill for a period of 15 months.  The President was being lobbied strongly by rightsholders, collecting societies and multinationals, and was receiving unprecedented pressure from the US Trade Representative’s Office (USTR) and the EU  Commission, to stop the Bill. This led him to decide not to sign the Bill and to refer it  back for Parliamentary review on 16 June 2020.  He requested a review of certain clauses, including fair use, exceptions for education and academic activities, libraries, archives, museum and galleries, and temporary copies, questioning their constitutionality.  Notably, these reservations did not include Section19D. This also led to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry agreeing to send the Bill for retagging from a Section 75 Bill (National) to a Section 76 Bill (Provincial), which resulted in a drawn-out process through all nine Provincial Legislatures.  Blind South Africa Litigation According to previous commentary, “Recognising that the referral would result in an inordinate delay, Blind SA approached the Gauteng High Court in 2021, primarily seeking to have the Copyright Act declared unconstitutional to the extent that it “limits and/or prevents persons with visual and print disabilities accessing works under copyright that persons without such disabilities are able to access”. Blind SA also sought an order reading in the provisions of the amendment bill that sought to give effect to the Marrakesh Treaty”.[1] On 7 December 2021, the Gauteng High Court ruled that the current Act is unconstitutional as it relates to people with blind and visual impairments . On 21 September 2022, the  Constitutional Court confirmed this ruling and made a landmark decision, marking the first time in its 27-year history that it addressed a copyright law case. The Court recognised that the absence of provisions for accessible formats in copyright law constitutes disability discrimination.  This ruling set a global precedent, affirming that copyright law, like any other law, must be interpreted in a way that aligns with constitutional principles, including the rights of people with disabilities.  As an interim solution, the Court read-in a temporary provision (Section 13A) into the current Act, allowing for the creation
- [Limitations and Exceptions in the U.S. Special 301 Report 2025](https://knowledgegov.org/limitations-and-exceptions-in-the-u-s-special-301-report-2025/): The first Special 301 Report under the Trump Administration was released last month: 2025 Special 301 Report (final).pdf. The report always gives insight into the administration’s trade priorities1. How the Trump Administration will approach intellectual property matters is a bit of a mystery with its trade policy positions in the campaign taking conflicting approaches to the issue.2 The first Trump Administration Special 301 Report suggests that copyright policy is returning to its norm at USTR, with complaints about overbroad copyright exceptions, including for the circumvention of technological protection measures, raised against many of the countries on its warning lists. Countries Named and Blamed Twenty-six countries are named on in the report, with no country being listed as a Priority Foreign Country — which is the level at which direct threats of trade retaliation are raised. But the Report keeps the threat alive, stating: “Over the coming weeks, USTR will review those developments against the benchmarks established in the Special 301 action plans for those countries”.3 If countries fail to address U.S. concerns, the USTR may take actions, including enforcement measures under Section 301 of the Trade Act or dispute settlement procedures under the WTO or other trade agreements. Eight countries are on the Priority Watch List: Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela. Eighteen countries are on the Watch List: Algeria, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, and Vietnam.  Of the countries listed in the report, two countries on the Priority Watch List (India and Indonesia) and four countries on the Watch List (Canada, Ecuador, Thailand, and Vietnam) are subject to complaints about “overly broad exceptions”:  Priority Watch List India: The Report alleges that Section 31d of the Copyright Act, 1957, which governs statutory licensing for the broadcasting of literary and musical works, as well as sound recordings, could be interpreted to allow statutory licensing for interactive online streaming, which, according to the report, “would have severe implications for right holders who make their content available online.” The report also rebukes “overly broad exceptions for certain uses” that raise “concerns about the strength of copyright protection in India”. However, the report does not name those exceptions. Finally, it complains that India has not made sufficient amendments to its Copyright Act to to protect technological protection measures and rights management information to comply with the WIPO Internet Treaties (i.e., WCT and WPPT).4  Indonesia: The report complains of “overbroad exceptions to provisions that prohibit the circumvention of technological protection measures” and urges Indonesia to consider amendments to its copyright law.5 Watch List Canada: The Report states that stakeholders reported issues with a “broad interpretation of the fair dealing exception for the purpose of education, which was added to the copyright law in 2012, as well as the relevant case law on the subject, has significantly damaged the market for educational authors and publishers”.6 Ecuador: The Report raises “concerns raised by the U.S. Government and various stakeholders on issues related to overly broad or vaguely defined copyright exceptions and limitations”.7 Thailand: The report urges Thailand to consider reviewing its copyright law to address several issues, including what is called “overly broad exceptions to provisions that prohibit the circumvention of technological protection measures”.8 Vietnam: Concerns were raised about “overly broad exceptions to copyright” and the implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties, “including protections against circumvention of technological protection measures and certain acts affecting rights management information”.9
- [The Importance of Copyright Exceptions for Teachers and Learners](https://knowledgegov.org/the-importance-of-copyright-exceptions-to-teachers-and-learners-in-south-africa-and-globally/): by Dr. Mugwena Maluleke, President of Education International (EI) and General Secretary of the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (SADTU) On 21 May 2025, the Constitutional Court in South Africa will consider the constitutionality of the Copyright Amendment Bill passed by parliament in 2019 and again in 2024. The new Bill introduces exceptions and limitations to copyright to allow educators to copy, share and adapt excerpts of copyrighted learning materials in the classroom. In this contribution to the debate, Mugwena Maluleke highlights the education crisis facing millions of learners, especially in Africa and the Global South, and the importance of copyright reforms that increase access to learning materials. This article was first presented as a keynote input to the Conference on “Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa and the Global South on 6th Feb 2025 in Cape Town. You can watch the video recording of this presentation here. Dear colleagues, It is an honour to join you today in Cape Town as we reaffirm our shared mission of ensuring equitable access to knowledge and protection of traditional knowledge for Africa. Without reiterating much of what Dr. Schönwetter has eloquently stated in his welcoming address, I extend my gratitude to all those involved in hosting this conference and to all of you attending. Thank you for your commitment to copyright law reform. Reflecting on my childhood in rural Limpopo, we were compelled to learn in English and later in Afrikaans, which led us to stand against the apartheid government in 1976. We were never given the opportunity to learn in our own language. This experience underscores the profound impact that learning materials have on a child’s potential in school. In the quest for knowledge equity, every child deserves the right to learn in their own language. Today, I stand before you not only as the President of Education International but also as the General Secretary of the South African Democratic Teachers Union, representing more than 70% of educators and education workers in South Africa. Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, once said, “It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.” The Global Status of Teachers Report, launched on the International Day of Education, January 24 this year, revealed 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. Debrah Ruh, a global inclusivity strategist, noted that “accessibility allows us to tap into everyone’s potential.” UNESCO’s Framework for Action recognizes knowledge as part of the right to education for a reason: it is crucial for teachers to have access to teaching and learning materials specifically designed for educational purposes. Fair copyright legislation is essential to enable teachers to adapt and use materials, enrich them, make them context-specific, decolonize our knowledge production and consumption in education, and address an increasingly diverse student body.  DECOLONISATION OF KNOWLEDGE and DECRIMINALISATION OF TEACHERS Having mentioned decolonisation of knowledge production and consumption in education, I must add that this implores us to embark on a journey of decolonisation, peeling back the layers of oppression that have been ingrained in our consciousness. This is not merely an act of dismantling the physical symbols of colonialism, but a profound transformation of our mental landscapes. As we lift the veils of ignorance and prejudice, we must replace them with the light of wisdom and understanding. Decolonisation is a reawakening, a reclamation of our heritage and identity.  May I also add that education is the bridge that connects our past struggles to our future triumphs. The right to education is a fundamental human right. Our teachers should not be criminalised for striving to provide quality education to our children. Unfortunately, copyright laws for education are often overly restrictive, creating barriers for teachers and the right to education. Global EI research shows that teachers in many Latin American and African countries are particularly disadvantaged by copyright legislation, forcing them to work in legal grey zones or stop using important teaching materials. The use of digital materials and adaptations for children with disabilities poses a particular challenge for the teaching profession.  Among 37 countries studied in a recent report by wireless connectivity specialist Airgain, South Africa ranks as one of the worst countries for digital readiness. THE GLOBAL EDUCATION CRISIS Recent studies highlight the urgent need for improved access to education. The 2025 Global Estimates Update by Education Cannot Wait reveals that 234 million school-aged children in crises worldwide require urgent support to access quality education, an increase of 35 million over the past three years. Refugees, internally displaced children, girls, and children with disabilities are among the most affected. The report emphasizes that these growing needs are rapidly outpacing education aid funding and calls for urgent additional financing to address this global silent emergency. Access to appropriate learning materials is a key strategy for achieving the first means of implementation (4a) under SDG4. The supporting Framework for Action Education 2030 highlights access to learning materials as one of the core strategic approaches for implementing the goal: “Education institutions and programs should be adequately and equitably resourced, with safe, environment-friendly, and easily accessible facilities; sufficient numbers of quality teachers and educators using learner-centered, active, and collaborative pedagogical approaches; and books, other learning materials, open educational resources, and technology that are non-discriminatory, learning conducive, learner-friendly, context-specific, cost-effective, and available to all learners – children, youth, and adults.” At the heart of Education International’s Go Public, Fund Education campaign is the principle of putting people before profit. The message is clear: we want creators and authors of material to be compensated fairly, but we do not want intermediaries in the copyright business, such as publishers and streaming executives, to create profit margins that deter access to learning materials
- [South African apex court recognises the “constitutional imperatives of equality and dignity for persons with disabilities” in landmark copyright judgment ](https://knowledgegov.org/south-african-apex-court-recognises-the-constitutional-imperatives-of-equality-and-dignity-for-persons-with-disabilities-in-landmark-copyright-judgment/): On 7 May 2025, the Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down judgment in Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2025] ZACC 9 (‘Blind SA II’). The judgment read-in an immediately operational accessible format shifting provision for people with all disabilities across the spectrum as well as expressly providing for the cross-border exchange of accessible materials without the requirement of authorisation. In doing so, it gave effect to South Africa’s constitutional and international obligations to ensure that people with disabilities do not experience unfair discrimination (and other rights violations) – in this case, by the operation of copyright legislation. It also transformed South African law to align with the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (‘Marrakesh VIP Treaty’) and, by addressing this provision to people with all disabilities, it went beyond Marrakesh’s “floor”, to fulfil its obligations under the South African Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).  Blind SA II is the latest major instalment in a long-standing – and ongoing – saga of South Africa’s copyright reform process that began over a decade ago. South Africa’s Copyright Act 98 of 1978 does not contain provisions that explicitly permit accessible format shifting. People with disabilities have thus had to expose themselves to criminal and civil sanction to access educational and cultural materials that are unavailable in accessible formats. On this basis, and due to the protracted reform process, Blind SA, represented by SECTION27, approached the High Court in 2021, arguing that the lack of such provisions in the Copyright Act constituted unfair discrimination against people with disabilities, and violated several rights in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights including the rights to equality, dignity, education, culture and freedom of expression. The High Court held that the Act was thus unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court confirmed the unconstitutionality of the Act to this extent in Blind SA v Minister of Trade and Industry and Others [2022] ZACC 33 (‘Blind SA I’). Writing elsewhere, I have conceptualised this as copyright discrimination. To remedy the constitutional defect, the Constitutional Court read-in a court-crafted provision (s 13A) that explicitly permitted accessible format shifting – but limited its scope of application to literary and artistic works and to people with visual and print disabilities only. Mindful of the ongoing legislative process, the Court suspended the declaration of invalidity and limited the reading-in remedy to a period of two years – after which it envisioned that the reform process would be concluded. However, on 21 September 2024, the remedy ordered by the Court in Blind SA I lapsed, creating – in the Court’s own words in Blind SA II – an “immediate rights vacuum affecting the constitutional rights of visually and print-impaired persons” [para 55]. Although Parliament had acted within the time frame set by the Court’s order by passing the Copyright Amendment Bill in February 2024, the President did not make a decision on whether to sign the Bill into law within the prescribed time frame. Following the lapsing of the remedy, Blind SA urgently approached the Constitutional Court seeking relief amongst other things on the basis that the scheme of copyright – and its criminal and civil consequences for infringement – required a clear statement of permitted acts that were exempted from infringement. Following the lapsing of the remedy, the legal position was unclear, creating uncertainty in the face of confirmed constitutional rights violations. Blind SA thus sought a re-reading in of the same remedy (s 13A) until the process concluded, or any other remedy that the Court considered just and equitable.  Days after Blind SA’s application was filed, on 10 October 2024, the President triggered a rare constitutional mechanism, declining to sign the Bill into law and instead referring it to the Constitutional Court citing that two of his constitutional reservations, previously raised in 2020, when he referred a previous version of the Bill to Parliament, had not been fully accommodated by Parliament. Notably, his reservations did not concern the accessible format shifting and cross border exchange provisions (proposed s 19D of the Bill) [para 53]. In the words of the Court, “the provision maintains its constitutional integrity and remains separate from the concerns raised in the President’s referral”[para 57]. However, due to the fact that these provisions were part of the Bill being impugned by the President, they also remain in abeyance. The Court is now due to hear the matter concerning the President’s referral on 21 and 22 May 2025 (‘the Referral proceedings’) that will determine the eventual fate of the Copyright Amendment Bill.  Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court held a hearing in November 2024 where it considered Blind SA’s application for urgent relief – in light of the President’s referral. As none of the parties disputed urgency, the hearing centred around what a just and equitable remedy would look like, given the circumstances. Subsequently, in an interim order dated 18 December 2024, to remain in force until the Court’s final judgment in the case, the Court read-in once again its remedy from Blind SA I (s 13A), effectively ensuring that people with visual and print disabilities could continue to engage in accessible format shifting without it being considered an infringement of copyright. The lacuna in the law was temporarily filled.  This brings us to 7 May 2025. The Court handed down its judgment in Blind SA II summarising that back in 2022, “the constitutional defect that necessitated this Court’s intervention did not lie in any specific provision of the Copyright Act that needed to be struck down, but rather in the absence of necessary provisions to protect the rights of persons with visual and print disabilities”[para 47], and given the change in circumstances in 2025, when considering an appropriate just and equitable remedy “[t]he potential violation of fundamental rights emerges as the decisive consideration, particularly given the absence of certainty regarding the Bill’s eventual assent”[para
- [The Unclear Status of Copyright Exceptions and Limitations in the UK-India Free Trade Agreement ](https://knowledgegov.org/the-unclear-status-of-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations-in-the-uk-india-free-trade-agreement/): On May 6, 2025, the United Kingdom (UK) and India announced that they had reached agreement on a bilateral free trade deal that includes a chapter on intellectual property.However, no agreement text was released. Rather, the UK Department for Business & Trade issued a summary of the agreement’s terms, and the summary acknowledged that “work is continuing to finalise the legal text and resolve the last issues.” In other words, at this point there is just an agreement to agree, rather than a real agreement. According to the summary, the IP chapter “will support our economies through effective and balanced protection and enforcement of IP rights.” The chapter will cover copyright and related rights, designs, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, and trade secrets, as well as the enforcement of IP rights. The summary provides little detail concerning copyright and related rights. It simply states that India will also commit to engaging on aspects of copyright and related rights, addressing the interests of UK creators, rights holders, and consumers. This includes around public performance rights and artist’s resale rights, which acknowledge the importance of royalty rights. India will also conduct an internal review of their copyright terms of protection.    Further, the summary notes that the chapter “will not commit the UK to domestic legislative change, nor will it undermine the UK’s own IP system or our international positions on IP.” Significantly, the summary is silent on copyright exceptions and limitations. In 2022, a draft of the UK’s proposed text for the IP chapter was leaked. The language concerning copyright exceptions and limitations was limited to the Berne Three Step Test and other treaties: Article H.7: Limitations and Exceptions   1. Each Party may introduce limitations or exceptions in its domestic law to the rights provided for in this Section [H]. but shall confine such limitations or exceptions to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of covered subject matter, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.   2. This Article is without prejudice to the limitations and exceptions to any rights permitted by international agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement, the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention, the WCT. or the WPPT.   ​The summary asserts that the agreement would support the economies of the UK and India through “balanced protection” of IP rights, but nothing in the summary, or the UK’s 2022 draft text, reflects balanced protection with respect to copyright. The Three Step Test, by itself, is too ambiguous to provide meaningful balance. Hopefully India insisted upon language that clarified that both parties had the flexibility to adopt more open-ended fair dealing or fair use provisions, like those recently adopted by former British colonies such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Nigeria. For example, the agreement could include language similar to Article 11.18 of the Regional Cooperation for Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed in 2020. That language provides that  3. Each Party shall endeavour to provide an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, among other things by means of limitations and exceptions consistent with paragraph 1, for legitimate purposes, which may include education, research, criticism, comment, news reporting, and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled. 4. For greater certainty, a Party may adopt or maintain limitations or exceptions to the rights referred to in paragraph 1 for fair use, as long as any such limitation or exception is confined as stated in paragraph 1. India initially participated in the RCEP negotiations, but withdrew in 2019 over issues unrelated to intellectual property.
- [Why Limitations and Exceptions Still Deserve a Bigger Role at WIPO CDIP](https://knowledgegov.org/why-limitations-and-exceptions-still-deserve-a-bigger-role-at-wipo-cdip/): As WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) prepares to meet for its 34th session this May, an important question is back on the table: Are we doing enough to support access to knowledge, culture, and education through copyright limitations and exceptions? These legal flexibilities—designed to enable libraries, educators, researchers, and others to use copyrighted content under certain conditions—are vital tools for development. But despite being central to WIPO’s 2007 Development Agenda, they still play a limited role in the organization’s work. WIPO’s latest reporting shows a continued emphasis on supporting IP protection and enforcement. In the Director General’s report to the CDIP, most activities are framed around helping countries strengthen their IP systems. There is a brief mention of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and its ongoing discussions on the Broadcasting Treaty and exceptions for libraries and education. But these references don’t tell us much about the real developmental impacts of those discussions—or the need to ensure that any new treaties respect countries’ ability to design exceptions and flexibilities that serve the public interest. There are some positive signs. One project approved at CDIP/30 supports the use of Text and Data Mining (TDM) by African research institutions. This is the first CDIP project specifically focused on copyright limitations, and it’s a promising example of how IP flexibilities can directly benefit research and innovation. But it’s also the only one of its kind. Meanwhile, WIPO’s Flexibilities Database—which could be a key resource—still focuses almost entirely on patent law and hasn’t been updated to include copyright-related flexibilities or real-world examples of how countries are using them. So what can be done? One idea is for Member States to propose new CDIP projects that explore how copyright limitations and exceptions can support public goals—like providing access to education materials, enabling preservation in cultural heritage institutions, or facilitating scientific collaboration. Another is to ensure that norm-setting activities, such as negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty, are carefully monitored by CDIP to assess their development impacts. These steps wouldn’t require major changes, just a commitment to make sure the tools already embedded in international IP law are better understood and more widely used. As WIPO’s work continues to evolve alongside emerging challenges like artificial intelligence, access to digital content, and global inequality, the importance of copyright flexibilities is only growing. CDIP was created to help balance the global IP system, and that balance depends on more than protection—it depends on access too. By giving limitations and exceptions the space they deserve, Member States can help WIPO truly deliver on its promise of development for all.
- [A Step Forward: World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Committee Inches Forward on Broadcast and Limitations](https://knowledgegov.org/a-step-forward-world-intellectual-property-organizations-copyright-committee-inches-forward-on-broadcast-and-limitations/): The Forty-Sixth Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) concluded with modest but meaningful progress on key agenda items, including on the Broadcasting Treaty, the limitations and exceptions (L&Es) agenda and the agenda item on copyright remuneration in the digital environment. The SCCR was Chaired by Vanessa Cohen, Copyright Director of Costa Rica. Broadcasting Treaty: Refined Focus, Continued Dialogue The Committee continued its examination of the Draft WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, which has been on the SCCR’s agenda since its first meeting in 1998. After the first failure to create a basic text for the negotiation in 2006, the 2007 General Assembly mandated that the SCCR achieve “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” before a recommendation to complete the treaty in a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The GA has further instructed that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006).  The Chair’s statements for SCCR 44 and 45 aptly summarized the current consensus on the committee on the bounds of a text that could be advanced to the Diplomatic Conference: “With respect to objectives, there is common understanding … that the treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy, should not extend to any post-fixation activities and that it should provide member states with flexibility to implement obligations through adequate and effective legal means” and “that the object of protection (subject-matter) of the treaty is related to programme-carrying signals linked to linear transmission”. But the bounds of these concepts have been pressed by Chair’s Drafts of a treaty that continue to use exclusive rights as a baseline, including rights to fixation and to make available stored programs on the Internet. This SCCR featured more vigorous debate over the draft than at the last few SCCR meetings, with a larger number of countries offering specific comments on provisions including on national treatment and reciprocity, exceptions and limitations, the protection of signals used in making available stored programs, and the functioning of the mechanism for alternatives to exclusive rights.  Some member states, including the European Union, the Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) supported moving the current text to a diplomatic conference. But the two days of deliberations showed significant concern about many of the draft text’s provisions. After the deliberations showed a lack of consensus on the document, Brazil proposed that the Broadcast Treaty be removed from the formal agenda of the SCCR and be worked on by groups of countries outside of the SCCR. Ultimately the Chair’s Summary concluded that the facilitators would create a new draft text and the item would remain on the agenda without any endorsement of a timeline toward a diplomatic conference. Opposition to the current Chair’s Text appeared to be growing. The Africa Group noted that “some members are concerned about the potential overreach of those protections, fearing that they could restrict access to broadcast or create unintended barriers to the flow of information.” The Asia Pacific Group similarly reported the views of some of its members “determination as to whether and how Intellectual Property rights should apply with respect to broadcasting is also a development to the issue that requires a delicate balance.” The Africa Group stated an additional position that “an instrument on the protection of broadcasting organizations should advance to a Diplomatic Conference jointly with an instrument on limitations and exceptions that meets the 2012 General Assembly’s mandate.”  Among the “Group B” coalition of wealthy countries, the United States continued to raise serious substantive objections, stating the view that “significant work remains to be done” on the Chair’s Draft, which “continues to exceed the GA mandate for a signal based approach to protect broadcasters in the traditional sense.” The US stated that it supports “a narrow text that is focused solely on the live signal,” including through deletion of the Chair’s Draft’s rights to fixation (Art 7) and making available stored programs (art 8).  Ultimately, while the level of engagement on the Broadcast Treaty was elevated, it does not appear the current text, especially its extensions to Internet-based transmissions and post-fixation rights to stored content, have sufficient consensus to move to a diplomatic conference. Limitations and Exceptions: A Foundation for Bridging Divergence The key issue for the limitations and exceptions agenda is reaching an agreement to begin text-based work on the 2012 GA mandate to work toward an “appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)” on uses by libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14). In SCCR 43, the Committee adopted a Work Program SCCR/43/8 REV to draft “objectives, principles, and options” for potential instruments. As noted above, the African Group will not support moving the Broadcast Treaty to a Diplomatic Conference without an instrument on L&E prepared to also be endorsed for finalization.  The Chair announced at the start of the L&E agenda that she had a meeting of “volunteer” member states the week before the SCCR to consult on ways forward. She further proposed that she could use the Chair’s position to “help put together a list of objectives and principles that could be seen as ground, a common basis” and that “could be seen as the cornerstone for a soft law instrument” that “could be an important tool used by WIPO and adopted by the General Assembly, it could provide Member States with significant guidelines and guiding principles.” She further proposed “the possibility of appointing facilitators to try and identify that common base.” All countries implicitly endorsed moving to text based work on principles and objectives for limitations and exceptions. The debate in the Committee was about where to start. Group B and CEBS endorsed starting to discuss the US proposed document – SCCR/44/5. The African Group and many developing countries opposed beginning with
- [The South Centre Publishes Resources from the "30 Years of TRIPS" Side Event at the WTO on Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries](https://knowledgegov.org/the-south-centre-publishes-resources-from-the-30-years-of-trips-side-event-at-the-wto-on-expectations-and-concerns-of-developing-countries/): On March 19th, 2025, an informal group of countries known as “Intellectual Property (IP) for Development” -Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India and Pakistan- hosted an informal side event, on the margins of the regular TRIPS Council session. The South Centre published the following commentary, program, presentations, and photos from this side event at this link, which are also shared below: Delegates and experts were invited to an initial discussion to reflect on the history of the TRIPS negotiations, 30 years after their conclusion. The formal Council for TRIPS session will hear a brief summary of the event and its key takeaways and reflections. The event took place in Room SI at the WTO and online, with participation of over 150 persons. The presentations, program, photos. [and videos] are available below:  W718 Side Event draft document Presentation: History of the TRIPS Agreement by Carlos Correa TRIPS Side Event Speech by Jayashree Watal Presentation: Restoring and Adding to the TRIPS Balance by Joshua Sarnoff Presentation: TRIPS restrictions on exports or imports when there is non-voluntary use of a patented invention by James Love Presentation: Non-disclosed information and trade secrets by Ellen ‘t Hoen Presentation: TRIPS and Copyright by Sean Flynn Presentation on Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS as well as Article 66 of TRIPS by Sangeeta Shashikant Event Photos Google Drive with Video Recordings Programme 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Welcome & Light Snacks 2:00 PM – 2:05 PM | Opening Remarks & Introduction –Ambassador Tareq Md. Ariful Islam, Bangladesh 2:05 PM – 2:35 PM | A History of the TRIPS Negotiations –Dr. Carlos Correa, South Centre 2:35 PM – 3:15 PM | Experiences of National NegotiatorsAmbassador Guilherme Patriota, BrazilMs. Jayashree Watal, India 3:15 PM – 4:25 PM | Panel: Key Issues & Provisions in TRIPS NegotiationsModerator: Dr. Viviana Munoz Tellez, South Centre Prof. Joshua Sarnoff (DePaul College of Law)Mr. James Love (Knowledge Ecology International – KEI)Dr. Ellen ’t Hoen (Medicines Law & Policy)Mr. Sean Flynn (American University)Ms. Sangeeta Shashikant (Third World Network – TWN) 4:25 PM – 4:30 PM | Closing & Summary – Amb. Ninad Deshpande, DPR India 4:30 PM – onwards | Farewell & Light Snack
- [Knowledge Ecology International will host roundtable on negotiating text for a WIPO Broadcast Treaty, April 3, 2025](https://knowledgegov.org/knowledge-ecology-international-will-host-roundtable-on-negotiating-text-for-a-wipo-broadcast-treaty/): In a Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) post made earlier today by James Love, KEI announced that it will host an informal roundtable on the WIPO broadcast treaty text that will be discussed at the WIPO SCCR 46 meeting from April 7 to April 11, 2025.  The meeting documents are available from WIPO here: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=86568, including the current negotiating text, here: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=641471 KEI’s announcement on the roundtable is linked here and can be read below: The format of the roundtable will be an information discussion of specific articles in the text, dealing with such issues as the definitions of beneficiaries and protected broadcasts, the rights granted, the provisions on national treatment and formalities, the treatment of fixation and post fixation rights (if any), the duration of protection, limitations and exceptions to rights, and other topics. Sean Flynn, The Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law, Luis Villarroel Villalon, the Director of Innovarte ONG in Chile, and James Love, Executive Director of KEI, will present some proposals for the text, but any of the particpants in the Zoom call will be encouraged in participate and share views as well. The discussion will be recorded. To register for the call, use this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/eeboYsSbSXSkDL6Xx3bsnA KEI will be posting links to some additional links to background documents shortly. 2023. Love, James P., “Comments on the September 6, 2023 Draft of a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, the Definitions, Scope of Application, National Treatment and Formalities” (2023). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 110.https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/110 2023. James Love. The Trouble With the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper, Series. 85. March 2023. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/88 2023. Bernt Hugenholtz, Simplifying the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Proposed Amendments to the Third Revised Draft,https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/111 2023. Bernt Hugenholtz, The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Comments on the Second Revised Draft,https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/84 2025. SCCR 46, PIJIP Technical Comments 2025. Schirru, Luca; Vyas, Lokesh; Jawara, Haddija; Ruthes Gonçalves, Lukas; McGee, Katie; Misto, Yara; and Flynn, Sean Michael Fiil, “Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR (Global Version)” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 145.https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/145
- [Statement of User Rights Network on Design Protection for Graphical User Interfaces](https://knowledgegov.org/statement-of-user-rights-network-on-design-protection-for-graphical-user-interfaces/): Professor Sean Flynn delivered the following statement at the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Trademarks on the proposal by the United States and others for a Joint Recommendation on Graphical User Interfaces.  The Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights is an association of IP professors around the world which includes many who also specialize in design law. We support the proposal by the African Group for a study on GUIs before moving further on the proposal for a joint recommendation.  In particular, I draw attention to the work of Professor Sarah Fackrell‬ Burstein, who has studied the use of design law protection on GUIs in the USA. She pointed out in correspondence with me that in the USA “Copyright protection is generally available for this subject matter,” but companies use design protection for GUIs “so they can subvert the low standards of copyright.” In her work Uncreative Designs, 73 Duke L.J. 1437 (2024), she describes how in the USA GUIs are sometimes granted protection that would not meet the copyright standard by the Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone, which held that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. One can see many interesting examples of such GUIs at her BlueSky hash tag #SubFeistDesigns https://bsky.app/hashtag/SubFeistDesigns  The US experience suggests that the terms in the joint recommendation may be very important and guidance may be needed for countries that do not want to promote extending protection to GUIs that is beyond that normally available under trademarks and copyrights in most countries already. It may be especially useful to study the potential impacts on large generic markets, such as those for cell phones, where expanding IP promotions for GUIs may negatively affect emerging industries.  We would be happy to work with the African Group and others interested in engaging the scholarship in this area. 
- [Knowledge Ecology International Publishes Highlights from WIPO Discussions on Graphical User Interfaces](https://knowledgegov.org/knowledge-ecology-international-publishes-highlights-from-wipo-discussions-on-graphical-user-interfaces/): 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](https://knowledgegov.org/legislative-initiatives-on-copyright-in-brazil-in-2024/): 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
- [INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA HIGHLIGHTS THE URGENCY OF COPYRIGHT REFORMS](https://knowledgegov.org/international-conference-in-south-africa-highlights-the-urgency-of-copyright-reforms/): 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
- [COMMUNIA’s submission to the Geo-blocking Regulation evaluation call for evidence](https://knowledgegov.org/communias-submission-to-the-geo-blocking-regulation-evaluation-call-for-evidence/): 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).
- [WTO Event on 30 Years of TRIPS](https://knowledgegov.org/wto-event-on-30-years-of-trips/): 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.
- [Why the WIPO IGC Deadlocked](https://knowledgegov.org/why-the-wipo-igc-deadlocked/): 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
- [The (Long) Road to the Broadcast Treaty: A Brief History](https://knowledgegov.org/the-long-road-to-the-broadcast-treaty-a-brief-history/): 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
- [Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance Released at World Intellectual Property Organization](https://knowledgegov.org/cradle-principles-on-knowledge-governance-released-at-world-intellectual-property-organization/): 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
- [WIPO Debate Stalls Over Including the Genetic Resources Treaty in the PCT Framework](https://knowledgegov.org/wipo-debate-stalls-over-including-the-genetic-resources-treaty-in-the-pct-framework/): 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
- [Developing Countries' Accomplishments in the WIPO Design Law Treaty](https://knowledgegov.org/developing-country-accomplishments-in-the-wipo-design-law-treaty/): 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
- [G20 Final Declaration](https://knowledgegov.org/g20-final-declaration/): [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_margin=”-92px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”] Allan Rocha de Souza [1] and Luca Schirru [2] On November 18 and 19, the G20 highest representatives met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when they issued the 2024 conclusive document of the Brazilian Presidency, the Leaders of the G20 Declaration. It was preceded by different sector declarations, of which the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture is especially relevant and has been commented upon here.   There was a call for action on three main priorities: “(i) social inclusion and the fight against hunger and poverty; (ii) sustainable development, energy transitions and climate action; and (iii) the reform of global governance institutions.” (p. 03 – item 13). There are plenty of references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) of the 2030 Agenda, and the recognition that the actions to reach them are lagging behind. (p.01 – item 03).   “Development” in general was linked to a variety of settings: Agendas, Goals, Frameworks, Cooperation, Trade, Banks, Funds, Policies, Programs and so on. Nonetheless, sustainability and climate are the main focus. And a broad concept of development and high goals guide the concluding remark, when the Leaders affirmed that “(We) remain resolute in our commitment to fighting hunger, poverty, and inequality, promoting sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and reforming global governance.” (p. 22 – item 85)  There were serious concerns around the uses and social, economic and political effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. So much so it earned a chapter of its own. The impacts on labor and workers, gender gap, people in vulnerable situations and the digital divide were central preoccupations, but their worries were also extended to intellectual property, data protection, and privacy:   “As AI and other technologies continue to evolve, it is also necessary to bridge digital divides, including halving the gender digital divide by 2030, prioritize the inclusion of people in vulnerable situations in the labor market, as well as ensure fairness, respect for intellectual property, data protection, privacy, and security.” (p. 20 – item 78).  While the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture was intense on copyright and AI, the Leaders’ Declaration has been less assertive in its goals, broadly calling for “a strengthened and effective global engagement on the discussion of copyright and related rights in the digital environment and the impacts of AI on copyright right holders.” (p. 08, item 28)   Cultural workers were also acknowledged as the G20 Leaders, as they reaffirmed the “commitment to support policies that promote the contribution of those working in the culture, arts and heritage sectors and call on countries to strengthen cooperation and dialogue addressing social and economic rights and artistic freedom, both online and offline.” (p. 08, item 28)   Interestingly, IP and labor rights were conjugated to highlight concerns of fair pay and working conditions of cultural workers, as policies that promote their status should be deployed “in accordance with intellectual property rights frameworks and international labor standards, for the enhancement of fair pay and decent working conditions.” (p. 08, item 28).  While the G20 Leaders’ Declaration approach to IP and cultural rights was less assertive than the Salvador da Bahia Declaration, it underscores the importance of fair policies for cultural workers. With a stronger focus on sustainability and inclusion, it approaches development from multiple angles, tries to foster international cooperation, while reaffirming the commitment to achieving the SDGs. Looking ahead, South Africa holds the G20 Presidency in 2025. [1] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), Brazil. He also teaches Copyright of the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ). Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral), a copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), and a lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. [2] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776.        [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
- [Perspectives from the ABPI (Brazilian Intellectual Property Association) Forum on AI and IP](https://knowledgegov.org/perspectives-from-the-abpi-brazilian-intellectual-property-association-forum-on-ai-and-ip/): By: Luca Schirru [1] and Allan Rocha de Souza [2] On December 11, 2024, the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property (ABPI) organized and hosted the Forum “Decoding Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” in São Paulo. The event was on December 11th, just one day after the Brazilian Senate approved the AI Bill (Bill No. 2338/23). The bill will now be returned to the House of Representatives for further discussion and, if approved, will be submitted for presidential sanction. The forum brought together a diverse group of stakeholders: IP rightsholders, technology companies, researchers, and legal practitioners to explore some of the most pressing issues at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). Discussions were particularly focused on the complex challenges posed by generative AI in the realm of copyright. The adequacy – or not – of the AI Bill in addressing issues such as remuneration, opt-out mechanisms, transparency, and text and data mining was a central topic of discussion, featuring insights from national and international speakers. The panels covered issues regarding AI inputs, outputs, and the balance between copyright protection and the need for innovation and development. The Brazilian Copyright Institute was represented by Allan Rocha and Luca Schirru.    Bertin Martens offered an economic perspective and reasons why opt-out mechanisms and restrictions on AI training may be economically inefficient, also referring to the provision in the Brazilian AI Bill. Luca Schirru addressed the challenges related to training AI systems and text and data mining. He highlighted how the current text of the Bill fails to adequately promote research due to several shortcomings, such as (i) the lawful access requirement and (ii) the fact that the copyright exception is restricted to institutions and (iii) excludes university-companies partnerships.  Caroline Tauk addressed key copyright challenges related to AI-generated outputs, such as authorship, ownership, originality, and potential copyright infringement claims. Professor Pamela Samuelson provided an overview of the legal challenges and their competing arguments presented in U.S. court cases. Samuelson’s insights spanned both input-related issues, such as data used for training AI systems, and output-related concerns, highlighting the complexity of navigating copyright in the context of AI.   The approval of the AI Bill faced criticism since the final version of the text was made available less than a week before the vote, as noted by Andriei Gutierrez, who considered it to be “irresponsible that the bill passed in the Senate. The text was approved last Thursday by a minimum number of senators, and the rest had until Tuesday to approve it.” (see here and here) Finally, Allan Rocha de Souza presented a critical perspective on the AI Bill and explained why, as it is, it does not strike a good balance between the promotion of research, authors’ remuneration, or an innovation environment, and suggested that it could be greatly improved with minor changes.    The legislative year will resume in March 2025 and given the broad criticism towards the approved AI Bill from various stakeholders, further discussions and revisions to the copyright provisions are expected in the House of Representatives.  [1] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776.   [2] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), and in the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ), Brazil. Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral). Copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ). Lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. 
- [Brazil Urges Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms for AI and IP Rights](https://knowledgegov.org/brazil-urges-stronger-enforcement-mechanisms-for-ai-and-ip-rights/): Brazil’s statement at WIPO CDIP 33 emphasized AI’s transformative potential in IP while highlighting challenges like copyright violations and the need for fair remuneration. Advocating for global governance and legislative reforms, Brazil called on WIPO to ensure transparency, equity, and inclusive policies that protect creators’ rights and provide equitable access to AI benefits. Brazil CDIP 33rd Statements BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank WIPO for the opportunity to discuss AI in the context of development. We note the many number of WIPO representatives at the podium now including ADG Natsumi which we thank very much for a time showing that this is a cross organizational aspect and expresses the correctness of treating this topic at the CDIP without prejudice to the specific technical committees of WIPO.  Now, Madam Chair, the rapid pace of development of AI technology has put it under the spot. In 2022, sorry, we were all stunned by the launch of generative AI systems which we all assumed were years away and now we as countries and we as international organizations are analyzing its implications, potential uses and the necessity of regulating it. AI, of course, can be of significant assistance to IP offices in the process of registration and management of industrial property rights such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs. The translation of technical documents is another area where AI can be widely applied with the assistance of WIPO. Some such uses were explored recently in the last session of the SCP and application of AI in PCT activities are also being discussed at the PCT Working Group. But another area of analysis is the constitution and exercise of Intellectual Property Rights. So on the patent side, the use of AI systems can have an impact on new discoveries, increasing innovation. It also raises questions about patentability and ownership of the innovation resulting from such systems. This was explored previously by the Secretariat. So AI can assist research with the potential to result in a large number of patent applications. Additionally, it may be used to boost anti-competitive strategies adopted by specific industries to file patents for incremental modifications aiming to block competitors’ R&D, so-called patent tickets. So in this context, legislative changes in the patent legislation may be necessary to encompass and address such challenges and opportunities. But the speed with which this technology develops is, of course, a challenge for us as regulators. Now, I would like to address specific copyright-related issues on AI. As we all know, AI systems, especially generative AI, demand vast amounts of data, the most valuable of which is copyright protected. Copyrighted works such as music, books and movies contain organized expression of ideas which are vital for AI systems to develop their capacities to, so to speak, mimic human behavior. Of course, generative AI can be a tool for creation and like any new tool, it has benefits and risks. It raises a series of ethical, aesthetic, technical and legal questions that we have the responsibility of examining. Now, in many countries, including Brazil, the United States and others, the protection of an author’s right is a constitutional clause. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which the person is the author. So we see a strong basis for discussing the protection of author’s rights in AI systems. There’s a trend towards the reduction of the value of creative works, the so-called commoditization of creative works, which affect the enjoyment and exercise of the copyright protection to authors, artists and creators. A study by CISAC published just last week shows that copyright right holders will lose 22 billion euros until 2020 in the music and audiovisual sectors alone. This figure does not include losses to writers, photographers, interpreters or producers of phonograms. Another study by German and French collective management organizations estimated that music authors will lose 27% of the royalties due to generative AI by 2028, four years away. Similar negative effects have been estimated in Australia and New Zealand. Now, what are the causes of such losses? They will be due to the substitution of human labor for AI, the competition of AI produced content with copyrighted works and the lack of payment for the use of protected works in the training of AI systems. This raises a particularly important question relating to the long-term production of works. AI systems demand a diversity of cultural production, but how could we generate it without authors, performers, creators and humans? How can we continue to have the production of works if we don’t have the necessary economic incentives for human authors in the copyright system? Further, how do we differentiate authentic human work from AI-generated works? Considering this scenario, it is without a surprise that authors demand a fair remuneration for the use of the works. Many letters, public manifestations have proliferated with thousands and thousands of artists, performers and their associations signing. At the same time, tech companies argue this would stem innovation, but the individual market value of a leading AI company can reach 250 billion U.S. dollars. Reports in the media also indicate that companies such as Google and Microsoft spend every few months 10 billion U.S. dollars on data centers and AI infrastructure. Further, as I had mentioned, copyrighted works are one of the most important, if not the most important input for generative AI systems. It would be not only illegal but absurd if AI companies did not pay for other basic inputs such as energy, data centers, or software. Why would this be the case with copyrighted works? And according to reports by authors, artists and even representatives from AI companies in the media, use of protected works is happening without authorization from rights holders. As a consequence of this, companies developing AI systems may have violated in each work used at least five rights granted to authors by copyright legislation. The first
- [Copyright, Cultural Rights and Research in the “Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture”](https://knowledgegov.org/46032-2/): Allan Rocha de Souza [1] and Luca Schirru [2] On November 18 and 19, the G20 highest representatives met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when they issued the 2024 conclusive document of the Brazilian Presidency, the Leaders of the G20 Declaration. It was preceded by different sector declarations, of which the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture is especially relevant and has been commented upon here.  There was a call for action on three main priorities: “(i) social inclusion and the fight against hunger and poverty; (ii) sustainable development, energy transitions and climate action; and (iii) the reform of global governance institutions.” (p. 03 – item 13). There are plenty of references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) of the 2030 Agenda, and the recognition that the actions to reach them are lagging behind. (p.01 – item 03) “Development” in general was linked to a variety of settings: Agendas, Goals, Frameworks, Cooperation, Trade, Banks, Funds, Policies, Programs and so on. Nonetheless, sustainability and climate are the main focus. And a broad concept of development and high goals guide the concluding remark, when the Leaders affirmed that “(We) remain resolute in our commitment to fighting hunger, poverty, and inequality, promoting sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and reforming global governance.” (p. 22 – item 85)  There were serious concerns around the uses and social, economic and political effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. So much so it earned a chapter of its own. The impacts on labor and workers, gender gap, people in vulnerable situations and the digital divide were central preoccupations, but their worries were also extended to intellectual property, data protection, and privacy:   “As AI and other technologies continue to evolve, it is also necessary to bridge digital divides, including halving the gender digital divide by 2030, prioritize the inclusion of people in vulnerable situations in the labor market, as well as ensure fairness, respect for intellectual property, data protection, privacy, and security.” (p. 20 – item 78)  While the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture was intense on copyright and AI, the Leaders’ Declaration has been less assertive in its goals, broadly calling for “a strengthened and effective global engagement on the discussion of copyright and related rights in the digital environment and the impacts of AI on copyright right holders.” (p. 08, item 28)   Cultural workers were also acknowledged as the G20 Leaders, as they reaffirmed the “commitment to support policies that promote the contribution of those working in the culture, arts and heritage sectors and call on countries to strengthen cooperation and dialogue addressing social and economic rights and artistic freedom, both online and offline.” (p. 08, item 28)   Interestingly, IP and labor rights were conjugated to highlight concerns of fair pay and working conditions of cultural workers, as policies that promote their status should be deployed “in accordance with intellectual property rights frameworks and international labor standards, for the enhancement of fair pay and decent working conditions.” (p. 08, item 28).  While the G20 Leaders’ Declaration approach to IP and cultural rights was less assertive than the Salvador da Bahia Declaration, it underscores the importance of fair policies for cultural workers. With a stronger focus on sustainability and inclusion, it approaches development from multiple angles, tries to foster international cooperation, while reaffirming the commitment to achieving the SDGs. Looking ahead, South Africa holds the G20 Presidency in 2025. [1] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), Brazil. He also teaches Copyright of the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ). Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral), a copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), and a lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. [2] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776. 

## Pages

- [Past Newsletters](https://knowledgegov.org/past-newsletters/)
- [Sandbox](https://knowledgegov.org/sandbox/): About us Providing research, technical support and training on intellectual property and related rights., in support of justice and sustainable development. Mission Leadership Partners & Funders Mission The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance is a project of American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. The mission of the Centre is to promote justice and sustainable development within policy-making institutions that govern access and use of information. The Centre conducts research and offers educational programs and technical assistance to support diplomats, government policy makers and public interest stakeholders engaged in international instruments on intellectual property rights and related rights. The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance developed in South Africa in 2022 guide and inform our work. The principles focus on the need for balance in our approaches to knowledge governance, promoting the public interest and guarding against predatory approaches to data extraction and use.  We draw on a global network of top thinkers from academic centres of excellence across the world, including specialists in intellectual property law, computational research, human rights and traditional knowledge. Leadership The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance is supported by a core team responsible for driving the Centre’s research, programmes, and partnerships; by a group of senior research fellows; and by an expert advisory board. The Centre leadership bring together diverse expertise across knowledge governance, ensuring the Centre’s work is informed, inclusive, and globally engaged. Directors and Counsel Sean Michael Flynn Director Sean Michael Flynn Director Professor Flynn researches and teaches on the intersection of intellectual property, international law, and human rights. Professor Flynn designs and manages a wide variety of research and advocacy projects that promote the public interest in intellectual property and information law. Professor Flynn Chairs the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights and is a founding member of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. He is Editor in Chief of Infojustice.org, a leading public interest law and policy blog. He is a special faculty appointment at American University Washington College of Law, visiting Scholar at the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR), and Senior Research Associate at the University of Cape Town’s Intellectual Property Unit. Prior to joining WCL, Professor Flynn completed a Fulbright Fellowship, was clerk to Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, South African Constitutional Court and Judge Raymond Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, practiced law at Spiegel & McDiarmid and the Consumer Project on Technology, and served on the policy team advising then Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval Patrick. Ben Cashdan Communications and Development Director Ben Cashdan Communications and Development Director Ben Cashdan is a economist and television producer in South Africa. He was an economic advisor in the South African Presidency under President Nelson Mandela, focusing on capacity building and local economic development. Since 2000 Ben has served as executive producer of a number of television series on democracy and development for global broadcasters. In 2015 Ben co-founded ReCreate South Africa, a coalition of creators and users of copyrighted material in South Africa, working together for fair and balanced copyright reform and access to knowledge. Ben has a masters degree in Social and Political Sciences from Kings College Cambridge and a Postgraduate Certificate in Economics from the London School of Economics. Ben also continued his postgraduate studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in the Department of Economic Geography. He was South African producer for Harry Belafonte’s biographical documentary Sing Your Song. Ben has also produced 4 episodes of The World Debate on BBC World News. He developed and produced the first season of South2North on Al Jazeera English, the first global talk show to be produced in Africa for a major global broadcaster. In December 2013 Cashdan produced an episode of BBC Question Time on South Africa after Mandela. Ben has directed a number of broadcast media projects on democracy and development in partnership with agencies including the World Economic Forum, the United Nations Development Programme and the African Leadership Academy. Andrés Izquierdo Counsel Andrés Izquierdo Counsel Andrés Izquierdo is Senior Research Analyst for our project on the Right to Research in International Copyright. He conducts high-impact research, provides training to a global network of change-makers, and connects a global academic network to the work of global and domestic organizations that represent researchers, libraries, museums, archives, educational and research institutions. Before joining PIJIP, Andrés Izquierdo practiced law through his award-winning intellectual property and cyber law practice in Colombia. He has been named one of the best entertainment law attorneys in Colombia by the publications Best Lawyers (2020), and top Intellectual Property practitioner by Chambers and Partners (2014-2020), and is author of the book Cyberlaw by Wolters Kluwer. Izquierdo was previously Business and Legal Director for Sony Music Entertainment in the Andean Region, and litigation partner in Palacio, Izquierdo & Ballesteros, an intellectual property law firm in Colombia. He has LLM degrees in Intellectual Property from American University Washington College of Law and from the University of Turin – WIPO, and a law degree from Universidad de Los Andes. Susan Isiko Štrba Counsel and Senior Fellow Susan Isiko Štrba Counsel and Senior Fellow Dr. Susan Isiko Štrba is currently Counsel and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre on Knowledge Governance at the Graduate Institute. She provides legal and technical assistance to African Member States for negotiations, especially relating to intellectual property. She also provides tailored research on knowledge governance, with special focus on Africa. She combines teaching and research with providing policy and legislative advice and technical training to governments, intergovernmental organisations and civil society. She focusses mainly on human rights, intellectual property (IP), trade and development. Dr Isiko Štrba is the author of “International Copyright Law and Access to Education in Developing Countries: Exploring Multilateral Legal and Quasi-Legal Solutions”, a leading guide to the functioning of international copyright law for the public interest in developing countries. She has also published numerous journal articles in the field of food security,
- [Luca Schirru](https://knowledgegov.org/about/luca-schirru/): Luca Schirru Research Coordinator Linkedin-in About Luca Luca has a PhD from the UFRJ Graduation Program on Public Policy, Development and Strategies (PPED/UFRJ) with a thesis on ‘Copyright and AI Generated Works’ and is a Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute. He is a research fellow at the Centre for IT & IP Law (KU Leuven) and a post-doctoral researcher at the National Institute of Citizen Science in Brazil. He is a guest professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Development and Strategies (PPED/UFRJ) and professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Articles by this Author Blog Tracing a Century of Broadcasting Rights Debates: 1928–2025 This timeline provides a detailed view of the developments concerning broadcasting rights within international copyright law. It begins with the… Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn20 November, 2025 Blog Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR: A Timeline The timeline presented below details the progression of discussions within the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) regarding Limitations and… Luca Schirru, Ben Cashdan and Sean Flynn20 November, 2025 Artificial Intelligence Danish Bill Proposes Using Copyright Law to Combat Deepfakes Recently, a Danish Bill has been making headlines by addressing issues related to deepfake through a rather uncommon approach: copyright…. Luca Schirru15 July, 2025 Artificial Intelligence Latest Developments on Training GenAI with Copyrighted Works and Some 'What Ifs?' ‘Boring’ is not a word that can be used to describe the past few days for those interested in litigation… Luca Schirru30 June, 2025 Blog Highlights from the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium 2025: Principles for Digital Copyright The Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium public event took place from June 16-17, 2025, at the Geneva… Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn23 June, 2025 Blog EIFL publishes new provision on Secondary Publication Rights EIFL Draft Law on Copyright On May 27, 2025, EIFL launched an updated version of its Draft Law on Copyright,… Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn2 June, 2025 Artificial Intelligence Fair Use and Generative AI: Reading Between the Lines of the USCO Report At the beginning of May, the report “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence. Part 3: Generative AI Training” was released, sparking a… Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn29 May, 2025 Artificial Intelligence Highlights from the USCO Report on the Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Copyright Policy (Part 1: Output Phase) About the Report In February 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released the report “Identifying the Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence… Luca Schirru19 May, 2025
- [Ben Cashdan](https://knowledgegov.org/about/ben-cashdan/): Ben Cashdan Director of Communications Linkedin-in About Ben Ben Cashdan is a economist and television producer in South Africa. He was an economic advisor in the South African Presidency under President Nelson Mandela, focusing on capacity building and local economic development. Since 2000 Ben has served as executive producer of a number of television series on democracy and development for global broadcasters. In 2015 Ben co-founded ReCreate South Africa, a coalition of creators and users of copyrighted material in South Africa, working together for fair and balanced copyright reform and access to knowledge.   Ben has a masters degree in Social and Political Sciences from Kings College Cambridge and a Postgraduate Certificate in Economics from the London School of Economics. Ben also continued his postgraduate studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in the Department of Economic Geography. He was South African producer for Harry Belafonte’s biographical documentary Sing Your Song. Ben has also produced 4 episodes of The World Debate on BBC World News. He developed and produced the first season of South2North on Al Jazeera English, the first global talk show to be produced in Africa for a major global broadcaster. In December 2013 Cashdan produced an episode of BBC Question Time on South Africa after Mandela.   Ben has directed a number of broadcast media projects on democracy and development in partnership with agencies including the World Economic Forum, the United Nations Development Programme and the African Leadership Academy. Articles by this Author Comparison Table on L&Es: Africa Group, Chair, US, Previous SCCR For our full comparison table click here: Ben Cashdan25 November, 2025 Blog Centre publishes new analysis on broadcast, limitations and exceptions This week our research team published a series of new reports. These relate to the work streams in the upcoming… Ben Cashdan21 November, 2025 Blog Centre Director Sean Flynn featured in ‘GLOBE’ Sean Flynn, Director of the Centre on Knowledge Governance was featured in GLOBE #36, the review of the Geneva Graduate… Ben Cashdan20 November, 2025 Blog Four new proposals for SCCR 47 The World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) has published four new proposals on ways forward for some of its key work… Ben Cashdan22 October, 2025 Africa: Copyright & Public Interest Case Studies of AI for Good and AI for Development Today the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance presents a series of Case Studies on AI for Good in Africa and… Ben Cashdan20 October, 2025 Blog The AI Remuneration Debate: Three Perspectives The rapid development of generative AI has sparked intense debate over how, or even if, creators should be compensated when… Ben Cashdan6 October, 2025 Blog 25 Sept 2025: Beyond Adoption: Why it Matters and What is Next for Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge On 25 September, former Director of the Traditional Knowledge Division at the World Intellectual Property Organization Wend Wendland will deliver… Ben Cashdan23 September, 2025 Centre News Tracking AI for Good in the Global South: Our TDM Case Studies are Online The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance has been researching cases of Computational Research (or Text and Data Mining) aimed at… Ben Cashdan27 August, 2025 Centre News How will Gen-AI lawsuits Impact Copyright? We Help You Keep Track. Are you trying to keep track of all the litigation by rights holders and creators against Generative AI companies? Litigation… Ben Cashdan27 August, 2025 Centre News It is Official: The Centre will Launch between September and November 2025 It is official – the Centre on Knowledge Governance will be launching in the coming months. In September and October… Ben Cashdan27 August, 2025 Case Studies Ethical Sourcing of African Language Data: Lanafrica and the NOODL licence Over 2,000 African languages are spoken by approximately 1.4 billion people on the continent, showing how linguistic diversity underpins African… Ben Cashdan17 August, 2025 Case Studies The Global Evolution of AI Fact-Checking: Copyright and Research Gaps Abstract The propagation and evolution of AI-powered fact-checking tools worldwide has foregrounded the issue of access to quality training data…. Ben Cashdan15 August, 2025 Case Studies A Talking Health Chatbot in African Languages: DSFSI, University of Pretoria A project at the Data Sciences for Social Impact (DSFSI) group, University of Pretoria, led by Professor Vukosi Marivate, is… Ben Cashdan28 June, 2025 Case Studies Masakhane: Use of the JW300 Dataset for Natural Language Processing The Masakhane Project showcases the transformative power of open, collaborative efforts in advancing natural language processing (NLP) for African languages…. Ben Cashdan28 June, 2025 Artificial Intelligence Promoting AI for Good in the Global South – Highlights Across Africa and Latin America, researchers are using Artificial Intelligence to solve pressing problems: from addressing health challenges and increasing… Ben Cashdan23 June, 2025 Blog The NOODL license: Licensing African datasets to support research and AI in the Global South With the increasing prominence of AI in all sectors of our economy and society, access to training data has become… Ben Cashdan5 June, 2025
- [Susan Isiko Štrba](https://knowledgegov.org/about/susan-isiko-strba/): Susan Isiko Štrba Counsel and Senior Fellow Linkedin-in X-twitter About Susan Dr. Susan Isiko Štrba is currently Counsel and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre on Knowledge Governance at the Graduate Institute. She provides legal and technical assistance to African Member States for negotiations, especially relating to intellectual property. She also provides tailored research on knowledge governance, with special focus on Africa. She combines teaching and research with providing policy and legislative advice and technical training to governments, intergovernmental organisations and civil society. She focusses mainly on human rights, intellectual property (IP), trade and development. Dr Isiko Štrba is the author of “International Copyright Law and Access to Education in Developing Countries: Exploring Multilateral Legal and Quasi-Legal Solutions”, a leading guide to the functioning of international copyright law for the public interest in developing countries. She has also published numerous journal articles in the field of food security, health, education, trade, IP and development.   She currently researches the interface of technology, intellectual property and development, with the focus on Africa. She is a member of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP) and a member of the Executive Council of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL). Dr Isiko Štrba has taught Intellectual property, competition law and human rights in various institutions including: the Boston University (Geneva International Campus), The Graduate Institute, Trade Policy Training Centre in Africa (TRAPCA), the International University in Geneva, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa and the WIPO Academy.
- [Andrés Izquierdo](https://knowledgegov.org/about/andres-izquierdo/): Andrés Izquierdo Council Linkedin-in About Andrés Andrés Izquierdo is Senior Research Analyst for our project on the Right to Research in International Copyright. He conducts high-impact research, provides training to a global network of change-makers, and connects a global academic network to the work of global and domestic organizations that represent researchers, libraries, museums, archives, educational and research institutions. Before joining PIJIP, Andrés Izquierdo practiced law through his award-winning intellectual property and cyber law practice in Colombia. He has been named one of the best entertainment law attorneys in Colombia by the publications Best Lawyers (2020), and top Intellectual Property practitioner by Chambers and Partners (2014-2020), and is author of the book Cyberlaw by Wolters Kluwer. Izquierdo was previously Business and Legal Director for Sony Music Entertainment in the Andean Region, and litigation partner in Palacio, Izquierdo & Ballesteros, an intellectual property law firm in Colombia. He has LLM degrees in Intellectual Property from American University Washington College of Law and from the University of Turin – WIPO, and a law degree from Universidad de Los Andes. Articles by this Author Artificial Intelligence INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL, DERECHOS DE AUTOR Y EL FUTURO DE LA CREATIVIDAD: APUNTES DE LA FERIA INTERNACIONAL DEL LIBRO DE PANAMÁ Por Andrés Izquierdo Durante la segunda semana de agosto, fui invitado a hablar en la Feria Internacional del Libro de… Andres Izquierdo28 August, 2025 Artificial Intelligence AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book Fair AI, Copyright, and the Future of Creativity: Notes from the Panama International Book FairDuring the second week of August, I… Andres Izquierdo22 August, 2025 Blog WIPO General Assembly 66th: Navigating a Comprehensive Agenda with Constructive Dialogue Despite the weight of a packed agenda and the significance of several recent treaty milestones, the Sixty-Sixth Series of Meetings… Andres Izquierdo30 June, 2025 Blog WIPO Budget Committee Concludes Without Agreement on Indigenous Participation Funding At the close of WIPO’s 39th Program and Budget Committee (PBC) session, a modest yet symbolically significant proposal—to allocate regular… Andres Izquierdo23 June, 2025 Blog No Breakthroughs at WIPO: Budget Committee Defers Core Disputes Despite a full agenda and spirited debate, WIPO’s 39th Program and Budget Committee ended with little to show in terms… Andres Izquierdo23 June, 2025 Blog Ensuring Indigenous Participation at WIPO: GRULAC Proposal at PBC/38 At the 38th session of WIPO’s Program and Budget Committee (PBC), the Delegation of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the… Andres Izquierdo13 June, 2025 Blog Why Limitations and Exceptions Still Deserve a Bigger Role at WIPO CDIP As WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) prepares to meet for its 34th session this May, an important… Andres Izquierdo3 May, 2025 Blog WIPO Debate Stalls Over Including the Genetic Resources Treaty in the PCT Framework By Andres Izquierdo, Yara Misto, & Haddija Jawara The latest session of the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group… Andres Izquierdo27 February, 2025
- [Medical innovation and access](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/medical-innovation-and-access/): Medical innovation and access Articles on intellectual property and medicines pricing and access All articles All focus areas All articles on access to medicines
- [Recognition and remuneration of authors and other creators](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/recognition-and-remuneration-of-authors-and-other-creators/): Recognition and remuneration of authors and other creators Blogs, case studies and other features fair remuneration of authors and other content creators All articles All focus areas Research highlight: The AI Remuneration Debate The rapid development of generative AI has sparked intense debate over how, or even if, creators should be compensated when their copyrighted works are used to train commercial AI systems. This issue pits the drive for technological innovation against the fundamental rights of authors to benefit from their creations, leading to diverse proposals for legal and economic frameworks that seek to strike a fair balance. The following three presentations from the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Symposium in June 2025 explore this complex landscape from distinct legal, philosophical, and geopolitical perspectives. https://youtu.be/3kp6UJssYuk PART 1: Christophe Geiger approaches the problem from a human rights perspective, arguing for a balance between the right to develop AI for cultural and scientific progress and the author’s right to benefit from their work. He critiques current systems, noting the “all-or-nothing” nature of the US “fair use” doctrine and the EU’s “bizarre” opt-out rule for text and data mining, which he believes fails to secure fair compensation for authors due to unequal bargaining power with publishers and producers. His central proposal is to replace the EU’s opt-out system with a mandatory statutory remuneration scheme for the commercial use of works in AI training. Drawing on the success of similar “remunerated exceptions” in Europe, which generate significant revenue, Geiger proposes that income from this scheme be distributed directly to creators. Geiger contends this model would uphold authors’ human right to fair remuneration without stifling innovation. https://youtu.be/sXCiPo42yAw PART 2: Zachary Cooper reframes the debate by arguing that traditional copyright concepts are becoming obsolete in an age of infinite digital remixing and AI-driven content creation. He contends that focusing on authorship thresholds is futile because the line between human and machine creation is hopelessly blurred and impossible to audit reliably. Methods like watermarking are technically weak and easily circumvented. For Cooper, the real issue is the massive scale of AI generation, which makes copyright enforcement impractical and weakens creators’ negotiating power. He describes copyright as “a dam in an infinite river,” an outdated barrier against a constant flow of transformation. Instead of rigid ownership rules, Cooper suggests the future lies in collective licensing models and a greater emphasis on attribution and visibility, which would allow creators to capture value as their work spreads across massive platforms. https://youtu.be/rvaUl2gBY80 PART 3: Vitor Ido situates the remuneration debate within the political and economic context of Brazil and Latin America, presenting it as a crucial tool for regulating corporate power and protecting national creative industries. He explains that for GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), the issue is not just about copyright but about challenging the dominance of large, foreign-based platforms that exploit local content with little to no payment to creators. The discussion also encompasses cultural sovereignty, such as protecting the dubbing industry from AI-generated voices, and safeguarding the traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities from misappropriation. Ido highlights Brazil’s draft AI Bill, which proposes an inverse of the EU’s system: a mandatory remuneration right that includes a reciprocity clause and ties the payment amount to the size of the AI company, directly targeting the market power of major corporations. This approach frames remuneration as a strategic element in a broader agenda of economic justice and cultural preservation in the Global South. Recognition and remuneration of authors and other creators
- [Access to knowledge for education, research, and cultural heritage](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/access-to-knowledge-for-education-research-and-cultural-heritage/): Access to knowledge for education, research, and cultural heritage Blogs, case studies and other features exceptions and limitations for education, research and cultural heritage All articles All focus areas All articles related knowledge for education, research, and cultural heritage
- [Sean Flynn](https://knowledgegov.org/about/sean-flynn/): Sean Michael Flynn Director Linkedin-in X-twitter About Sean Professor Flynn researches and teaches on the intersection of intellectual property, international law, and human rights. Professor Flynn designs and manages a wide variety of research and advocacy projects that promote the public interest in intellectual property and information law. Professor Flynn Chairs the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights and is a founding member of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. He is Editor in Chief of Infojustice.org, a leading public interest law and policy blog. He is a special faculty appointment at American University Washington College of Law, visiting Scholar at the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR), and Senior Research Associate at the University of Cape Town’s Intellectual Property Unit. Prior to joining WCL, Professor Flynn completed a Fulbright Fellowship, was clerk to Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, South African Constitutional Court and Judge Raymond Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, practiced law at Spiegel & McDiarmid and the Consumer Project on Technology, and served on the policy team advising then Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval Patrick. Articles by this Author Blog Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate? The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as document SCCR/47/3… Sean Flynn22 October, 2025 Blog User Rights Network on SCCR Calls for Progress The following statement was delivered by Professor Sean Flynn on behalf of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights… Sean Flynn10 July, 2025 Blog WIPO DDG Expresses “Frustration” and “Bitterness” and Calls for Risk Taking for Progress The World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly’s consideration of the work of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights… Sean Flynn10 July, 2025 Blog WIPO GA Opening Statements Signal Debates Ahead Sean Flynn and Talia Deady The World Intellectual Property Organization’s General Assembly finished the opening statements of Member States and… Sean Flynn10 July, 2025 US Proposes Limiting IGC Meetings and Mandate Sean Flynn The United States delegation, in its opening statement to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual… Sean Flynn3 June, 2025 Can One Country Block Everything in WIPO? Sean Flynn One of the questions swirling around Geneva these days is whether one country can block all progress alone…. Sean Flynn18 May, 2025 A Step Forward: World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Committee Inches Forward on Broadcast and Limitations The Forty-Sixth Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) concluded with modest… Sean Flynn21 April, 2025 Statement of User Rights Network on Design Protection for Graphical User Interfaces [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left”… Sean Flynn26 March, 2025 Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance Released at World Intellectual Property Organization Sean Flynn The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance were released today at the 50th meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on… Sean Flynn3 March, 2025
- [RSVP](https://knowledgegov.org/rsvp/): Knowledge Centre Events See details on and RSVP to events organised by the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance in the list below. 2 events found. Today Upcoming Upcoming Select date. Browse by category ✕ * Geneva Centre & Partners Assemblies Budget, Standards, Enforcement Copyright, SCCR Development, CDIP Patents, PCT, IPC Trademarks, GIs, AOs, Design Traditional Knowledge, IGC * All WIPO Meetings * All Events * All WHO meetings November 2025 Tue 25 November 25 @ 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm UTC+1 Online Briefing on WIPO SCCR 47 Virtual Event * Geneva Centre & Partners Preview and analysis of issues on the agenda of the 47th Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organization RSVP Now Free December 2025 Wed 3 December 3 @ 6:00 pm – 9:30 pm UTC+1 Centre on Knowledge Governance Launch & Reception Geneva Graduate Institute Chem. Eugène-Rigot 2, 1202 Genève, Switzerland, Geneva, Switzerland * Geneva Centre & Partners Can Intellectual Property respond to today’s global challenges? Book Launch with Wend Wendland & H.E Guilherme Patriota followed by Panel Discussion with Ruth Okediji, Ellen ‘t Hoen, and Sean Flynn Moderated by Ben Cashdan RSVP Now Free Previous Events Today Next Events Subscribe to calendar Google Calendar iCalendar Outlook 365 Outlook Live Export .ics file Export Outlook .ics file
- [ben test blog](https://knowledgegov.org/ben-test-blog/): An Open Letter to the ICANN Community: Not the Community Priority Evaluation We Intended This post was originally published on CircleID by Kathy Kleiman To the ICANN… Read More InfoJustice Eds.25 July, 2025 Ethical Data Scraping for Research – Expert Workshop held in Amsterdam A unique, expert-led workshop on ethical data scraping was organized… Read More InfoJustice Eds.25 July, 2025 Balanced Copyright Protection in the UK-India CETA Jonathan Band             The full text of the Intellectual Property… Read More InfoJustice Eds.24 July, 2025 Excerpts from Delegation Statements on the SCCR at the 2025 General Assembly Sean Flynn, Luca Schirru, Talia Deady  In a previous blog… Read More InfoJustice Eds.24 July, 2025 Load More
- [Home2](https://knowledgegov.org/): Welcome to the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance Promoting information justice and knowledge equity within and between countries. About Publications News Events The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance conducts research and provides technical assistance and teaching from offices in the heart of International Geneva. Our work promotes information justice and knowledge equity within and between countries. The Centre coordinates a network of scholars and research institutes around the world and we provide support to government delegations and non-governmental organisations. Our current focus areas include: AI and computational research Traditional knowledge governance Access to knowledge for education, research, and cultural heritage Recognition and remuneration of authors and other creators Medical innovation and access   We publish a blog, a series of research papers, an online learning course and videos, and we host public events. Centre Events All Events Centre News
- [Africa & Latin America - with border](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/africa-latin-america-with-border/): Africa & Latin America Home / Page News from Africa, Latin America and the Global South Read our latest news and commentary. Choose a region to filter the stories. ALL: Africa & Latin America Africa: Copyright & Public Interest Latin America / GRULAC 23 June, 2025Ben Cashdan Promoting AI for Good in the Global South – Highlights by Ben Cashdan Across Africa and Latin America, researchers are using Artificial Intelligence to solve pressing problems: from addressing health challenges and increasing access to information for underserved communities, to preserving languages and culture. This wave of “AI for Good” in the Global South faces a major difficulty: how to… Read More 27 May, 2025Sanya Samtani The South African Copyright Amendment Bill at the Constitutional Court: Notes from the Presidential Referral of the Bill (Part II) — Sanya Samtani[1] In Part I of this blogpost, I briefly set out the procedural history of the copyright reform process that led to the Presidential Referral of the Bill to the Constitutional Court. I also briefly explained the scope of Referral proceedings and the parties involved. In this Part,… Read More 27 May, 2025Sanya Samtani The South African Copyright Amendment Bill at the Constitutional Court: Notes from the Presidential Referral of the Bill (Part I) — Sanya Samtani[1] On 21 and 22 May 2025, the South African Constitutional Court heard the matter of Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In re Constitutionality of the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill. The hearing in these ‘Referral proceedings’ was significant as… Read More 15 May, 2025Denise Nicholson SA CONCOURT OPENS DOOR TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN COPYRIGHT CASE In its landmark ruling on 7 May 2025, the Constitutional Court has opened the doors to access to information and accessible formats for people with disabilities.  It has also paved the way for South Africa to ratify the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty. For decades, Blind SA has been lobbying against the… Read More 8 May, 2025Sanya Samtani South African apex court recognises the “constitutional imperatives of equality and dignity for persons with disabilities” in landmark copyright judgment  On 7 May 2025, the Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down judgment in Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2025] ZACC 9 (‘Blind SA II’). The judgment read-in an immediately operational accessible format shifting provision for people with all disabilities across the spectrum… Read More 25 March, 2025InfoJustice Eds. Legislative Initiatives on Copyright in Brazil in 2024 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… Read More Load More End of Content.
- [Video Library](https://knowledgegov.org/publications/video-library/): Video Library Voices from experts on key IP topics. See videos below or navigate to our other publications. Blog Papers Voices on IP from the Global South 2025 Dr Melissa Omino: Licensing African Datasets to support research & AI in the Global South (NOODL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYik8MdY8RM&list=PLuk2SmOxN5RL9IYMEUFhZ-ULp-3sJn1Cn&index=1&t=1s PROMOTING AI FOR GOOD IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH – SCCR46 Side Event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdO2wbUv3SI&list=PLuk2SmOxN5RL9IYMEUFhZ-ULp-3sJn1Cn&index=2 Prof Chidi Oguamanam, The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Equity: An Agenda for Traditional Knowledge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLLdw3-ijMo&list=PLuk2SmOxN5RL9IYMEUFhZ-ULp-3sJn1Cn&index=3 Can copyright work for the Global South? Personal views of Ambassador Patriota, Brazil Rep to WTO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcWodvxnLYI&list=PLuk2SmOxN5RL9IYMEUFhZ-ULp-3sJn1Cn&index=4 The Right to Research in International Copyright Law (Lecture Series) Panel at WIPO: The Right to Research in International Copyright (Full length). 10 May 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nhsi_WrYvk&list=PLuk2SmOxN5RLpFEXCjM1K61lt5rkAiEWx&index=1 Panel at WIPO: The Right to Research in International Copyright (Highlights). 10 May 2022. https://youtu.be/LqLPtdMrJyo?si=PWqTDcpZXDf0OIs7 Prof Sean Flynn: A Conceptual Overview. Right to Research in International Copyright Seminar 1 https://youtu.be/Zhu-MVd4AME?si=9NRU8RIWQWPQQplg Prof Sean Flynn: Research as a Human Right. Right to Research in International Copyright Seminar 2.1 https://youtu.be/_oIqmQI9yjY?si=H2aI3kzjzXM8gWH8 Dr Sanya Samtani: Research as a Human Right. Right to Research in Int’l. Copyright Seminar 2.2 https://youtu.be/yp1FEm8Dy1o?si=eKi2V-Wg9NJYXhAT Prof Klaus Beiter: Research as a Human Right. Right to Research in Int’l. Copyright Seminar 2.3 https://youtu.be/MvEL7f1rAqI?si=tjs7Jtu-Km4SQAYO Prof Desmond Oriakhogba: Research as a Human Right. Right to Research in Intl. Copyright Seminar 2.4 https://youtu.be/wTu3FZRzsGU?si=ZfVS8c-Ruy2-ZB1o Prof Amanda Levendowski: Garbage in, Garbage Out. Right to Research in Int’l Copyright Seminar 3 https://youtu.be/cdbtUhKvFDw?si=pMM3rRI6OBqDnom4 Seminar 3: Q&A. Right to Research in International Copyright. https://youtu.be/xck9jNhQKy8?si=83EMTkqL-L2SnHlE
- [AI and computational research](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/ai-and-computational-development/): AI and computational research Blogs, case studies and other features on AI for good, AI for development, governance issues in data mining and other topics. Cases: AI for good All articles All focus areas Research highlight: Case studies on AI for good These case studies grew out of the Geneva Knowledge Centre’s work on Text and Data Mining and our policy work in support of the Right to Research. They examine how computational methods and Artificial Intelligence (AI) play a leading role in finding and implementing solutions to local and global challenges. A common thread that runs through all the cases is how intellectual property laws can support innovation and problem solving in the public interest, whilst protecting the interests of creators, communities and custodians of traditional knowledge. In addition several practitioners are looking at how to redress data imbalances. The cases include: Work by researchers at the University of Pretoria Data Sciences for Social Impact Research Group to broaden health access in South Africa by creating a talking health chatbot based on a Large Language Model (LLM) trained on South African vernacular TV shows. A cross border collaboration between the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at the University of Strathmore in Kenya and the Data Sciences Law Lab at the University of Pretoria to develop a hierarchical creative commons license called NOODL, which facilitates access to African works for non-profit or developmental users, whilst ensuring larger corporations provide benefits to local communities for their use of data. Work by Blind South Africa to identify and promote tools for the visually impaired which are trained to work in African languages. Efforts to to create LATAM-GPT, a large language model using ethically-sourced data and tuned to the cultural specificities of researchers and communities in the Latin America, led by Chile’s National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) with support from non-governmental groups such as Data-Uruguay and Fundación Via Libre in Argentina. A paradigm shift from Data Mining to Data Farming being led by Lanfrica, natural language processing pioneers in Nigeria, who launched their NaijaVoices  initiative dedicated to building a digital future for all Nigerian languages, irrespective of their popularity or status.  In 2024, Lanfrica released the largest African speech dataset to date, spanning over 5,000 unique voices and 1,800 hours.  Each of our case studies in written up in the form of a report, combined with a video exploration of the case study in the words of its leading practitioners. Click below to explore them. All articles related to AI and computational research
- [AI and Copyright](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/ai-and-copyright/): AI and Copyright Home / Page LATAM-GPT: A Culturally Sensitive Large Language Model for Latin America 28 June, 2025/No Comments LATAM-GPT is a groundbreaking large language model developed by the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) in Chile, in partnership with over thirty institutions and twelve Latin American countries. The initiative aims to create an open-source AI model that reflects the region’s diverse cultures, languages—including Spanish, Portuguese, and Indigenous tongues—and… Read More Blind South Africa: Apps for the Visually Impaired 28 June, 2025/No Comments An initiative led by Christo de Klerk at Blind South Africa focuses on promoting the use of accessible mobile and digital applications for blind and visually impaired people in South Africa. Highlighted at the 2025 Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa conference, the project addresses the importance of robust… Read More A Talking Health Chatbot in African Languages: DSFSI, University of Pretoria 28 June, 2025/No Comments A project at the Data Sciences for Social Impact (DSFSI) group, University of Pretoria, led by Professor Vukosi Marivate, is developing a talking health chatbot in African languages to provide accessible, culturally relevant health information to underserved communities. Central to the initiative is the planned use of health actuality TV… Read More Masakhane: Use of the JW300 Dataset for Natural Language Processing 28 June, 2025/No Comments The Masakhane Project showcases the transformative power of open, collaborative efforts in advancing natural language processing (NLP) for African languages. However, its reliance on the JW300 dataset—a vast multilingual corpus primarily comprising copyrighted biblical translations—uncovered significant legal and ethical challenges. These challenges focused on copyright restrictions, contract overrides, and the… Read More All Posts Case Studies The NOODL license: Licensing African datasets to support research and AI in the Global South With the increasing prominence of AI in all sectors of our economy and society, access to training data has become an important topic for practitioners and policy makers. In the Global North, a small number of large corporations with deep pockets have gained a head start in AI development, using… Read More Masakhane: Use of the JW300 Dataset for Natural Language Processing The Masakhane Project showcases the transformative power of open, collaborative efforts in advancing natural language processing (NLP) for African languages. However, its reliance on the JW300 dataset—a vast multilingual corpus primarily comprising copyrighted biblical translations—uncovered significant legal and ethical challenges. These challenges focused on copyright restrictions, contract overrides, and the… Read More A Talking Health Chatbot in African Languages: DSFSI, University of Pretoria A project at the Data Sciences for Social Impact (DSFSI) group, University of Pretoria, led by Professor Vukosi Marivate, is developing a talking health chatbot in African languages to provide accessible, culturally relevant health information to underserved communities. Central to the initiative is the planned use of health actuality TV… Read More Blind South Africa: Apps for the Visually Impaired An initiative led by Christo de Klerk at Blind South Africa focuses on promoting the use of accessible mobile and digital applications for blind and visually impaired people in South Africa. Highlighted at the 2025 Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa conference, the project addresses the importance of robust… Read More LATAM-GPT: A Culturally Sensitive Large Language Model for Latin America LATAM-GPT is a groundbreaking large language model developed by the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) in Chile, in partnership with over thirty institutions and twelve Latin American countries. The initiative aims to create an open-source AI model that reflects the region’s diverse cultures, languages—including Spanish, Portuguese, and Indigenous tongues—and… Read More
- [Focus Areas](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/): Focus Areas Our focus areas bring together actionable research, policy dialogue, and regional perspectives on knowledge governance. Navigating Regional & Thematic Research At the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance, our focus areas bring together actionable research, policy dialogue, and regional perspectives on knowledge governance. Explore workstreams from South Africa to the Global South, each spotlighting how public interest, equity, and innovation shape governance practices. Dive deeper into the insights, events, and publications informing our ongoing engagements by clicking on the links below. WIPO negotiations The Centre’s work on policymaking at the World Intellectual Property Organization. AI and computational research AI for good, AI for development, governance issues in data mining and related topics. Traditional knowledge governance​ Focusing on the need to balance protection from predatory approaches and promotion of the public interest in knowledge governance. Recognition and remuneration of authors and other creators Meeting the needs of content creators. Medical innovation and access Articles on intellectual property and medicines pricing.
- [Contact Us](https://knowledgegov.org/contact-us/): Contact us Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form. Name * FirstLast Email *Message Submit Physical address 8th FloorPetal 2Maison de la PaixChem. Eugène-Rigot 2, 1202 Genève, Switzerlandhttps://www.graduateinstitute.ch/discover-institute
- [News and Events](https://knowledgegov.org/news-and-events/): News and Events See the latest from the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance, or learn about relevant events on intellectual property law and related rights happening in Switzerland or around the world. News Events Centre News Upcoming Events Events put on by the Centre are highlighted in purple. Dec 17 December 17 @ 9:00 am – December 19 @ 5:00 pm UTC+5.5 Second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine Feb 2 February 2, 2026 @ 9:00 am – February 7, 2026 @ 5:00 pm UTC+0 World Health Organization Executive Board: 158th Session Feb 3 February 3, 2026 – February 5, 2026 Working Group on the Development of the Lisbon System (Appellations of Origin) (7th session) Feb 9 February 9, 2026 @ 9:00 am – February 14, 2026 @ 5:00 pm UTC+0 Fifth meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the WHO Pandemic Agreement Feb 12 February 12, 2026 – February 13, 2026 Extraordinary Session of the Coordination Committee to nominate candidate for appointment to the post of Director General Feb 16 February 16, 2026 – February 20, 2026 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group (19th session) Feb 16 All day * Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group (18th session) Feb 16 February 16, 2026 – February 20, 2026 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Committee for Technical Cooperation (33rd session) View Calendar
- [Publications](https://knowledgegov.org/publications/): Publications Promoting innovation and access to knowledge via research, presented as: Blogs Papers Videos We publish regular blog posts on policy development and practice from Geneva and the World. Blog Our Working Paper series provides research and analysis of cutting edge approaches to knowledge governance. Papers Explore videos that educate, inspire, and share expert knowledge from our global projects and events. Video
- [Programmes](https://knowledgegov.org/programmes/): Programmes Guiding stakeholders on managing access to knowledge and information through three streams of work: Research Technical Assistance Teaching Research Our Research examines the impact of copyright law on access to knowledge, in diverse fields including education, research, AI and preservation. We look for solutions to promote good knowledge governance , including global instruments on intellectual property. For more on our research, see our latest publications. Publications Technical Assistance Our Technical Assistance strengthens the ability of states and non-state actors to develop practical approaches to knowledge governance, including forming negotiating positions within multilateral policy making fora, such as WIPO, WHO and WTO. We offer the following types of technical assistance:  Treaty Negotiations: We supported the Like-Minded Countries (LMC) group, comprising over 60 countries within the World Intellectual Propert Organisation in recent negotiations giving rise to the Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and also the Design Law Treaty. In response to our technical assistance to the Like Minded Group of countries in the negotiations towards the 2024 Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK), we received a letter of thanks from the Permanent Mission of Indonesia [pdf]. Research & Analysis: We provide targeted research and analysis to a number of regional country groups, and to diverse civil society stakeholders involved in copyright reform processes. Expert Legal Input: Our experts have made inputs, upon request, to national copyright reform processes, such as the process under way in South Africa. Inquire about technical assistance Teaching Our Teaching provides historical background and critical analysis to build the skills of current and future participants in knowledge governance, including policy makers, civil society, graduate students and others with an interest in intellectual property and access to knowledge. We offer the following teaching options:  Online Learning: We have published an accessible online course in international copyright reform, in partnership with the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University (PIJIP). The course included a syllabus, reading list and video lectures. Access the course below. Workshops: Our regular educational workshops convened in partnership with The South Centre provide historical context and information for government delegates and other stakeholders involved in negotiations at WIPO. These include our January Retreat in Montreux., Switzerland. To express your interest in attending our workshops contact us. Executive Education: If you are interested in executive education courses at the Centre, including certificate courses, send us your details. Get in touch September 7-8 2026: Short Course on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence This intensive two-day course will provide a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the evolving legal and policy landscape at the intersection of Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Participants will explore pressing legal challenges, including the copyright protection for AI training data, the patentability and copyright of AI-generated outputs, and the balance between proprietary interests and the public interest in research (Text and Data Mining and computational research) and the development of “Public AI.”  More information here Open Course: Copyright and the Right to Research in International Law This course provides free and open materials for self study or inclusion in other course materials on the intersection of intellectual property, human rights, and computational research methods, including those used to train artificial intelligence systems. It is intended for advanced law students and policy makers. Access the course
- [About](https://knowledgegov.org/about/): About us Providing research, technical support and training on intellectual property and related rights., in support of justice and sustainable development. Mission Leadership Partners Funders Mission The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance is a project of American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. The mission of the Centre is to promote justice and sustainable development within policy-making institutions that govern access and use of information. The Centre conducts research and offers educational programs and technical assistance to support diplomats, government policy makers and public interest stakeholders engaged in international instruments on intellectual property rights and related rights. The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance developed in South Africa in 2022 guide and inform our work. The principles focus on the need for balance in our approaches to knowledge governance, promoting the public interest and guarding against predatory approaches to data extraction and use.  We draw on a global network of top thinkers from academic centres of excellence across the world, including specialists in intellectual property law, computational research, human rights and traditional knowledge. Leadership The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance is supported by a core team responsible for driving the Centre’s research, programmes, and partnerships. The staff bring together diverse expertise across knowledge governance, ensuring the Centre’s work is informed, inclusive, and globally engaged. Directors and Counsel Sean Michael Flynn Director Sean Michael Flynn Director Professor Flynn researches and teaches on the intersection of intellectual property, international law, and human rights. Professor Flynn designs and manages a wide variety of research and advocacy projects that promote the public interest in intellectual property and information law. Professor Flynn Chairs the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights and is a founding member of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. He is Editor in Chief of Infojustice.org, a leading public interest law and policy blog. He is a special faculty appointment at American University Washington College of Law, visiting Scholar at the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR), and Senior Research Associate at the University of Cape Town’s Intellectual Property Unit. Prior to joining WCL, Professor Flynn completed a Fulbright Fellowship, was clerk to Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, South African Constitutional Court and Judge Raymond Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, practiced law at Spiegel & McDiarmid and the Consumer Project on Technology, and served on the policy team advising then Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval Patrick. Ben Cashdan Communications and Development Director Ben Cashdan Communications and Development Director Ben Cashdan is a economist and television producer in South Africa. He was an economic advisor in the South African Presidency under President Nelson Mandela, focusing on capacity building and local economic development. Since 2000 Ben has served as executive producer of a number of television series on democracy and development for global broadcasters. In 2015 Ben co-founded ReCreate South Africa, a coalition of creators and users of copyrighted material in South Africa, working together for fair and balanced copyright reform and access to knowledge. Ben has a masters degree in Social and Political Sciences from Kings College Cambridge and a Postgraduate Certificate in Economics from the London School of Economics. Ben also continued his postgraduate studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland in the Department of Economic Geography. He was South African producer for Harry Belafonte’s biographical documentary Sing Your Song. Ben has also produced 4 episodes of The World Debate on BBC World News. He developed and produced the first season of South2North on Al Jazeera English, the first global talk show to be produced in Africa for a major global broadcaster. In December 2013 Cashdan produced an episode of BBC Question Time on South Africa after Mandela. Ben has directed a number of broadcast media projects on democracy and development in partnership with agencies including the World Economic Forum, the United Nations Development Programme and the African Leadership Academy. Andrés Izquierdo Counsel Andrés Izquierdo Counsel Andrés Izquierdo is Senior Research Analyst for our project on the Right to Research in International Copyright. He conducts high-impact research, provides training to a global network of change-makers, and connects a global academic network to the work of global and domestic organizations that represent researchers, libraries, museums, archives, educational and research institutions. Before joining PIJIP, Andrés Izquierdo practiced law through his award-winning intellectual property and cyber law practice in Colombia. He has been named one of the best entertainment law attorneys in Colombia by the publications Best Lawyers (2020), and top Intellectual Property practitioner by Chambers and Partners (2014-2020), and is author of the book Cyberlaw by Wolters Kluwer. Izquierdo was previously Business and Legal Director for Sony Music Entertainment in the Andean Region, and litigation partner in Palacio, Izquierdo & Ballesteros, an intellectual property law firm in Colombia. He has LLM degrees in Intellectual Property from American University Washington College of Law and from the University of Turin – WIPO, and a law degree from Universidad de Los Andes. Susan Isiko Štrba Counsel and Senior Research Fellow Susan Isiko Štrba Counsel and Senior Research Fellow Dr. Susan Isiko Štrba is currently Counsel and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre on Knowledge Governance at the Graduate Institute. She provides legal and technical assistance to African Member States for negotiations, especially relating to intellectual property. She also provides tailored research on knowledge governance, with special focus on Africa. She combines teaching and research with providing policy and legislative advice and technical training to governments, intergovernmental organisations and civil society. She focusses mainly on human rights, intellectual property (IP), trade and development. Dr Isiko Štrba is the author of “International Copyright Law and Access to Education in Developing Countries: Exploring Multilateral Legal and Quasi-Legal Solutions”, a leading guide to the functioning of international copyright law for the public interest in developing countries. She has also published numerous journal articles in the field of food security, health, education, trade, IP and development. She currently researches the interface of technology,
- [Africa & Latin America](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/south-africa-cab/): Africa and Latin America Work focussing on the particular needs of these two regions. All focus areas
- [WIPO Negotiations](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/wipo-negotiations/): WIPO Negotiations The Centre’s work on WIPO policymaking. All focus areas
- [Online Course 1](https://knowledgegov.org/programmes/teaching/online-course-1/): Open Course: Copyright and the Right to Research in International Law Course Director: Professor Sean Flynn, Director, American University Washington College of Law, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property Open Course: Copyright and the Right to Research in International Law Course Director: Professor Sean Flynn, Director, American University Washington College of Law, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property    This course provides free and open materials for self study or inclusion in other course materials on the intersection of intellectual property, human rights, and computational research methods, including those used to train artificial intelligence systems. It is intended for advanced law students and policy makers. It is taught at the equivalent of the masters or doctoral level and assumes prior coursework or knowledge of basic concepts in copyright law.  Open Course: Copyright and the Right to Research © 2024 by Sean Flynn is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  Class 1. Research Exceptions in Comparative Copyright Discussion Questions What is the ideal form of a research exception in copyright law? What international legal principles could help promote better copyright exceptions for research uses? Lectures https://youtu.be/Zhu-MVd4AME?si=NPBfp6LgyAfAy-tC Seminar 01 – Overview – Sean Flynn (American University Washington College of Law) Reading Research Exceptions in Comparative Law, “Research Exceptions in Comparative Copyright” by Sean Flynn, Luca Schirru et al. (american.edu) User Rights Database, The User Rights Database: Measuring the Impact of Copyright Balance (american.edu)  Class 2. Copyright and the Right to Research Discussion Questions What are the human rights duties of states with relation to copyright and the right to research? What is the utility, or danger, of framing research interests as “rights”? Lectures https://youtu.be/_oIqmQI9yjY?si=uivIXWu18QdsNn-i Seminar 02 – Research as Human Right – 2.1 Intro Sean Flynn https://youtu.be/yp1FEm8Dy1o?si=wVIgNjveCce-NBts Seminar 02 – Research as Human Right – 2.2 Sanya Samtani (University of Pretoria, South Africa) https://youtu.be/MvEL7f1rAqI?si=KKEscMF3z_AMhWL8 Seminar 02 – Research as Human Right – 2.3 Klaus Beiter (North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa) https://youtu.be/wTu3FZRzsGU?si=1LdPxHcNRQTkIQCz Seminar 02 – Research as Human Right – 2.4 Desmond Oriakhogba (University of Venda, South Africa) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEQjJEubA3s Seminar 02 – Research as Human Right – 2.5 Sara Bannerman (McMaster University) Reading Klaus D. Beiter, Reforming Copyright or Toward Another Science? – A More Human Rights-Oriented Approach under the REBSPA in Constructing a “Right to Research” for Scholarly Publishing, Forthcoming in Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 48, No. 1 (2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4196341  Sara Bannerman. (2016). Access to scientific knowledge, In International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law, pp. 32-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139149686.005, Access to scientific knowledge (Chapter 3) – International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (cambridge.org) .  Oriakhogba, Desmond O. Oriakhogba. “The Right to Research in Africa: Making African Copyright Whole.” (2022) PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series no. 78. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/78.  Sanya Samtani, “Developing a Right to Research in International Human Rights Law” https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/107 Class 3. Text and Data Mining, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Discussion Questions What do TDM researchers need to do to perform their research? How do any of these steps implicate copyright or other exclusive rights? How does lack of copyright permission distort research outcomes? Lecture https://youtu.be/cdbtUhKvFDw?si=0sNWuChgNSx79Ag6 Seminar 03 – AI: Garbage In Garbage Out – Amanda Levendowski (Georgetown University) https://youtu.be/xck9jNhQKy8?si=_wS7MWTI_nsa_1Sb Seminar 03 – Q&A Reading Amanda Levendowski, How Copyright Law Can Fix Artificial Intelligence’s Implicit Bias Problem, 93 Wash L. Rev. 579 (2018). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024938 Class 4. Fair Use for Research Discussion Questions How does US law approach the issue of exceptions for research uses?  Lecture Seminar 04 – History of Fair Use in the USA – Peter Jaszi (American University Washington College of Law) Reading Peter Jaszi, Copyright, Fair Use and Motion Pictures, 2007 UTAH L. REV. 715 (2007), available here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gtEYBNEdSKYXVtTqHe-53A0md30zw2Ab/view?usp=sharing  Google v. Oracle (majority opinion only), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf  Peter Jaszi, Quoting Copyrighted Sports Content Under Fair Use After Google v. Oracle in Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz (Martin Senftleben, Joost Poort, Mireille van Eechoud, Stef van Gompel, Natalie Helberger, Eds., Wolters Kluwer, 2021), available here Class 5. Exceptions for TDM in US and EU Discussion Questions How has the openness of fair use and fair dealing standards been by courts to permit TDM and other research uses? Is the openness unique to common law countries?  Lectures Seminar 05 – TDM Exceptions in the US/EU – 5.1 USA – Michael Carroll (American University Washington College of Law) Seminar 05 – TDM Exceptions in the US/EU – 5.2 EU – Felix Reda (Former Member of EU Parliament) Reading Michael W. Carroll, Copyright and the Progress of Science: Why Text and Data Mining is Lawful, 53 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 893 (2019) https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/53/2/articles/53-2_carroll.html  Felix Reda, Creative Commons’ statement on CC licenses and the text and data mining exception under Article 4 EU CDSM Directive, Creative Commons (2021) https://creativecommons.org/2021/12/17/creative-commons-statement-on-cc-licenses-and-the-ext-and-data-mining-exception-under-article-4-eu-cdsm-directive/  Class 5.1. Non expressive Use Lectures Seminar 06 – Non Expressive Use – 6.1 Matthew Sag (Emory Law School) Seminar 06 – Non Expressive Use – 6.2 Carys Craig (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Canada) Reading Matthew Sag, The New Legal Landscape for Text Mining and Machine Learning, 66 J. Copyright Soc’y USA 1 (2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3331606  Carys Craig, AI and Copyright, in Florian Martin-Bariteau & Teresa Scassa, eds., Artificial Intelligence and the Law in Canada (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2021), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3733958  Class 6. Civil Law Exceptions for TDM Discussion Questions Are civil law and common law copyright statutes different? How? Why? To what effect? How do they impact technological development and user rights? How do civil law courts open exceptions through interpretation? Lectures Seminar 07 – Civil Law Exceptions – 7.1 Thomas Margoni (Centre for IT and IP Law (CiTiP), Faculty of Law and Criminology, KU Leuven, Belgium) Seminar 07 – Civil Law Exceptions – 7.1 Allan Rocha (Brazilian Copyright Institute, Federal University Rio de Janeiro) Reading Thomas Margoni, Martin Kretschmer, A Deeper Look into the EU Text and Data Mining Exceptions: Harmonisation, Data Ownership, and the Future of Technology, GRUR International, Volume 71, Issue 8, August 2022, Pages 685–701, https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac054 Allan Rocha de Souza,’Copyright, Human Rights, and the Social Function of Property in
- [Home](https://knowledgegov.org/home/): Home / Page Welcome to the Centre on Knowledge Governance The Centre on Knowledge Governance conducts research and provides technical support and training from offices in the heart of International Geneva. Our work promotes information justice and knowledge equity within and between countries. The Centre coordinates a network of scholars and research institutes around the world and we provide support to government delegations and non-governmental organisations. Our current interests include: Access to knowledge for education and research Promoting the public interest in copyright reform and AI Recognition and remuneration of authors and other creators Preservation by libraries and archives Traditional knowledge governance Balanced IP reform at WIPO and within member states  We publish a blog, a series of research papers, an online learning course and videos.and we host public events. The Centre on Knowledge Governance is a project of American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) and the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies with the support of the Arcadia Fund. The Centre continues the long history of PIJIP’s work promoting the public interest in international IP law. The Centre also draws on the Geneva Graduate Institute’s position as a pioneering provider of research and training for diplomats, development officials and students seeking international careers. Research Our Research examines the impact of copyright law on access to knowledge, in diverse fields including education, research, AI and preservation. We look for solutions to promote good knowledge governance , including global instruments on intellectual property. Research Technical Assistance Our Technical Assistance strengthens the ability of states and non-state actors to develop practical approaches to knowledge governance, including forming negotiating positions within multilateral policy making fora, such as WIPO, WHO and WTO. Technical Assistance Teaching Our Teaching provides historical background and critical analysis to build the skills of current and future participants in knowledge governance, including policy makers, civil society, graduate students and others with an interest in intellectual property and access to knowledge. Teaching
- [Contact Form](https://knowledgegov.org/contact-form/): Contact Join our mailing list or send us a message Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form. Name * FirstLast Email *Message Submit
- [Location](https://knowledgegov.org/location/): Location Physical address 8th FloorPetal 2Maison de la PaixChem. Eugène-Rigot 2, 1202 Genève, Switzerland https://www.graduateinstitute.ch/discover-institute
- [News Blog](https://knowledgegov.org/news-and-events/news-blog/): News Home / Page LATAM-GPT: A Culturally Sensitive Large Language Model for Latin America 28 June, 2025/No Comments LATAM-GPT is a groundbreaking large language model developed by the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) in Chile, in partnership with over thirty institutions and twelve Latin American countries. The initiative aims to create an open-source AI model that reflects the region’s diverse cultures, languages—including Spanish, Portuguese, and Indigenous tongues—and… Read More Blind South Africa: Apps for the Visually Impaired 28 June, 2025/No Comments An initiative led by Christo de Klerk at Blind South Africa focuses on promoting the use of accessible mobile and digital applications for blind and visually impaired people in South Africa. Highlighted at the 2025 Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa conference, the project addresses the importance of robust… Read More A Talking Health Chatbot in African Languages: DSFSI, University of Pretoria 28 June, 2025/No Comments A project at the Data Sciences for Social Impact (DSFSI) group, University of Pretoria, led by Professor Vukosi Marivate, is developing a talking health chatbot in African languages to provide accessible, culturally relevant health information to underserved communities. Central to the initiative is the planned use of health actuality TV… Read More Masakhane: Use of the JW300 Dataset for Natural Language Processing 28 June, 2025/No Comments The Masakhane Project showcases the transformative power of open, collaborative efforts in advancing natural language processing (NLP) for African languages. However, its reliance on the JW300 dataset—a vast multilingual corpus primarily comprising copyrighted biblical translations—uncovered significant legal and ethical challenges. These challenges focused on copyright restrictions, contract overrides, and the… Read More All Posts Case Studies LATAM-GPT: A Culturally Sensitive Large Language Model for Latin America LATAM-GPT is a groundbreaking large language model developed by the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) in Chile, in partnership with over thirty institutions and twelve Latin American countries. The initiative aims to create an open-source AI model that reflects the region’s diverse cultures, languages—including Spanish, Portuguese, and Indigenous tongues—and… Read More Blind South Africa: Apps for the Visually Impaired An initiative led by Christo de Klerk at Blind South Africa focuses on promoting the use of accessible mobile and digital applications for blind and visually impaired people in South Africa. Highlighted at the 2025 Copyright and the Public Interest in Africa conference, the project addresses the importance of robust… Read More A Talking Health Chatbot in African Languages: DSFSI, University of Pretoria A project at the Data Sciences for Social Impact (DSFSI) group, University of Pretoria, led by Professor Vukosi Marivate, is developing a talking health chatbot in African languages to provide accessible, culturally relevant health information to underserved communities. Central to the initiative is the planned use of health actuality TV… Read More Masakhane: Use of the JW300 Dataset for Natural Language Processing The Masakhane Project showcases the transformative power of open, collaborative efforts in advancing natural language processing (NLP) for African languages. However, its reliance on the JW300 dataset—a vast multilingual corpus primarily comprising copyrighted biblical translations—uncovered significant legal and ethical challenges. These challenges focused on copyright restrictions, contract overrides, and the… Read More The NOODL license: Licensing African datasets to support research and AI in the Global South With the increasing prominence of AI in all sectors of our economy and society, access to training data has become an important topic for practitioners and policy makers. In the Global North, a small number of large corporations with deep pockets have gained a head start in AI development, using… Read More
- [Calendar](https://knowledgegov.org/news-and-events/calendar/): Home / Page
- [Traditional Knowledge Governance](https://knowledgegov.org/focus-area/traditional-knowledge-governance/): Traditional Knowledge Governance Focusing on the need to balance protection from predatory approaches and promotion of the public interest in knowledge governance. Cradle Principles All articles All focus areas Research highlight: Cradle Principles The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance focus on the need for balance in our approaches to knowledge governance, promoting the public interest and guarding against predatory approaches to data extraction and use. They were developed by a group of copyright academics, stakeholders and computational researchers gathered for a policy retreat in the Cradle of Humankind, South Africa, February 23-25, 2024. The subject of the meeting was enabling African and other Global South uses of digital research tools without promoting “data colonialism” concerns, including wrongful uses of traditional knowledge and community-held information.  The retreat produced 5 principles, known as the the Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance: Knowledge Governance Systems: are composed of governmental regulations from domains including international and constitutional law, traditional knowledge, intellectual property, media and telecoms law, privacy, competition and biodiversity. They also comprise cultural practices and norms, including traditional systems governing the use of community-held knowledge. must promote the goals of sustainable development, social justice and human rights, including rights to produce, receive and impart information; to create, produce, participate in and benefit from culture and science and to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from scientific, literary or artistic production. must provide balanced frameworks that protect and promote access to information for research, scientific inquiry, analysis, translation, and preservation of cultures and languages, including through cross-border collaborations. Rights of researchers should extend to access and use privately-held information needed for the exercise of any fundamental right. must promote the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities in the knowledge economy, including rights to self-determination, inclusion, cultural integrity, data sovereignty, sustainable development and participation in decision making. Indigenous peoples and local communities must be able to actively participate in innovation, wealth creation, and research, and receive equitable access to the benefits arising therefrom. Researchers have a duty to respect and promote the custodian function of traditional communities over their knowledge and innovation systems. must ensure sovereignty over knowledge resources to combat unidirectional information resource extraction and misappropriation that aggravates inequalities and injustice in the ability to access information and knowledge, including by: preventing abuse and misuse of intellectual property rights or the resort to practices that unreasonably restrain trade, promote excessive pricing, or adversely affect the transfer of technology by rights holders; Giving due accreditation to custodial communities for any traditional knowledge or traditional cultural expressions generated from them; protecting against the commodification, misappropriation, enclosure, and dispossession of information by accumulation; striving to enhance functional access to digital resources, especially in the developing and least developed countries, and not escalating the digital divide, digital colonialism and other exclusionary tendencies in the global knowledge economy. More information on the Cradle Principles is contained in the PDF below. All articles related to Traditional Knowledge Governance
- [Papers](https://knowledgegov.org/publications/papers/): Research paper series Analysing cutting edge approaches to knowledge governance. See below to learn more, or use the buttons to see our other publications. Blog Research Papers 2025 2024 2023 Submissions from 2025 A Peek Behind the Scenes of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning the Federal IP System, Jonathan Band Access to Scholarly Publications in the Global North and the Global South—Copyright and the Need for a Paradigm Shift under the Right to Science, Klaus Beiter Reforming Copyright or Toward Another Science? A More Human Rights-Oriented Approach Under the REBSPA in Constructing a “Right to Research” for Scholarly Publishing, Klaus Beiter Copyright in Characters: A Proposal for Reform, Michael W. Carroll ReCreate’s Amicus Submission to the Constitutional Court in South Africa, May 2025, Iain Currie, Emma Webber, Daniel Linde, and Sibongiseni Qagana Objectives and Principles for an Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions: Relevant Excerpts and Proposals, Sean Flynn and Luca Schirru Analysis of the Agenda for SCCR 46, PIJIP Documentary History of the Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR, Luca Schirru, Lokesh Vyas, Haddija Jawara, Lukas Ruthes Gonçalves, and Sean Flynn Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR (Global Version), Luca Schirru, Lokesh Vyas, Haddija Jawara, Lukas Ruthes Gonçalves, Katie McGee, Yara Misto, and Sean Michael Fiil Flynn Cross-border Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright: “Powered by AI”, Marketa Trimble Submissions from 2024 A Peek Behind the Scenes at the Making of Three Decades of Supreme Court Copyright Decisions, Jonathan Band THE FAIR USE/FAIR DEALING HANDBOOK, Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi Protection of Nuclear Facilities in Warfare under International Law, Gary Corn and Sean Watts Briefing Note: 45th Meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Sean Flynn Copyright and COVID, Sean Flynn Limitations and Exceptions in the WIPO Instrument on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, Sean Flynn Questions and Answers on the Future of IP for Research and Innovation, Sean Flynn WIPO General Assembly 65th: Issues Affecting the Right to Research, Sean Flynn and Andres Izquierdo Elaborating a Human Rights friendly Copyright Framework for Generative AI, Christophe Geiger The Right to Research as Guarantor for Sustainability, Innovation and Justice in EU Copyright Law, Christophe Geiger and Bernd Justin Jütte KEI Briefing Note 2024:8 The Basic Proposal for the Design Law Treaty (DLT) and its inappropriate restrictions on transparency, James Love Sanctions for Non Disclosure, as Set Out in Article 6 of the WIPO Basic Proposal on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, Should Include Possible Revocation of a Patent, James Love and Claire Cassedy A Diversity of Adequacy: The European Commission’s 11-Country Adequacy Review, Lauren Macievic A Right to Republish: Redesigning Copyright Law for Research Works, Faith O. Majekolagbe WIPO Good Practice Toolkit for Collective Management Organisations 2021: Suggestions for Possible Amendment, Desmond Oriakhogba Content Moderation and the Least Cost Avoider, Paul Rosenzweig Child Privacy in the Digital Era: Is COPPA Enough?, Melannie Sandoval Building a Text and Data Mining Limitation: The Brazilian Case, Luca Schirru, Allan Rocha de Souza, and Claudia Chamas Author Remuneration in the Streaming Age – Exploitation Rights and Fair Remuneration Rules in the EU, Martin Senftleben and Elena Izyumenko Copyright and Research in Latin America: Law, Courts, and Perceptions, Mariana G. Valente, Alice P. Lana, and André P. Houang Submissions from 2023 Reconceptualizing Open Access to Theses and Dissertations, Orit Fischman Afori and Dalit Ken-Dror Feldman MPP COVID-19 Antiviral Medicines Licenses – Licensed Territories, Supply Options for Excluded Territories, and Supply Barriers Arising from Trade-Secret Transfer, Brook K. Baker Protecting User Rights Against Contract Override, Jonathan Band The Constitutional Court of Colombia Imposes Limits on the Use of Internet Jammers During Social Protests, Carolina Botero and Lina Paola Velásquez Erasmian Perspectives on Copyright: Justifying a Right to Research, Tania Cheng-Davies Combating Ransomware: One Year On, V. Gerard Comizio, Gary Corn, William Deckelman, Karl Hopkins, Mark Hughes, Patrick McCarty, Sujit Raman, Kurt Sanger, Ari Schwartz, Melanie Teplinsky, and Jackson Colling Lost In Transit: How Enforcement of Foreign Copyright Judgements Undermines the Right to Research, Naama Daniel Copyright and Generative AI: Insights from the Project on the Right to Research, Sean M. Fiil-Flynn Limitations and Exceptions in International Copyright and Related Rights Treaties, Sean Flynn The Conclusions of SCCR 44, Sean Flynn Second Revised Draft Text for the WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, Annotated, Sean Flynn and Miguel Alvarenga Excerpts of SCCR 44 Delegate Statements, Sean Flynn and Andres Izquierdo Simplifying the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Proposed Amendments to the Third Revised Draft, Bernt Hugenholtz The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Comments on the Second Revised Draft, Bernt Hugenholtz A Trusted Framework for Cross-Border Data Flows, Alex Joel Necessity, Proportionality, and Executive Order 14086, Alex Joel Walking the Talk: An Exploration of Pathways in Implementation of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty – A Case Study of Uganda, Anthony C.K. Kakooza The Trouble With the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, James Love Comments on the September 6, 2023 Draft of a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, the Definitions, Scope of Application, National Treatment and Formalities, James P. Love Opaque Notification: A Country-by-Country Review, Lauren Mantel Copyright, Data Mining and Developing Models for South African Natural Language Processing, Chijioke Okorie Government Role in Realising A ‘Right’ to Research in Africa, Chijioke Okorie Korea’s 2011 Copyright Act Amendments and Innovation by Online Service Providers, Michael Palmedo Measuring Change in Copyright Exceptions for Text and Data Mining, Michael Palmedo, Momina Imran, Miguel Alvarenga, Luca Schirru, and Duc Le Data Localization and Government Access to Data Stored Abroad: Discussion Paper 2, Shanzay Pervaiz and Alex Joel Transitional Justice, Truth, and Copyright: The Case of Colombia, Marcela Palacio Puerta Two Visions of Digital Sovereignty, Sujit Raman Repair As Research: How Copyright Impedes Learning About Devices, Anthony D. Rosborough and Aaron Perzanowski Fairness and Fair Use in Generative AI, Matthew Sag Legal Literacies for Text Data Mining – Cross-Border (“LLTDM-X”): White Paper, Rachael G. Samberg, Timothy Vollmer, and Thomas Padilla Legal Literacies for Text Data Mining – Cross-Border (“LLTDM-X”): Case Study, Rachael Samberg, Timothy Vollmer, and Thomas Padilla Developing a Human Right to Research in
- [Blog](https://knowledgegov.org/publications/blog/): Blog Tracking trending news and debates in intellectual property law and policy. Read our latest posts below, or use the buttons to access our other publications. Research Papers Videos
- [Teaching](https://knowledgegov.org/programmes/teaching/): Teaching Home / Page Teaching at the Geneva Centre provides historical background and critical analysis to build the skills of current and future participants in knowledge governance, including policy makers, civil society, graduate students and others with an interest in intellectual property and access to knowledge. Teaching Options   Online Learning: We have published an accessible online course in international copyright reform, in partnership with the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University (PIJIP). The course included a syllabus, reading list and video lectures. Access the course below.   Workshops: Our regular educational workshops convened in partnership with The South Centre provide historical context and information for government delegates and other stakeholders involved in negotiations at WIPO. These include our January Retreat in Montreux., Switzerland. To express your interest in attending our workshops contact us.   Executive Education: If you are interested in executive education courses at the Centre, including certificate courses, send us your details. Open Course: Copyright and Right to Research This open-access course explores how international copyright law affects the right to conduct and access research. It covers key global debates, user rights, and legal frameworks shaping access to knowledge — particularly in the Global South. The materials include recorded lectures, expert insights, and downloadable resources designed to support researchers, advocates, and educators worldwide. Access The Course
- [Technical Assistance](https://knowledgegov.org/programmes/technical-assistance/): Technical Assistance Home / Page Technical Assistance by the Geneva Centre strengthens the ability of states and non-state actors to develop practical approaches to knowledge governance, including forming negotiating positions within multilateral policy making fora, such as WIPO, WHO and WTO.  Types of Technical Assistance   Treaty Negotiations: We supported the Like-Minded Countries (LMC) group, comprising over 60 countries within the World Intellectual Propert Organisation in recent negotiations giving rise to the Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and also the Design Law Treaty. See feedback below.    Research & Analysis: We provide targeted research and analysis to a number of regional country groups, and to diverse civil society stakeholders involved in copyright reform processes.   Expert Legal Input: Our experts have made inputs, upon request, to national copyright reform processes, such as the process under way in South Africa. Commendation letter In response to our technical assistance to the Like Minded Group of countries in the negotiations towards the 2024 Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK), we received the following letter of thanks from the Permanent Mission of Indonesia.
- [Research](https://knowledgegov.org/programmes/research/): Research Home / Page Our Research examines the impact of copyright law on access to knowledge, in diverse fields including education, research, AI and preservation. We look for solutions to promote good knowledge governance , including global instruments on intellectual property. Research Research by the Geneva Centre examines the impact of copyright law on access to knowledge, in diverse fields including education, research, AI and preservation. We look for solutions to promote good knowledge governance , including global instruments on intellectual property. 📰  Infojustice Blog:   Our network of expert contributors across the world write on subjects from free trade agreements to the impact of IP reform on health, education and climate change. 📚   Academic Papers: We also publish longer papers by leading scholars, looking at regional and global trends in the law, policy and practice on topics from AI to remuneration. 🎥  Videos: Many of our publications are accompanied by video materails See our recent playlists on IP and the Public Interest in Africa and the Global South  and other topics.
- [Funders](https://knowledgegov.org/about/funders/): Funders Home / Page We gratefully acknowledge the support of Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, whose commitment to preserving knowledge and promoting open access helps make our work possible.
- [Partners](https://knowledgegov.org/about/partners/): Partners Home / Page Collaborating Research Centres The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance partners with other academic programmes for the study of intellectual property and information law. Collaborating organisations engage in and guide the Centre’s activities and projects and collaborate with the Centre and each other on research and academic activities. Our collaborating partners include:  Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University University of Cambridge, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam Centre for IT & IP Law (CiTiP), KU Leuven Innovation Law and Ethics Observatory (ILEO) at the Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome (Italy) Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro – Graduate Program on Public Policy and Development (UFRJ/PPED) University of São Paulo (USP) – IP Observatory Centre for IP Research and Advocacy/ National Law School of India University, Bengaluru University of Cape Town -IP Unit The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), Strathmore University, Kenya Mandela Institute, University of Witwaterstrand Data Science Law Lab, University of Pretoria IP Osgoode, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto Centre for Law, Technology and Society, University of Ottawa The Shamgar Center for Digital Law and Innovation, Tel-Aviv University Governmental and Non-Government Organizations The Geneva Centre provides technical assistance to a coalition of non-governmental organizations that represent the interests of research, education and cultural heritage institutions, and partners with intergovernmental organisations that provide technical assistance to diplomatic delegations in Geneva. Our NGO and intergovernmental partners include: South Centre Knowledge Ecology International Access to Knowledge Coalition Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo. Global Expert Network Access to Knowledge Coalition Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo. Knowledge Coalition
- [People](https://knowledgegov.org/about/people/): Our People Home / Page Staff and Leadership The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance is supported by a core team responsible for driving the Centre’s research, programmes, and partnerships. The staff bring together diverse expertise across knowledge governance, ensuring the Centre’s work is informed, inclusive, and globally engaged. Sean Michael Flynn Director Andrés Izquierdo Counsel Ben Cashdan Communications Director Susan Isiko Štrba Counsel Luca Schirru Research Coordinator
- [Mission](https://knowledgegov.org/about/mission/): Mission Home / Page The mission of the Centre is to promote justice and sustainable development within policy-making institutions that govern access and use of information.  The Centre conducts research and offers educational programs and technical assistance to support diplomats, government policy makers and public interest stakeholders engaged in international instruments on intellectual property rights and related rights. 🎓  The Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance is a project of American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.  📜  The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance developed in South Africa in 2022 guide and inform our work. The principles focus on the need for balance in our approaches to knowledge governance, promoting the public interest and guarding against predatory approaches to data extraction and use. 🌐 We draw on a global network of top thinkers from academic centres of excellence across the world, including specialists in intellectual property law, computational research, human rights and traditional knowledge.


[comment]: # (Generated by Hostinger Tools Plugin)