Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

WIPO

Blog, Education, Libraries, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

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

Blog, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

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

Blog, WIPO-SCCR

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:

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, WIPO-SCCR

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

Blog, WIPO-SCCR

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

Blog, WIPO-SCCR

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

Blog, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

WIPO General Assembly Meeting on SCCR Expresses Consensus for Progress on Broadcast and L&E 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

Blog, WIPO-SCCR

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.

Blog, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

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

Blog, WIPO GA

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

Scroll to Top