Comparison Table on L&Es: Africa Group, Chair, US, Previous SCCR
For our full comparison table click here:
Blog, WIPO, WIPO-SCCR
copyright
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
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
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
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:
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
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/
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 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
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
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.
