My article "The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda" is now published. This paper was developed as a keynote talk for the Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development Conference which took place on September 6, 2018 at the Queensland University of Technology.
Abstract
The UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development is being taken up throughout
the international system, including at the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO). This article examines WIPO’s approach to the
sustainable development agenda in light of its past approaches to
development. In the first part of this article, I outline some of the
longstanding major critiques of the discourse of sustainability, noting
that these critiques anticipated the current lamentable status of a
sustainable development agenda for WIPO. Next, I discuss the history of
development agendas at WIPO in the context of WIPO’s history and role at
the centre of the global intellectual property system. I then ask what
role intellectual property has to play in the SDGs. I conclude by
suggesting that an adequate agenda for sustainable development is
unlikely to be developed at WIPO and must, rather, come from outside.
Read the full article.
Citation: Bannerman, Sara. "The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda." Futures 122(2020): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102586
Thanks to Professor Matthew Rimmer and the QUT IP and Innovation Law Research Program for their invitation to the conference. Thanks also to Emmanuel Appiah for his
research assistance. This research would not have been possible without
the support of, and funding from, McMaster University and the Canada
Research Chairs program.
Showing posts with label WIPO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WIPO. Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2020
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Copyright exceptions for research need attention at WIPO
Last week, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) continued discussions of a possible international instrument dealing with limitations and exceptions to copyright for educational, teaching and research institutions and persons with other disabilities.
IP Watch reports that proposals have now been narrowed to a core set. While this core set retains many important proposals relating to educational institutions, many past proposals relating to research institutions have disappeared, including an important proposal relating to data gathering that is core to research. Past proposals made before WIPO have included important exceptions that would help drive digital research, including data mining, which is becoming more and more key to scholarship. The following proposal, which I view as especially important, was not included in the core set:
IP Watch reports that proposals have now been narrowed to a core set. While this core set retains many important proposals relating to educational institutions, many past proposals relating to research institutions have disappeared, including an important proposal relating to data gathering that is core to research. Past proposals made before WIPO have included important exceptions that would help drive digital research, including data mining, which is becoming more and more key to scholarship. The following proposal, which I view as especially important, was not included in the core set:
The reproduction and reuse by search engines, automated knowledge discovery tools, or other digital means now known or later discovered of any lawfully obtained copyrighted work for purposes of not-for-profit scientific research, including storage, archiving, linking, data mining procedures, data manipulation, and virtual scientific experiments subject to attribution of the sources used to the extent reasonably feasible (page 33)Research institutions may need to keep a close eye on the SCCR discussions to ensure that research interests, as well as educational interests, are met.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
WIPO’s move to open access laudable among international organizations
My latest post on WIPOMonitor.org notes that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is at the forefront of international organizations in adopting an Open Access policy for its publications. I suggest that WIPO, and other international organizations, should go further to ensure that all its documents and historical records are also openly accessible under the Creative Commons licence designed for international organizations. Read the post here.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Universalizing fair use: An important Argentinian proposal
The government of Argentina has submitted an important proposal in current negotiations towards an international instrument on limitations and exceptions to copyright at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Most international treaties seek to establish minimum standards. In the case of the current WIPO negotiations, relating to exceptions and limitations to copyright for education and research institutions and persons with disabilities, this means that all countries would agree to permit a minimum set of things, such as permitting photocopying for classroom use or reproduction for classroom display.
As the Argentinian government notes, this often does not go far enough, especially in the online context, since countries invariably differ widely in their implementation of such minimum standards, and digital transactions often involve multiple country jurisdictions.
Many everyday actions done in the context of educational institutions potentially involve multiple jurisdictions, and could be legal in one jurisdiction but not in the other:
Argentina therefore proposes that "within the scope of a treaty on limitations and exceptions, lawful conduct in one territory should not be illegal in another. If reproduction or making available is valid under the treaty, it cannot then be invalid under the rules of another State jurisdiction." (p. 4). The exact wording of the proposal is as follows:
Most international treaties seek to establish minimum standards. In the case of the current WIPO negotiations, relating to exceptions and limitations to copyright for education and research institutions and persons with disabilities, this means that all countries would agree to permit a minimum set of things, such as permitting photocopying for classroom use or reproduction for classroom display.
As the Argentinian government notes, this often does not go far enough, especially in the online context, since countries invariably differ widely in their implementation of such minimum standards, and digital transactions often involve multiple country jurisdictions.
Many everyday actions done in the context of educational institutions potentially involve multiple jurisdictions, and could be legal in one jurisdiction but not in the other:
- playing an Internet video from a web site based in one country in the classroom of another;
- uses of works in distance education, where students may be based in a different country from the instructor;
- downloading works from a web site in another country for educational purposes;
- making available or sending articles, texts, or digital course packs from one country to another.
Argentina therefore proposes that "within the scope of a treaty on limitations and exceptions, lawful conduct in one territory should not be illegal in another. If reproduction or making available is valid under the treaty, it cannot then be invalid under the rules of another State jurisdiction." (p. 4). The exact wording of the proposal is as follows:
Where performed in accordance with the exceptions and limitations set forth in this agreement, the reproduction or making available of a work shall be governed by the law of the country in which the reproduction or making available occur, without precluding the reproduced work from being delivered to or used by a person or institution benefitting from exceptions and limitations located in another Member State, provided that such delivery or use is consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. (p. 4).The Argentinian government has proposed a solution worthy of serious discussion at the WIPO meeting to be held next week.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Does IP have a role in sustainable development? Of course it does!
Does intellectual property have a role in sustainable development? Of course it does! But the World Intellectual Property Organization, a UN agency, seems uncertain as to whether it has a role to play in implementing the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
As I note in a draft book chapter, WIPO's preliminary analysis of the ways in which its work supported SDGs viewed most of WIPO’s work as contributing to SDG 9, the building of infrastructure and industrialization, as well as goal 8, that of economic growth.
Surprisingly few of WIPO’s activities were viewed by WIPO as contributing to the SDGs of education, hunger, protecting biodiversity, combating climate change, or ensuring human health.
"Developed" countries argue "that only a few goals apply to the work of WIPO, and others argue that there should be no ‘cherrypicking’ as all the goals in one way or another do apply to WIPO’s work as a UN agency." The view of the "developed" countries, here, is completely ridiculous; it is clear that intellectual property plays an important role in relation to many SDGs, including those related to food and agriculture, health, innovation, climate change, biodiversity, and technology transfer.
The world intellectual property system, at present, also sometimes works contrary to achievement of the SDGs, by locking up agricultural innovation, inflating drug prices, stalling innovation, rewarding the invention and sale of dirty technologies, locking up biodiversity, and preventing technology transfer. There is no shortage of proposals for reform that would help to address these problems. (See the work of Peter Drahos, Matthew Rimmer, and Ahmed Abdel-Latif, among many others.) Industry players note the important role of intellectual property in potentially stalling climate-friendly innovation; this is why Tesla has adopted open patent policies to encourage the take-up and spread of electric vehicle technology.
As I note in a draft book chapter, WIPO's preliminary analysis of the ways in which its work supported SDGs viewed most of WIPO’s work as contributing to SDG 9, the building of infrastructure and industrialization, as well as goal 8, that of economic growth.
Surprisingly few of WIPO’s activities were viewed by WIPO as contributing to the SDGs of education, hunger, protecting biodiversity, combating climate change, or ensuring human health.
"Developed" countries argue "that only a few goals apply to the work of WIPO, and others argue that there should be no ‘cherrypicking’ as all the goals in one way or another do apply to WIPO’s work as a UN agency." The view of the "developed" countries, here, is completely ridiculous; it is clear that intellectual property plays an important role in relation to many SDGs, including those related to food and agriculture, health, innovation, climate change, biodiversity, and technology transfer.
The world intellectual property system, at present, also sometimes works contrary to achievement of the SDGs, by locking up agricultural innovation, inflating drug prices, stalling innovation, rewarding the invention and sale of dirty technologies, locking up biodiversity, and preventing technology transfer. There is no shortage of proposals for reform that would help to address these problems. (See the work of Peter Drahos, Matthew Rimmer, and Ahmed Abdel-Latif, among many others.) Industry players note the important role of intellectual property in potentially stalling climate-friendly innovation; this is why Tesla has adopted open patent policies to encourage the take-up and spread of electric vehicle technology.
WIPO and its member states should acknowledge the links between intellectual property and both sustainable and unsustainable development. The UN sustainable development agenda requires WIPO, as a UN agency, and its member states to build and retool world intellectual property institutions for sustainable development.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Delhi High Court issues historic decision for access to knowledge and education
In September, the Delhi High Court handed down a groundbreaking judgement dismissing Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and other academic publishers’ copyright infringement suit against the Rameshwari Photocopy Service and the University of Delhi. Read my full post about it here on the Cambridge University Press blog.
Friday, June 3, 2016
WIPO indigenous peoples' representation still lacking
Nelson Kantule, from the Kuna Peoples in Panama (Kunas unidos por la madre tierra), and Preston Hardison, policy analyst for the Tulalip Tribes in the United States, were interviewed recently by IP-Watch about the current ongoing negotiations about intellectual property and traditional knowledge at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
WIPO traditional knowledge negotiations have long failed to include sufficient representation by indigenous peoples, and have been ongoing for many years with few, if any, results. Chapter 9, "The role and inclusion of indigenous peoples in international copyright", of my book International Copyright and Access to Knowledge, recounts this history of failure and places it in the context of indigenous peoples' representation in the United Nations more broadly.
WIPO traditional knowledge negotiations have long failed to include sufficient representation by indigenous peoples, and have been ongoing for many years with few, if any, results. Chapter 9, "The role and inclusion of indigenous peoples in international copyright", of my book International Copyright and Access to Knowledge, recounts this history of failure and places it in the context of indigenous peoples' representation in the United Nations more broadly.
I note that in 2007, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Article 18 of that declaration provides that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.”
WIPO’s efforts to implement Article 18 have been deemed inadequate by some indigenous peoples, and WIPO has been called on by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to improve its implementation of the declaration.
WIPO’s efforts to implement Article 18 have been deemed inadequate by some indigenous peoples, and WIPO has been called on by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to improve its implementation of the declaration.
Indigenous peoples' representation at WIPO has been so bad that in February 2012 most indigenous observer delegates to the IGC stood and walked out of IGC negotiations in protest of “the continuing reduction in the quantity and level of their participation.”
In May 2012, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues chastised WIPO, issuing a number of recommendations to WIPO aimed at addressing some of the problems that had been identified. It called on states “to organize regional and national consultations to enable indigenous peoples to prepare for and participate effectively in sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee” (p. 9-10).
As of my last check, the Forum's recommendations had not yet been addressed by WIPO, and Kantule and Hardison's account seems to confirm that WIPO's response has been inadequate.
In May 2012, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues chastised WIPO, issuing a number of recommendations to WIPO aimed at addressing some of the problems that had been identified. It called on states “to organize regional and national consultations to enable indigenous peoples to prepare for and participate effectively in sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee” (p. 9-10).
As of my last check, the Forum's recommendations had not yet been addressed by WIPO, and Kantule and Hardison's account seems to confirm that WIPO's response has been inadequate.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Fair dealing and course packs: Canadian and international challenges
A draft study presented last week at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is of particular relevance to Canada. The revision of the Canadian Copyright Act's fair dealing provisions in 2012 to include dealing for educational purposes, as well as a Supreme Court of Canada decision of the same year relating to classroom materials, have led many Canadian universities to conclude, and to adopt the policy, that the inclusion of articles or book chapters, for example, in hard copy and electronic course packs, is fair dealing that does not require permission or payment of copyright fees. This interpretation is currently being challenged in a Canadian lawsuit against York University.
Is the Canadian universities' interpretation of fair dealing in line with the policies adopted in other countries? Professor Seng's study should shed some light on this question. He notes that "Educational anthology limitations and exceptions are found in 94 provisions from 85 member states" (Sheng, 22). However, some states place restrictions on course pack copying; 12 provisions, according to Sheng, require equitable remuneration to be paid to copyright holders (Sheng, 22).
Seng's study was introduced in the context of discussions toward a possible international instrument on copyright provisions for educational and research institutions. Numerous states have made proposals for new international norms, some of which relate to the question of course packs. Finland, for example, has made the main proposal on course packs. It is very restrictive, in that it would require payment of remuneration, restrict anthologies to print anthologies only, and would allow only the use of works more than five years old (p. 26; see also p. 14).
Many of the proposals currently on the table at WIPO (relating not only to course packs, but also to the use of copyright works in the classroom, in distance learning, in research, and in reverse engineering) are far more restrictive than current interpretations of Canadian educational fair dealing. They are, therefore, important to watch.
Canadian universities' current interpretations of fair dealing as it relates to course packs could face two challenges: the first arises from the York University lawsuit, which may take ten years to wind its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The second comes from a possible WIPO international treaty or instrument that could reinforce or, just as possibly, restrict educational user rights in Canada.
Canada should take an active role in the negotiations, promoting robust and fair user rights for education.
--
NB: Chapter 4 of my book International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (discount code:Bannerman2015) addresses the history and present politics of copyright in educational works. Titled "Access to education, libraries, and traditional knowledge," the chapter notes that while, at national levels, the history of Western copyright is strongly tied to the principle of access to education, the same is not true of the international copyright system, Rather, the international system, with its mission civilisatrice, served to restrict copyright provisions for the encouragement of education.
Is the Canadian universities' interpretation of fair dealing in line with the policies adopted in other countries? Professor Seng's study should shed some light on this question. He notes that "Educational anthology limitations and exceptions are found in 94 provisions from 85 member states" (Sheng, 22). However, some states place restrictions on course pack copying; 12 provisions, according to Sheng, require equitable remuneration to be paid to copyright holders (Sheng, 22).
Seng's study was introduced in the context of discussions toward a possible international instrument on copyright provisions for educational and research institutions. Numerous states have made proposals for new international norms, some of which relate to the question of course packs. Finland, for example, has made the main proposal on course packs. It is very restrictive, in that it would require payment of remuneration, restrict anthologies to print anthologies only, and would allow only the use of works more than five years old (p. 26; see also p. 14).
Many of the proposals currently on the table at WIPO (relating not only to course packs, but also to the use of copyright works in the classroom, in distance learning, in research, and in reverse engineering) are far more restrictive than current interpretations of Canadian educational fair dealing. They are, therefore, important to watch.
Canadian universities' current interpretations of fair dealing as it relates to course packs could face two challenges: the first arises from the York University lawsuit, which may take ten years to wind its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The second comes from a possible WIPO international treaty or instrument that could reinforce or, just as possibly, restrict educational user rights in Canada.
Canada should take an active role in the negotiations, promoting robust and fair user rights for education.
--
NB: Chapter 4 of my book International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (discount code:Bannerman2015) addresses the history and present politics of copyright in educational works. Titled "Access to education, libraries, and traditional knowledge," the chapter notes that while, at national levels, the history of Western copyright is strongly tied to the principle of access to education, the same is not true of the international copyright system, Rather, the international system, with its mission civilisatrice, served to restrict copyright provisions for the encouragement of education.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Libraries, archives' role in making orphan works accessible up for debate at WIPO
Discussion of the internationalization of copyright limitations and exceptions, such as expanded exceptions to copyright for libraries, educational institutions, and people with disabilities, continue this week at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)'s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.
Discussions of access provisions in international copyright have been ongoing since 2004 and have, so far, resulted in the establishment of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. Today's discussions focused on building on the work done under the Marrakesh Treaty to see the possible establishment of an international instrument internationalizing copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. International provisions are necessary because, as I note in chapter 4 of my book, International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (Cambridge UP, 2016):
IFLA is asking for "changes which would give libraries the right to work across borders, to give access to orphan works, and to import books which are available in other countries." For them, "the goal – an international framework which frees up libraries and librarians – is worth the effort." After all, IFLA explains, "it’s through exceptions and limitations to copyright that we can do our job."
Current proposals that are on the table for orphan works (see page 34-39 of the current working document) would allow entities such as libraries to reproduce, make available to the public, and otherwise use orphan works. Some proposals apply these provisions, as well, to retracted works (African Group, Equador, India), and some would require remuneration to authors or copyright owners who are subsequently identified (Equador). However, there is no consensus among states on such proposals, with the United States and the European Union among the key detractors.
The chair's summary of today's discussion is expected to be disseminated tonight.
Tomorrow's discussions are expected to focus on the internationalization of exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.
For those following the discussion, a number of groups are blogging and tweeting from WIPO:
Discussions of access provisions in international copyright have been ongoing since 2004 and have, so far, resulted in the establishment of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. Today's discussions focused on building on the work done under the Marrakesh Treaty to see the possible establishment of an international instrument internationalizing copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. International provisions are necessary because, as I note in chapter 4 of my book, International Copyright and Access to Knowledge (Cambridge UP, 2016):
libraries face a number of problems as they attempt to provide both traditional and new services to their users – many related to new technologies. Digitization, license agreements imposed by publishers of electronic journals and books, and Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) all introduce problems of access, preservation,and maintaining copyright exceptions. Moreover, the globalized possibilities of resource sharing, which take place increasingly across borders, are undermined by the territoriality of copyright law. IFLA, the ICA, and others suggest that a treaty is the best way to ensure that a minimum set of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives exist, and that they apply in cross-border environments. (76)*One focus of today's WIPO discussions was on the topic of orphan works, or copyright works where the copyright owner can't be found. Libraries and archives are often the "adoptive parents" of orphan works; they are in a position to facilitate access to these works, especially through digital means. However, copyright regimes often stand in the way, as can differing national regimes. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), which is active at the meetings, notes that:
...there is a lot of progress to be made, with as many different copyright regimes there as there are states, each giving different types and degrees of protection if any at all. Moreover, as digital technologies bring about radical change in the information environment, a failure to act is the same as going backwards. This is why IFLA is engaging in support of change both at the global (WIPO) level, and nationally.
 |
| SCCR delegates. © WIPO 2016. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. |
Current proposals that are on the table for orphan works (see page 34-39 of the current working document) would allow entities such as libraries to reproduce, make available to the public, and otherwise use orphan works. Some proposals apply these provisions, as well, to retracted works (African Group, Equador, India), and some would require remuneration to authors or copyright owners who are subsequently identified (Equador). However, there is no consensus among states on such proposals, with the United States and the European Union among the key detractors.
The chair's summary of today's discussion is expected to be disseminated tonight.
Tomorrow's discussions are expected to focus on the internationalization of exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.
For those following the discussion, a number of groups are blogging and tweeting from WIPO:
- WIPO webcasts the meeting live
- WIPO posts pictures from the meeting on flickr
- Follow the #SCCR32 hashtag on twitter
- Knowledge Ecology International is blogging the meetings
- The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) is tweeting from the SCCR
- IFLA held a side-event "Shelves to Servers: Digital Content in Libraries and Archives"
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation hosted a side-event on music and copyright with Imogen Heap
My June 2015 post about these negotiations is here.
* Discount code for International Copyright and Access to Knowledge: Bannerman2015
* Discount code for International Copyright and Access to Knowledge: Bannerman2015
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Upcoming talk @ Ryerson: International Copyright and Access to Knowledge
Here is the poster for my upcoming talk for students at Ryerson University's School of Creative Industries' CREA T.O. speakers' series about my new book, International Copyright and Access to Knowledge. Thanks to Ryerson student Daphne Chan, who created this terrific poster!
Thursday, March 10, 2016
New Book: International Copyright and Access to Knowledge
My new book, International Copyright and Access to Knowledge, is now available from Cambridge University Press.
The principle of Access to Knowledge (A2K) has become a common reference point for a diverse set of agendas that all hope to realize technological and human potential by making knowledge more accessible. This book is a history of international copyright focused on principles of A2K and their proponents. Whilst debate and discussion so far has covered the perspectives of major western countries, the author's fresh approach to the topic considers emerging countries and NGOs, who have fought for the principles of A2K that are now fundamental to the system. Written in a clear and accessible style, the book connects copyright history to current problems, issues and events.
International Copyright and Access to Knowledge is available through CUP, Amazon, on Wordery. An excerpt is available here. Purchases through CUP can make use of 20% discount code Bannerman2015.
"Sara Bannerman's thoughtful and compelling book is a must-read for all of those interested in the challenges of increasing access to knowledge. She offers historical perspective on the narrowing of the knowledge commons and identifies opportunities for positive change going forward."
-Susan K. Sell, George Washington University
International Copyright and Access to Knowledge is available through CUP, Amazon, on Wordery. An excerpt is available here. Purchases through CUP can make use of 20% discount code Bannerman2015.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Digital Dividends of Intellectual Property
The World Bank's January Digital Dividends report assesses the extent to which information and communication technologies (ICTs) have contributed, over the past decades, to global development. Its conclusion is that "while digital technologies have been spreading, digital dividends have not" (2). It suggests two reasons for this: first, nearly 60% of the world is still offline, and, second, rising economic, social, and political inequality, all of which can be exacerbated by networks, stand in the way of full sharing in digital dividends. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has sometimes suggested that intellectual property is a "power tool" of economic development. This view has long been challenged by those who note that IP comes with costs as well as benefits. Costs can include higher prices in drugs and copyright materials, as well as reduced policy flexibility to respond to basic needs. These costs, noted in a 2004 proposal by developing countries to WIPO, have now been acknowledged in WIPO's own formal Development Agenda.
The World Bank's report makes mention of intellectual property in several contexts. It mentions:
- that innovation and growth depend on IP (p. 221, p. 302)
- that international IP regimes require greater harmonization (p. 62-63; p. 297)
- that IP needs to be balanced (p. 221) and that “countries can also allow the concept of “fair use” in intellectual property regulations” (p. 303; emphasis added).
Second, Digital Dividends does not take adequately into account the ways that international IP regimes have failed to facilitate development and, at times, have stood in the way of development by impeding access to educational materials and pharmaceuticals. The UK Commission on IP Rights long ago noted that "the interests of developing countries are best served by tailoring their intellectual property regimes to their particular economic and social circumstances" (156). The Commission also argued that "there are strong arguments for greater flexibility in setting an optimum time to strengthen IP protection, taking into account the nation’s level of economic, social and technological development" (161). International IP regimes take numerous options off the table when it comes to tailoring IP regimes; they greatly restrict states' flexibility in this regard. The Commission called on developed countries to "discontinue the practice of using regional/bilateral agreements as a means of creating TRIPS-plus IP regimes in developing countries as a matter of course" (163). This does not match with the World Bank's emphasis on the urgency of further harmonization.
Third, the World Bank's report under-emphasizes the need for fair use and other limitations and exceptions to IP. Here, Digital Dividends utterly fails to take on board extensive research indicating the potential of such measures to contribute to development of various types, including development in the fields of education, health, innovation, technology, and clean technologies.
Jeremy de Beer and I have noted that the relationship between IP and development are a much more complex matter than the "power tool" view suggests. Too much protection can be as bad as not having enough, contributing to gridlock (where IP is held by too many different people such that it impedes efficient market transactions) and high costs to the inputs of innovation (77). (IP protection may also be irrelevant to encouraging innovation, if IP services are not available, as Rutenberg notes.) Models of IP that emphasize access and openness in intellectual property can, de Beer and I argue, facilitate collaboration, universal participation, and adaptation of products to local communities (80). Further, we note that IP can facilitate the concentration of wealth in the hands of multinationals (77). Such inequality is exactly, as the Bank itself notes, what stands in the way of the potential of digital dividends.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
WIPO to discuss library and archive copyright provisions
Some interesting proposals will soon be under discussion at the World Intellectual Property Organization that could free libraries, archives, educational and research institutions, and people with disabilities from copyright provisions that hamper their ability to make use of copyright works. Read my full post about the upcoming meeting on WIPOMonitor.org here.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Canadian copyright reform for people with print-disabilities
Yesterday Industry Minister Candice Bergen introduced Bill C-65, the Support for Canadians with Print Disabilities Act for first reading in Canadian Parliament. The Act will allow Canada to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.
Among other things, the bill would allow non-profit organizations acting for the benefit of persons with a print disability to create accessible-format works and provide those works (or access to those works) to people with print disabilities and to non-profit organizations acting for their benefit outside of Canada (s. 32.01 (1)) on payment of royalties set by regulation (s. 32.01 (4)). It would also allow the circumvention of TPMs for these purposes (s. 41.16). The Act sets out reporting requirements (32.01(6)) and requirements that contracts be put in place with outside organizations regarding the use of the works (32.01(7)(a)).
This is a welcome move. It would facilitate access to books and other copyright materials around the world, allowing Canadian organizations to work with their counterparts in other countries to make works accessible. It would also make Canada the first G7 country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.
Among other things, the bill would allow non-profit organizations acting for the benefit of persons with a print disability to create accessible-format works and provide those works (or access to those works) to people with print disabilities and to non-profit organizations acting for their benefit outside of Canada (s. 32.01 (1)) on payment of royalties set by regulation (s. 32.01 (4)). It would also allow the circumvention of TPMs for these purposes (s. 41.16). The Act sets out reporting requirements (32.01(6)) and requirements that contracts be put in place with outside organizations regarding the use of the works (32.01(7)(a)).
This is a welcome move. It would facilitate access to books and other copyright materials around the world, allowing Canadian organizations to work with their counterparts in other countries to make works accessible. It would also make Canada the first G7 country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Who should own big data?
Big data has a lot to offer, from curing disease to fostering economic development to fostering transparency. At the same time, from government mass surveillance to data leaks, the misuses of big data seem as pervasive as its uses.
Who owns big data? What rights do--and should--its owners have over what is done with it? Two different answers to this question have been posed. The first would allow free use of big data for non-profit scientific research. The second would release IP control of big data for commercial research also.
As noted in a recent paper by Handke, Guibault and Vallbé, the answer to the question of what IP rights subsist in big data varies by country. Research using mined data may, in some countries, be constrained by copyright and other IP laws, while in others (including Canada and the United States), copyright ownership in data may not stand in the way of researchers seeking to data mine.
Two international initiatives: The Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age and the World Intellectual Property Organization's proceedings toward the creation of a new international instrument on limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities, seek to ensure internationally that copyright does not stand in the way of the ability to mine data for research.
At WIPO, the African Group of countries has proposed that non-profit scientific research be exempted from copyright. They propose that:
Who owns big data? What rights do--and should--its owners have over what is done with it? Two different answers to this question have been posed. The first would allow free use of big data for non-profit scientific research. The second would release IP control of big data for commercial research also.
As noted in a recent paper by Handke, Guibault and Vallbé, the answer to the question of what IP rights subsist in big data varies by country. Research using mined data may, in some countries, be constrained by copyright and other IP laws, while in others (including Canada and the United States), copyright ownership in data may not stand in the way of researchers seeking to data mine.
Two international initiatives: The Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age and the World Intellectual Property Organization's proceedings toward the creation of a new international instrument on limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities, seek to ensure internationally that copyright does not stand in the way of the ability to mine data for research.
At WIPO, the African Group of countries has proposed that non-profit scientific research be exempted from copyright. They propose that:
The reproduction and reuse [...] of any lawfully obtained copyrighted work for purposes of not-for-profit scientific research, including storage, archiving, linking, data mining procedures, data manipulation, and virtual scientific experiments subject to attribution of the sources used to the extent reasonably feasible
should not constitute copyright infringement (p. 33; emphasis added).
While the WIPO proposal focuses on non-profit scientific research, a second initiative--the Hague Declaration--would also permit commercial data mining. Further, it encourages research organizations, universities, and businesses; and those using Creative Commons licenses, to actively make data available publicly available for research.
Corporate owners of big data might be alarmed at the latter declaration. Should individuals be alarmed as well?
Should we be concerned about giving up IP ownership of personal data?
Scholar Neil Lawrence has argued that people should have ownership of their data:
There are opportunities and risks with the accumulation of data, just as there are for the accumulation of capital. However, one thing seems clear: we need to increase the power of the people. Banks pay interest; perhaps we should be paid directly for the use of our personal data. We need to be made aware of the value of our data and be given rights to control who accesses it. We need to form a data-democracy: data governance for the people, by the people and with the people’s consent.
Whether this ownership does or should take the form of intellectual property, or some other form, is a question worth considering.[1] Is a person not the author of their own personal data?
While the two international initiatives outlined above are likely intended to address corporate ownership of big data, personal ownership of the personal data that makes up big data should also be considered.
It seems clear that, in an age where privacy laws fall short in constraining mass surveillance and protecting privacy online, a stronger medicine may be required. As the ethics surrounding big data continues to evolve, throwing away ownership of our data in both commercial and non-commercial contexts may be a precipitous move. Some form of personal ownership of personal data--especially ownership that would prevent unauthorized commercial use of data--could be a useful tool in an increasingly pitted battle over data ownership and control.
----
[1]. Scholars have considered this question from various angles. Pamela Samuelson has argued that, while an intellectual property approach to personal data may not be appropriate, an approach based on moral rights may be worth exploring. The idea of ownership of personal data, and the problems associated with such ownership, continue to be explored.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Canada joins Marrakesh Treaty
I have long called on the Canadian government to join the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. yesterday, the Toronto Star reports that Industry Minister James Moore announced Canada's accession. This is great news.
Eight countries have ratified or acceded to the Marrakesh Treaty, which will enter into force when that number reaches 20. Canada's accession brings that number to 9. Canada is the first G7 country to implement the treaty.
Eight countries have ratified or acceded to the Marrakesh Treaty, which will enter into force when that number reaches 20. Canada's accession brings that number to 9. Canada is the first G7 country to implement the treaty.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Last chance: Canada should sign Visually Impaired Treaty
The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, which would make accessible-format copyright works more available, was finalized almost a year ago on June 27 2013.
Whereas 66 countries, including the EU, France, the UK, and the United States, have all signed the treaty, Canada as yet has not.
The treaty is open for signature for up to one year; that deadline is coming up soon in June. Canada should sign the treaty to indicate its support for ending the book famine affecting accessible-format works. Canada's signature belongs on the treaty, given the role that Canada reportedly played during the treaty's negotiation.
Whereas 66 countries, including the EU, France, the UK, and the United States, have all signed the treaty, Canada as yet has not.
The treaty is open for signature for up to one year; that deadline is coming up soon in June. Canada should sign the treaty to indicate its support for ending the book famine affecting accessible-format works. Canada's signature belongs on the treaty, given the role that Canada reportedly played during the treaty's negotiation.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Gurry appointed for second term at WIPO
Francis
Gurry has been appointed by the member states of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) for a second term as Director General. Read my full post on WIPOMonitor.org here.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Four candidates compete to head WIPO
WIPO has announced that the deadline for nominations has now passed, and four candidates will compete for WIPO's top job as Director General: the incumbent, Francis Gurry (Australia), Geoffrey Onyeama (Nigeria), Alfredo Suescum (Panama), and Jüri Seilenthal (Estonia). IP Watch reports.
IP Watchdog speculates that the US will support the re-election of Gurry. Australia has been a strong US supporter in recent TPP negotiations. At the same time, there is also some US opposition to Gurry's re-election. Gurry is responsible for “signing, sealing, and delivering” new IP norms–including a new Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities, the first WIPO treaty ever to focus on access, rather than on granting new rights to intellectual property holders.
Two of the candidates, Francis Gurry and Geoffrey Onyeama, are WIPO insiders, while the other two have experience in other international organizations; Suescum is the chair of the WTO TRIPs Council, while Seilenthal, a career diplomat, served a 7-month term as president of UNCTAD.
Suescum's experience as chair of the TRIPS Council has not been without controversy; the Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) Network and LDC Watch in May called on Suescum to "immediately cease facilitating the bullying of the LDCs in the TRIPS negotiations".
Suescum was eventually praised for brokering a compromise that extended the deadline for LDCs to meet their TRIPs obligations.
IP Watch notes that the fact that WIPO was recently headed by an African may work against Onyeama, and that the fact that the WTO is currently headed by a Brazilian may work against Suescum, although, on the other hand, WIPO itself has never been headed by a member of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC).
IP Watchdog speculates that the US will support the re-election of Gurry. Australia has been a strong US supporter in recent TPP negotiations. At the same time, there is also some US opposition to Gurry's re-election. Gurry is responsible for “signing, sealing, and delivering” new IP norms–including a new Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities, the first WIPO treaty ever to focus on access, rather than on granting new rights to intellectual property holders.
Two of the candidates, Francis Gurry and Geoffrey Onyeama, are WIPO insiders, while the other two have experience in other international organizations; Suescum is the chair of the WTO TRIPs Council, while Seilenthal, a career diplomat, served a 7-month term as president of UNCTAD.
Suescum's experience as chair of the TRIPS Council has not been without controversy; the Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) Network and LDC Watch in May called on Suescum to "immediately cease facilitating the bullying of the LDCs in the TRIPS negotiations".
Suescum was eventually praised for brokering a compromise that extended the deadline for LDCs to meet their TRIPs obligations.
IP Watch notes that the fact that WIPO was recently headed by an African may work against Onyeama, and that the fact that the WTO is currently headed by a Brazilian may work against Suescum, although, on the other hand, WIPO itself has never been headed by a member of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC).
Francis
Gurry
|
|
Alfredo
Suescum
|
Jüri
Seilenthal
|
|
Country
|
Australia
|
Nigeria
|
Panama
|
Estonia
|
Group
|
Group B
|
African
Group
|
GRULAC
|
CEBS
|
Current
Position
|
Chair of WTO TRIPs Council; Ambassador to the
World Trade Organization
|
Ambassador
to the United Nations and other organizations in Geneva
|
||
WIPO
Experience
|
-on the
WIPO top management team from 1997 as Assistant Director General, then Deputy
Director General before becoming Director General
|
-joined
WIPO in 1985
-appointed Director of the Cooperation for Development Bureau for Africa in 1999 -appointed Director of the Cooperation for Development Bureau for Africa in 1999 |
Former
chair of the WIPO Coordination Committee
|
|
Other
Int'l Org. Experience
|
former President of UNCTAD; active in ITU
|
|||
Education
|
LLB, LLM
(University of Melbourne)
PhD (Cambridge) |
educated in
the US
|
educated
in Estonia and Sweden
|
|
Private
Experience
|
practiced
as an attorney in Australia, and taught law at the University of Melbourne,
Australia.
|
-worked
for Nigerian Law Reform Commission; was solicitor and advocate of the Supreme
Court of Nigeria
|
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
US, EU, India, and Argentina announce plans to sign WIPO Marrakesh Treaty
Sarah James reports that the US, EU, India, and Argentina announced plans at the recent WIPO General Assembly to sign the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty. She notes:
As of last Wednesday, during its discussion on the floor of the General Assembly, the number of signatory countries was 54. Hopefully, that number will soon rise, as a number of countries used the opportunity to announced their intent to sign within the near future. The countries which announced themselves nearly ready to take the jump and become signatories where India (video A/51-Wed 25- English: Afternoon Session @23:44), The United States (video A/51-Wed 25- English: Afternoon Session @33:30), the European Union and Argentina (video A/51-Wed 25- English: Afternoon Session @42:35).
This is big news when one considers where the majority of most intellectual property content resides, and bodes well for the future of this promising document. But while some delegates, such as the one from the United States stated that they would be ready to sign within a matter of weeks, other delegates, such as the one from the EU remained more vague in their deadline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)