The SCCR failed to adopt these recommendations. The dipcom in 2017 recommendations in Item 6 was too strong, and the exceptions recommendations for items 7 and 8 were too weak.Also Attached as pdf
Proposed Recommendations SCCR/30
Proposed Recommendation Agenda Item 6:
Attached is the document the chair distributed as the summary of the week long SCCR 30 meeting.
Today on the last day of the SCCR 30, under Agenda Item 9 “Other Matters” Congo-Brazzaville asked for the floor to propose that the WIPO Copyright and Related Right Committee start working on the Resale Right, a fundamental right for authors of graphic and plastic arts. This economical rights consists of a small percentage of the resale price that art market professionals pay to artists at each resale of their works be it in auction or in a gallery.
This was presented in the morning in the debate on education copyright exceptions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
KEI would like to comment on the proposals submitted by the African Group in relation to limitation on remedies for infringement contained in paragraph 22 on page 18 of the document. SCCR/26/4 PROV. DATE: APRIL 15, 2013
titled “Access to Educational Materials: Limitation on remedies for infringement.”
SCCR30: United States- Preservation - Copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives
On Thursday, 2 July 2015, the United States of America presented the following intervention on preservation in the context of copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. The following statement was captured by the WIPO streamtext.UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States is pleased to participate in the discussion of preservation, a very important topic for libraries and archives.
ORAL STATEMENT ON OF COPYRIGHT REFORM FOR PRESERVATION BY LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES
Is our cultural and historical heritage better dead that read? Or is the preservation of our common past a public good that is much better read than dead? If we do not take urgent action much of that legacy will be either lost forever or will remain effectively dead because it will not be accessible to most of the people to enjoy, study or research. Despite living in a digital age some in this room are still defending an information and innovation strategy of scarcity in stark contrast to building socially useful online abundance.
The vast majority of representatives in this room consider preservation a moral and public service responsibility to take international legal measures to preserve our cultural and scientific heritage in the digital environment.
Nevertheless, the complex and incomprehensible jungle of often irrational current copyright laws makes it almost impossible for librarians and archivists, most of whom are not IPR lawyers, to fulfill this responsibility internationally, in cross-border operations with any degree of legal certainty. Should they take the risk of being sued? Here common-sensical social practice conflicts with archaic, chaotic copyright laws that is causing cultural “preservation chill”.
Is it logical or acceptable not to allow legal cross-border shipment archived works? Why is an international solution needed to solve the problem?
An international exception to copyright is needed to permit the supply by one library or archive of a copy of a work to replace a copy of that work that had been preserved in the receiving library or archive but that has now been lost, detiorated or destroyed. An international copyright flexibility is also needed for academic and journalistic researchers to easily access archives and libraries around the world for the common good of advancing science, strengthening freedom of information and restoring cultural equity between countries of the North and the South.
Consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of international cooperation in cultural preservation and sharing of that knowledge.
This was the KEI intervention at SCCR 30 on the topic of preservation exceptions for libraries and archives.
Preservation is obviously important for everyone, and archiving in general is both a local benefit and to some degree, a global public good.
We want works preserved, and copyright and trade negotiators to sort out the issues regarding access, which will often be context specific.
Every country's copyright laws should have as a minimum an exception for preservation.
This is the document being discussed Thursday at #sccr30
Thanks to John E. Miller for the OCR version.
SCCR30 (Day 4): Discussion heats up on discussions on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives
During WIPO's discussions of copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives at the 30th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR30, the Chair (Martin Moscoso) presented a non-paper, intended to guide discussions.
This is the prepared statement that Iran read on Wed, which was widely praised by access to known advocates.
Iran’s Statement on the limitations and exceptions
1 July 2015
The right to science, knowledge and culture is recognized in various basic human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
July 1, 2015 2d Morning Session
The morning started and ended with the clear impression that there was no consensus on whether definitions are needed or not regarding broadcasting organizations or broadcasting itself. Still, Romania and the Central European States and Balkans group as well as the Russian Federation were calling for text-based work and were talking about “a road map to a diplomatic conference.”
July 1, 2015 day 3
This morning, the SCCR continued with the discussion regarding two important definitions--definition of beneficiaries: who are they? How do you define a broadcaster? And also of course what is the definition of the act of broadcasting.
Attached are the three informal discussion papers distributed at SCCR 29, on the WIPO broadcast treaty. These papers were the product of member state negotiations. They include:
On day 2 at SCCR 30, Anne Leer tells delegates to make broadcasters happy, extend treaty to Internet
Anne Leer is the WIPO Deputy Director General for Culture and Creative Industries Sector, where she leads WIPO’s activities in the field of copyright and related rights. Not a familiar figure at WIPO, she joined the organisation in December 2014, coming from the commercial side of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In addition to the BBC, she had previously worked for Paramount, Oxford University Press, and Financial Times/Pearson and Prentice Hall.
There is a very strong push for convening a diplomatic conference to approve the Broadcasting Treaty of the World Intellectual Property Organization at this week´s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in Geneva.
At stake is the freedom to share cultural material on the internet, the concentration of power of large incumbent broadcasters and in general opening up with yet another absurd layer of copyright protection of a pandora´s box of new abuses and threats to digital rights and access to knowledge.
The EU and the US have different approaches to the Broadcast Treaty. While the EU is pushing for the convening of a diplomatic conference to approve a Treaty with a broad scope, the US is in no hurry and would prefer an international legal instrument with a narrow scope. Most of the countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa are not at all enthusiastic about this treaty and instead would appreciate a Library Treaty to facilitate the public mission of lending, sharing and preservation by means of exceptions and limitations.
The EU represented by the European Commission is the main force pushing for a broadcasting treaty (despite the fact that practically no one in the European Parliament know even about the existence of this proposal) more than ever to add another level of copyright protection for “traditional” incumbent broadcasters from “piracy” of their programs, specially on the internet, including “deferred” or “post-fixation” use of any broadcast. This could mean opening up great threats for digital rights and access to culture.
The US only wants a “Single right” that protects broadcasters from piracy of direct “simultaneously or near simultaneous” broadcast signals, like a live sporting event. Which means no extra protection of later use of the broadcast on the Internet.
India is also against any attempt to include webcasting, simulcasting or anything that is not live broadcasting. Broadcasters should not be given any new rights in other platforms. They should not be given any “blanket rights” nor “post-fixation rights”. If we have a treaty India supports clear exceptions for education, non-commercial use and other public interests.
This is from the statement India read today at SCCR 30, on the topic of the broadcast treaty.
India is flexible in supporting the issue of unauthorized live transmission of signal over computer networks provided the broadcasting organization has rights over the content broadcast by it. India alternative proposals submitted at 26th session of SCCR are in complete conformity with the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly.
Not surprising: the European Union statement re the agenda:
Day 1 of SCCR 30 Information Session
Find a few Juicy bits from the long "Information Session on Broadcasting" that started this morning and was continued way passed the planned time of 4pm. It was also the least balanced panel I have ever seen at a WIPO SCCR. A handful of broadcasters, one media analyst, one journalist at the BBC, the WIPO Secretariat represented by Ann Leer (who worked for Paramount, Oxford University Press, BBC, and Financial Times/Pearson and the BBC).
Basically there was no one remotely critical of the proposed treaty nor any public interest representative.
Today we are in endless "informational" session, chaired by John Simpson from the BBC, and featuring big broadcasters from India (Zee Network), and Brazil (TV Globo), ABN Holdings Ltd (ABN) (A company headquartered England, about) and the Caribbean Communications Network Limited.
SCCR 30 Day 1 June 29, 2015
The SCCR 30 started with the same industry representatives we usually meet here: the MPA, FIJ, IAF, CISAC, Croplife, IFPI, ABA etc... There are also quite a large group of library and archives representatives (IFLA, eifl, Archives etc). However there are many empty chairs for the public interest or pro development NGOs. Some might arrive later?