Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

WIPO

IP and Development

CDIP: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (CDIP) Background “The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) was established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2007 with a mandate to: develop a work-program for implementing the 45 adopted Development Agendarecommendations; monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation of all recommendations adopted; and for that purpose to coordinate with relevant WIPO bodies; and discuss IP- and development-related issues as agreed by the Committee, as well as those decided by the General Assembly.” The creation of the CDIP was strongly influenced by the Group of Friends of Development. Despite the number of projects developed under the CDIP, only a limited number have focused specifically on flexibilities, indicating an imbalance in the current scope of activities. The thirty-fifth session of the CDIP (November 17–21, 2025) reviewed progress on the Development Agenda, evaluated ongoing projects, and considered new proposals.  Developing countries emphasized the role of the CDIP as a central forum for development-related issues, including access, equity, and the protection of traditional knowledge, while other Members supported a more limited scope of activities. Next meeting (Thirty-Seventh Session): Date: November 16 to November 20, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89950 Agenda not yet available in the website. Key Issues References:

Patents

SCP: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PATENTS (SCP) Background According to WIPO, “the SCP was created in 1998 to serve as a forum to discuss issues, facilitate coordination and provide guidance concerning the progressive international development of patent law.  By dealing with clusters of interlocking issues rather than working on single issues in isolation, the Committee provides member states with a forum for sharing information and working towards the development of the international patent system with an inclusive and coordinated approach. The Committee is composed of all member states of WIPO and/or the Paris Union. As observers, member states of the UN who are neither WIPO nor Paris Union members, as well as a number of accredited intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations may also attend the sessions of the SCP.” Next meeting (Thirty-Eighth Session) Date: November 2 to November 6, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89811 Draft Agenda (SCP/38/1 PROV.) Key Issues  Current discussions within the SCP address several thematic areas: References: 

Blog

SCT: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

WIPO STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS (SCT) Background According to WIPO, “the SCT was created in 1998 to serve as a forum to discuss issues, facilitate coordination and provide guidance on the progressive development of international law on trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications, including the harmonization of national laws and procedures”. The scope of the Committee’s work includes discussions on trademark protection, including issues related to the use of country names and their treatment in digital environments such as the domain name system. It also addresses questions related to industrial designs, including emerging forms of design such as graphical user interfaces, icons, and typefaces. In the field of geographical indications, the SCT considers developments related to existing systems (e.g. the Lisbon System) and their broader implications. In addition, the Committee engages in discussions related to technical assistance, including support provided to Member States in strengthening institutional capacities. Its work also reflects broader considerations related to the balance between the interests of right holders and public policy objectives, including development, access, and the use of flexibilities. Next meeting (Forty-ninth session) Date: March 30 to April 2, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89768  Draft Agenda (SCT/49/1 PROV.3) Key Issues  References:

Blog, WIPO

ACE: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENFORCEMENT (ACE) Background The Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) was established by the WIPO General Assemblies in 2002 with a mandate focused on technical assistance and coordination in the field of intellectual property enforcement. Its mandate expressly excludes norm-setting activities. The Committee’s work centers on cooperation with public and private actors, the exchange of information, the promotion of awareness, and the organization of training activities at national and regional levels. “Within the framework of recommendation 45 of the WIPO Development Agenda, the ACE focuses on: coordinating with public and private organizations to combat counterfeiting and piracy; public education; assistance; coordination to undertake national and regional training programs for all relevant stakeholders and; exchange of information on enforcement issues.”  Next meeting (Eighteenth session) Date: June 2 to June 4, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=90608  Draft Agenda (WIPO/ACE/18/1 PROV.) Key Issues The ACE agenda includes issues such as the following:  References:

Blog, Traditional Knowledge

IGC: Background, next meeting and key issues to be considered

/

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND GENETIC RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE (IGC) Background The IGC is an ad hoc body with a renewable two-year mandate. Since its establishment in 2000, the IGC has worked towards international legal instrument(s) ensuring balanced and effective protection of genetic resources (GRs), traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). In 2024, the IGC led the adoption of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK treaty), which establishes a mandatory disclosure requirement in patent applications concerning the origin or source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. It will enter into force three months after fifteen eligible ratifications or accessions.  Following this outcome, the IGC continues text-based negotiations on international legal instrument(s) for the protection of TK and TCEs, primarily based on documents WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/4 and WIPO/GRTKF/IC/49/5. Developing Countries, Like-Minded (African Group, Asia-Pacific Group, GRULAC, Pacific Islands Group) support a legally binding international instrument(s) on TK and TCEs, advocate minimum binding elements applicable to all Parties, call for a diplomatic conference by 2027, emphasize the continued integration of GR issues to support GRATK ratification and implementation, and encourage ratification of the GRATK Treaty to deliver tangible benefits to IPLCs.  Developed countries (Group B, European Union, CEBS Group, United States, Japan, Switzerland, Republic of Korea) prefer further dialogue and evidence-based exchanges, support non-binding, measures-based outcomes with multiple national options, seek to preserve broad policy space and limit normative scope, favor non-normative treatment of GR issues, do not support committing to a timeline for a diplomatic conference. Next meeting (Fifty-second session) Date: March 4 to March 13, 2026 Website: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=89810  Draft Agenda (WIPO/GRTKF/IC/52/1 PROV.): Key issues to be considered:  Negotiations continue to address, inter alia: References:

WIPO GA

WIPO’s DG Nominated for Six More Years : Process & Implications 

/

Updated February 13, 2026 On February 12, an election took place for the position of Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  As expected, the incumbent – Daren Tang from Singapore – was re-elected and in April he will be formally appointed for a second term of six years, starting October 1, 2026. WIPO’s Director General appoints his Deputy Directors General (DDGs) and Assistant Directors General (ADGs). While Tang’s re-election was almost certain, the fate of his current DDGs and ADGs is less so. The choice of the organization’s chief executive and his most senior direct reports has tangible implications for WIPO’s governance, priorities, internal processes, program delivery, finances, accountability, oversight, staff morale and office culture. The nomination and appointment of the Director General: process and timeline The relevant constitutional provisions and procedural steps derive, respectively, from the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, 1967 (the WIPO Convention) and procedures last amended in 2019. In short, it is WIPO’s Coordination Committee (known as the CoCo) that nominates a candidate who is subsequently appointed by an extraordinary session of the WIPO General Assembly, the Paris Union Assembly and the Berne Union Assembly (collectively the ‘Assemblies’). The CoCo comprises 83 of WIPO’s 194 Member States.  It was the CoCo that met on February 12. It was originally scheduled to meet for two days but for the reasons I will explain below, the meeting was concluded on February 12. The Assemblies of the Member States to appoint the Director General will meet on April 21, 2026. How did the process begin? As a first step, in July 2025, the Chair of the CoCo, Australia’s Ambassador James Baxter, invited each Member State to propose a national as candidate by October 24, 2025. Only two nominations were received. As expected, one was Tang, nominated by the Government of Singapore. His nomination referred prominently to the adoption of two treaties in 2024 (the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty), describing their adoption under Tang’s leadership as an ‘unprecedented achievement’.  As the deadline neared there was a second nomination – Haiti nominated Mr. Johanny Stanley Joseph. Quoting from the nomination, ‘Mr. Joseph is a Haitian lawyer who holds a doctorate in private law with a specialization in intellectual property (IP). His career is distinguished by strong technical expertise, developed over many years of experience, particularly in the public administration of Haiti.’  On January 27 this year, the CoCo met informally to hear presentations by the two candidates. They answered questions for which they had been given prior notice as well as some spontaneous questions from the floor. Meetings of the CoCo are held behind closed doors and there is no written report of this meeting.  How did the CoCo go about nominating a Director General? The 2019 procedures guide how the nomination by the CoCo should take place. These recognize that voting will probably be necessary as a means of building consensus for the nomination of a candidate. In addition, the CoCo’s Chair, Baxter, had tabled detailed additional proposals for how voting in the February 2026 session should take place. The 83 members of the CoCo had one vote each. Voting was by secret ballot. The successful nominee was the candidate who received a simple majority of votes cast. The written reports of past CoCo meetings at which Directors General have been elected give a good idea of how the meeting proceeded, although in this case only one round of voting was needed because there were only two candidates. Tang won easily (81 votes to 2) and the meeting was over in a few hours.  The DDGs and ADGs: How are they appointed? There are currently four DDGs and four ADGs. Within the organization, they are referred to as ‘Sector Leads’ because each oversees a Sector which vary in size (number of programs, number of staff and budgets). The DDGs and ADGs are political appointees of the Director General and their terms are linked to that of the Director General. There is a subtle difference in how DDGs and ADGs are appointed. In the case of DDGs, the Director General must first seek the approval of his nominations by the CoCo. In the case of ADGs, he must simply take into account the CoCo’s advice. It is probably only once the Director General has been appointed on April 21, 2026, that an invitation will be issued for nominations of candidates for DDG and ADG positions. Hopefully, it will not only be countries who can nominate one of their own nationals.   The Director General is expected to propose his nominations at the CoCo’s meeting during the July 2026 Assemblies. The DDGs and ADGs will then be able to take up their functions as from October 1, 2026, the same day as the Director General.  The Director General could in principle retain all the current DDGs and ADGs. However, this is unlikely. Some might wish to step down of their own accord. Some might not be retained because they no longer have the support of their governments. Others might be let go for any number of reasons, including that they have lost the trust and confidence of the Director General. The Director General might decide to replace the entire group. He may or may not stick with the current number of DDGs and ADGs, and he may configure the Sectors differently.  Quite a high number of the current DDGs and ADGs are nationals of industrialized countries. The Director General would also be aware of the need to have at least the same number of women across the DDG and ADG positions as he now has, if not more (there are currently three women among the eight DDGs and ADGs).  Rumours are rife, but at this point this is all they are.  Implications The Director General directs the work of the WIPO Secretariat and is the Secretariat’s executive head and representative. While his core responsibility is to report to and conform to the instructions of the WIPO

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, WIPO, WIPO-SCCR

Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 47

/

This note, which will be presented at the November 25, CKG Workshop on SCCR 47, provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues that may be addressed in the 47th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, December 1-5, 2025. It is published as part of the mission of the Centre on Knowledge Governance to produce information and analysis to promote the public interest in multilateral knowledge governance negotiations. The analysis is presented in the order that the items occur on the SCCR 47 Agenda. 

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, Centre News, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

Centre publishes new analysis on broadcast, limitations and exceptions

/

This week our research team published a series of new reports. These relate to the work streams in the upcoming Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Analysis of Agenda Items for WIPO SCCR 47by Sean Flynn This note, which will be presented at the November 25, CKG Workshop on SCCR 47, provides background information, links to recently published research and analysis, and descriptions of the issues that may be addressed in the 47th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, December 1-5, 2025. It is published as part of the mission of the Centre on Knowledge Governance to produce information and analysis to promote the public interest in multilateral knowledge governance negotiations. The analysis is presented in the order that the items occur on the SCCR 47 Agenda.  Tracing a Century of Broadcasting Rights Debates: 1928–2025Luca Schirru and Sean Flynn This report provides a detailed view of developments concerning broadcasting rights within international copyright law, beginning with the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention and continuing through the latest SCCR discussions. These SCCR sessions illustrate the ongoing effort to create a new international treaty to update protection for traditional broadcasting and cablecasting against signal piracy, while grappling with complex issues like protection over computer networks and the definition of object and scope. Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the SCCR: A TimelineLuca Schirru, Ben Cashdan and Sean Flynn The timeline details the progression of discussions within the WIPO SCCR regarding Limitations and Exceptions (L&Es) to copyright. This detailed chronology, spanning from 1996 to 2025, highlights the main proposals, studies, and key milestones concerning L&Es for various sectors, including visually impaired persons, libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It documents the formal inclusion of L&Es on the SCCR agenda, the development of numerous draft treaties and working documents, and the ongoing efforts to reach consensus and implement work programs. Comparison of Proposed Texts on Limitations and Exceptions in SCCR 47Jonathan Band Two new documents have been introduced for the Limitations and Exceptions agenda item: the African Group’s “Proposal on Limitations and Exceptions” (SCCR/47/5) and the Chair’s “Text Proposed” (SCCR/47/8), alongside the earlier U.S. proposal “Limitations for Libraries and Archives” (SCCR/44/5). The tables identify common elements among the three documents and additional areas shared by the Chair and African Group texts, suggesting significant areas of commonality and that further text-based work towards an international legal instrument can start with these documents. Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and ExceptionsAditya Gupta and Sean Flynn The authors summarise justifications for an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to copyright, and for expanded limitations and exceptions more generally. The justifications are taken from a review of academic literature. Researchers have posited that such an instrument is necessary to counteract the existing “minimum protection approach” of international treaties, which often prioritizes copyright holders over the public interest, access to knowledge, and competition and development concerns. Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate?Sean Flynn WIPO published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as SCCR/47/3, which does not differ in its main provisions from previous drafts and raises questions about whether it fulfils the mandate of earlier WIPO General Assemblies. The analysis focuses on substantive changes and controversial provisions, addressing whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection”. Four new proposals for SCCR 47Ben Cashdan WIPO has published four new proposals on ways forward for key work streams in the SCCR, scheduled for 1–5 December 2025. The proposals concern exclusive rights for broadcasting organisations, disparities in the remuneration of performers, limitations and exceptions to promote education, research and access to knowledge, and ensuring fair copyright royalties for creators in the digital environment.

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, Technical Assistance, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

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)

Blog, Education, Libraries, Technical Assistance, 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

Scroll to Top