Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

Technical Assistance

Africa: Copyright & Public Interest, Technical Assistance

Promoting Education and Research: Joint Submission on Kenya’s 2026 Copyright Bill

/

On March 31, 2026, the Geneva Centre on Knowledge Governance partnered with Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) to submit joint comments to the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) regarding the proposed Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 2026. Drawing on our long history of engagement with Kenya’s copyright laws, our submission provides a careful analysis of the new draft framework. While the 2026 Bill introduces significant improvements for research, education, and cultural heritage institutions compared to the 2025 version, it also contains concerning amendments that will negatively impact these critical sectors. For the full document, see the PDF below. Our submission begins by applauding the positive aspects of the 2026 Bill. Most notably, the new provisions concerning fair dealing and text and data analysis are far simpler and more direct than those in the previous draft. By consolidating acceptable purposes and clearly laying out the factors for determining fair dealing, the bill makes the law easier for courts and users to apply. Furthermore, the straightforward language surrounding text and data analysis will undoubtedly hasten the adoption of this critical technology for scientific and research uses in Kenya. However, we also urgently recommend reversing several detrimental changes introduced in the 2026 draft. We urge KECOBO to maintain an “open” fair dealing provision to future-proof the law, rather than restricting it to a closed list of specific purposes. Additionally, we strongly oppose the inclusion of the ambiguous “three-step test” for individual users, the removal of vital contract override protections that safeguard statutory exceptions from restrictive digital licenses, and the deletion of the practical exception for temporary digital copies. Finally, we call for the complete removal of the newly introduced “commercial availability test” for accessible format copies, which creates unacceptable legal and administrative burdens for libraries serving persons with print disabilities. The full PDF of our comments as submitted can be viewed, downloaded and printed below.

Design Law Treaty, India, Technical Assistance

Comments on Proposed Amendments to India’s Designs Act, 2000

/

This document prepared by the Centre on Knowledge Governance provides comments on the Concept Note published by the government of India proposing a set of amendments to the Designs Act (2000). Table of Contents Introduction The Concept Note which proposes changes to the Design Act (2000) accurately describes a set of amendments needed to bring Indian procedural law into conformity with the harmonized framework established by the DLT and its Regulations. It also introduces a series of broader reforms addressing subject matter scope, enforcement mechanisms, duration of protection, and the relationship between design and copyright law that are not required by the DLT. In addition, it proposes to join the Hague Agreement, which is not itself required by the DLT. While the substantive reforms and joining the Hague Agreement are consistent with the DLT’s requirements, they are not required by the DLT and may raise policy questions as to the scope of design law that will best further India’s industrial policy interests. Virtual Designs Protection India’s Proposal India is proposing to amend the Designs Act to protect graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, animations, and other virtual designs. Although the 2021 amendment to the Designs Rules aligned classification with the Locarno system to include GUIs and virtual designs, the Designs Act (2000) continues to refer to physical articles, creating uncertainty for digital designs. The proposal seeks to revise the definitions of “design” and “article” to include virtual and non-physical forms, including animated and screen-based designs, and to make related changes to infringement provisions so that protection does not depend on physical embodiment. DLT Comparison and Analysis India’s proposal to amend the Designs Act to expressly protect GUIs, icons, animated designs, and other virtual or non-physical designs is compatible with the DLT and its Regulations adopted on 22 November 2024. Article 2(1) of the DLT establishes that “[n]othing in this Treaty or the Regulations is intended to be construed as prescribing anything that would limit the freedom of a Contracting Party to prescribe such requirements of the applicable substantive law relating to industrial designs as it desires”. This provision clearly confirms that the Treaty does not harmonize substantive design law. It does not define what constitutes an “industrial design, ” nor does it limit the categories of designs that a Contracting Party may choose to protect. Consequently, a national decision to extend protection to virtual, animated, or non-physically embodied designs falls within the substantive autonomy expressly preserved by Article 2(1) . With respect to application formalities, Article 4 sets out an exhaustive list of permissible requirements. Among these is the requirement for “a representation of the industrial design” (Article 4(1)(a)(v)) and “an indication of the product or products which incorporate the industrial design, or in relation to which the industrial design is to be used” (Article 4(1)(a)(vi)). The wording does not restrict the “product” to a physical object. It refers more broadly to products that incorporate the design or in relation to which it is to be used. Assessment The DLT’s definitions are sufficiently flexible to accommodate screen-based images, sequences of views showing movement, or other visual depictions of digital designs. While extending design protection to GUIs and other visual representations is permissible under the DLT, one should note that there is significant criticism by scholars of this approach, especially in the United States of America, where such protection is often granted. The criticisms include: The inclusion of GUI protection in the proposal could raise concerns for India’s vibrant cell phone industry. India’s mobile phone industry has transformed into the second-largest global manufacturer as of 2025, with 99.2% of phones sold domestically being manufactured within the country. India has grown from just two mobile manufacturing units in 2014 to over 300 today. It currently manufactures more than 325–330 million mobile phones annually. The Indian smartphone industry in India has long faced challenges from international brands over uses of GUIs. Indian Patent Office (IPO) has frequently rejected GUI design applications (such as those from Amazon and UST Global) on the grounds that a GUI is not an “article of manufacture. ” The office argued that GUIs are software-driven, visible only when a device is “ON, ” and lack the “constant eye appeal” required for design protection. In UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court held that GUIs can be considered a “design” as they appeal to the eye and influence consumer decisions but the IPO has continued to refuse the UST Global application upon reconsideration. Beyond registration disputes, tech giants like Zoom have contemplated legal action against Indian platforms like JioMeet for allegedly similar user interfaces, though such actions are often framed as copyright infringement due to the design registration hurdles mentioned above. Design-Copyright Interface India’s Proposal India is proposing to amend Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act (1957) to allow copyright protection to continue for designs that are registrable under design law but remain unregistered, while limiting that copyright protection to a maximum term of 15 years. At present, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act (1957) excludes copyright protection for designs that are registered under the Designs Act (2000). However, Section 15(2) provides that where a design is capable of being registered under design law but is not registered, copyright in that work ceases once it has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process. The objective is to reconcile copyright and design law by permitting protection while preventing long-term copyright monopolies over subject matter more appropriately governed by design law. DLT Comparison and Analysis This proposal falls entirely outside the scope of the Treaty. The DLT does not regulate the relationship between industrial design protection and copyright protection. Assessment India’s proposed reform of Section 15(2), permitting copyright protection for registrable but unregistered designs while limiting its term to 15 years, raises no compatibility issues under the DLT. It may, however, raise concerns under the Berne Convention, which states that the minimum term of copyrights over works of authorship must be 50 years

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

Blog, Technical Assistance, WIPO GA, WIPO-SCCR

Comparison of Proposed Texts on Limitations and Exceptions in SCCR 47 

/

Two documents have been introduced in connection to the Limitations and Exceptions agenda item for SCCR 47 Previously we already had a third document Below are two tables. The first identifies common elements among the African Group Proposal, the Chair’s Text, and the US proposal. The second table identifies common elements addressed by the African Group Proposal and the Chair’s text, but not included in the U.S. document. (It should be noted that the African Group’s Proposal also includes provisions not in the U.S. document or the Chair’s text.) As the attached tables demonstrate, there are significant areas of commonality among all three documents; and even more between the Chair’s text and the African Group Proposal. This suggests that further text-based work in the Committee towards an international legal instrument or instruments concerning exceptions and limitations can start with these documents.  PDF version below Table 1: Common Elements in United States Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, African Group Proposal, and Chair’s Proposed Text U.S. Objectives and Principles African Group Proposal Chair’s Text National Exceptions Encourage Member States to adopt well-focused exceptions and limitations in their national laws that are consistent with their international obligations, including the three-step test, and facilitate the public service role of libraries and archives, and maintain the balance between the rights of authors, artists and publishers, and the public interest, particularly in research, education, preservation, and access to information. (p. 2) Encourage Member States, when adopting or revising exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 2) Contracting Parties shall take all appropriate measures to respect, protect and fulfill the right to receive education and conduct research through appropriate exceptions and limitations in their national laws, consistent with their international obligations, maintaining the balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest. (p. 15) Member States shall provide an appropriate balance in their copyright and related rights system through limitations and exceptions for the public interest, including for education; research; freedom of expression uses such as for quotation, comment, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche; access to information and news reporting; preservation of cultural heritage; and to facilitate access for persons with disabilities. (p. 15) Contracting Parties shall update, carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws which have been considered acceptable under the Berne Convention, especially under article 10(1) and 10(2), and devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital environment to protect educational and research activities. (p. 15) Limitations and exceptions are an integral part of a balanced copyright system and should contribute to quality preservation, access, education and research, as well as to expand opportunities for all persons with disabilities to fully participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to benefit from scientific progress. (p. 6) Promote cooperation among institutions at national, regional and international levels. (p. 6) Research and Education Encourage Member States to enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of advancing research and knowledge by adopting exceptions and limitations for purposes of research and scholarship, and to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 3) It shall be permissible to use a work or other subject matter for educational or research purposes to the extent justified by the purpose and provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. (p. 19) Facilitate access to works for cultural, educational and research purposes, including through digital and online tools, and across borders. (p. 5) Enable cultural heritage institutions as well as educational and research institutions to provide copies and enable access to works to researchers, teachers, students and the public, under appropriate conditions. (p. 5) Preservation Encourage Member States to enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of preserving works by adopting exceptions and limitations for their preservation activities, and to consider adding museums and other non-profit institutions that function as a library, archives, or museum as eligible entities. (p. 3) Exceptions and limitations can and should enable libraries, archives, and museums to carry out their public service role of preserving works that comprise the cumulative knowledge, heritage, and culture of the world’s nations and peoples. (p. 3)[E]xceptions and limitations can and should enable libraries, archives, and museums to make copies of published and unpublished works, including highly ephemeral materials, for purposes of preservation and replacement, under certain appropriate circumstances. Those circumstances may include preservation and replacement in both analog and digital formats, or migration of content from obsolete storage formats to more stable formats on an ongoing basis, as reasonably necessary and as incidental to technology for a specific, limited preservation purpose. (p. 3) Contracting Parties shall provide for a limitation or exception to the right ofreproduction in order to allow cultural heritage institutions to make copies of any works or other subject matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the purposes of preservation of such works or other subject matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. (p. 29) For purposes of this Instrument, “cultural heritage institution” means a publicly accessible library or museum, an archive, or a film or audio heritage institution. (p. 31) Support the preservation of cultural heritage by libraries, archives and museums and other not-for-profit entities performing equivalent functions. (p. 4) Enable cultural heritage institutions to make copies of works, whether published or unpublished, for the purposes of preservation or replacement, including highly ephemeral materials. Such copies may be made in analog or digital formats, and during technological migration, provided they are necessary and incidental to a specific preservation purpose. (p. 4) Enable the preservation of and remote digital access to works, including cross-border, under secure conditions and promote the respect of adequate and effective

Blog, Technical Assistance, WIPO-SCCR

Justifications for an Instrument on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions

/

The mandate for working on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) at the World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) is rooted in the principle of maintaining a “balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information,” as articulated in the Preamble to the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The issue has been on the WIPO agenda since 2004, driven initially by proposals from Chile and several other countries in Latin America, and subsequently supported strongly by the African Group. The formal mandate for continued work on L&Es—specifically for libraries and archives, education and research institutions, and ‘other disabilities’—stems from a 2012 mandate from the General Assembly (WO/GA/41/14), which called for continuing discussions “to work towards an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)”. This process was accelerated when the African Group’s proposal for a Work Program on L&Es was adopted in 2023 (SCCR/43/8 REV), reaffirming the goal to move towards “the adoption of an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments on exceptions and limitations”, with subsequent drafts, such as SCCR/44/6 (November 2023), setting out detailed methodologies and processes intended to facilitate text-based negotiations on the subject. A draft instrument on limitations and exceptions was submitted by the African Group in October 2025 (SCCR/47/5) Below we summarise justifications for an international instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to copyright, and for expanded limitations and exceptions more generally. The justifications are taken from a review of academic literature. Researchers have posited that such an instrument is necessary to counteract the existing “minimum protection approach” of international treaties, which often prioritizes copyright holders over the public interest, access to knowledge, and competition and development concerns. To download or print this analysis, see the pdf version below. Benefits of International Harmonization Counterbalance to minimum protection approach; Promoting L&E reform. International copyright treaties have primarily followed a “minimum protection approach” with the result many (especially developing) countries reform laws to meet the evolving international landscape on copyright protection without updating limitations and exceptions. Following the 1996 Internet Treaties, for example, most countries have protections that cover digital works, but often lack the updates necessary to apply exceptions to digital uses. An instrument on L&E can help guide copyright reform to better recognize “the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, as reflected in the Berne Convention.” (WCT Preamble). A key example is the Marrakesh treaty, which has promoted extensive reform in exceptions for people with disabilities.  (Geiger and Jütte 2024; Hilty et al. 2021; Longan 2023; Majekolagbe 2025) Defending positive reform An instrument on L&Es would help defend reform efforts against claims that broadening L&Es would violate the international three step test.   (Asay 2021; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Eliminating anticompetitive effects Harmonizing L&Es across international borders can help combat anticompetitive behavior. For example, firms have used inadequate copyright exceptions to inhibit generic pharmaceutical labeling, reverse engineering to create competing products, etc.  (Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Enabling Cross-Border Use Harmonizing L&Es can help promote cross border uses of materials relying on exceptions, such as a research corpus, educational texts, contents of libraries and archives, etc.   (Flynn et al. 2020; Trimble 2025) Benefits of More Open L&Es for Social and Economic Development Promoting ongoing authorship L&Es promote free expression and authorship that builds upon existing works for subsequent creations such as commentaries, biographies, critical reviews, satire and parody, and other transformations. (Hilty et al. 2021; Samuelson 2018; Yoo 2021) Promoting research (empirical) More open exceptions for research uses are associated with higher levels of academic production and publication, including of projects using computational research that requires making digital copies of whole works (aka text and data mining).  (Flynn and Palmedo 2019; Handke, Guibault, and Vallbé 2021; Palmedo 2019)  Supporting functions of public institutions L&Es enable institutions like libraries and archives to fulfill essential public functions, such as digitization, preservation, making replacement copies, and providing document delivery for research. (Lindsay and Greenleaf 2018; Majekolagbe 2025; Samuelson 2018) Promoting the Dissemination of Knowledge L&Es such as education and research exceptions enable wider dissemination of information through digital platforms, such as for online learning, sharing research files, etc., that can contribute to development and economic and social advancement. (Lindsay and Greenleaf 2018; Okediji 2018; Okediji and Hugenholtz 2008) Promoting Innovation and Competition L&Es foster commerce, competition, and innovation by limiting exclusive rights that might otherwise impede the development of derivative products and services such as interoperable software, recording and storage devices (from the VCR to the cloud), and search and indexing of webpages.  (von Lohmann 2008; Samuelson 2018) Promoting Innovation (Empirical) More open user rights environments are associated with higher firm revenues in information industries, including software and computer systems design, and in complementary industries (e.g., ISPs, web hosts) by legally allowing consumers to copy and share content. This in turn promotes investments in new technological innovation (Flynn and Palmedo 2019; Palmedo 2021) Bibliography  The pdf version follows below:

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, Technical Assistance, WIPO-SCCR

Is the draft Broadcast Treaty consistent with the General Assembly mandate?

/

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently published a new draft of the proposed Broadcasting Organizations Treaty as document SCCR/47/3 in preparation for the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR/47) in December 2025. The draft does not differ in its main provisions from previous drafts, and this raises questions as to whether the document fulfils the mandate given to the SCCR by previous WIPO General Assemblies. Below we provides an analysis of the chair’s draft edits. We focus on the substantive changes in SCCR 47/3 as well as on the more controversial provisions, most of which are unchanged in this draft. The central question for the Broadcasting Treaty, in line with the 2007 General Assembly Mandate, is whether there is sufficient “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” to warrant a recommendation for a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The 2006 WIPO General Assembly mandated that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006). Key issues include whether the treaty should include any exclusive rights, rather than only general obligations to prevent piracy (similar to its current Art. 10 and to the substance of the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite); whether it should extend to rights of fixation and to “stored programmes”; whether to enable remuneration schemes for retransmissions; and how to broaden the limitations and exceptions to ensure that broadcast rights cannot prohibit uses permitted by copyright exceptions. To download or print this analysis, see the pdf below. Analysis and commentary by section on the latest draft of the Broadcast Treaty Updated Broadcast Treaty. New text in SCCR 47/3 in green.   Comments and Suggestions 2. Definitions SCCR 47 added:  2.06 In the Draft Text, there is no definition of the term “broadcast”.  The object of protection of the Treaty is the transmission of the programme-carrying signal, which constitutes the broadcast.  The broadcast represents the output of the activity in which a broadcasting organization is engaged, namely “broadcasting”, which is already defined in item (a). Furthermore, the term “broadcast” is not employed in the Draft Text. (g) “stored programmes” means programmes, which a broadcasting organization owns or regarding which it has acquired transmission rights with the intention of including them in its linear transmission, or which have originally been transmitted in a linear transmission by a broadcasting organization, For those that want to extend protections of the treaty to streaming on the Internet, a key challenge is how to achieve this goal while limiting any protection to traditional broadcasters rather than to streaming companies such as YouTube, Spotify, etc.  The definition of a broadcasting organization applies to any organization that “takes the initiative and has the editorial responsibility for the transmission, …; the programmes of a broadcasting organization form a linear programme-flow.” “Linear program flow” means scheduled programming. Internet streaming companies often show some scheduled programming and thus could be considered covered broadcasting organizations. The definition of “stored programmes” attempts to limit application to more traditional broadcasters by requiring that such programs be owned or licensed “with the intention of including them in its linear transmission.” Most of the content from streaming companies is not intended to be included in a linear transmission.  There is a policy question about why there is a need to cover stored transmissions at all. As the definition notes, such programs are normally either owned or licensed by the broadcaster, which then would have all copyright rights to combat piracy of the programs.  Commenters have offered changes to restrict the scope of the treaty to traditional broadcasting. Hugenholtz (2023) proposes that the definition of covered broadcasts exclude transmission of stored programs on demand by covering only “simultaneous reception by the general public of a programme-carrying single, where the programmes are provided in a prescheduled and linear order.” This is similar to the Rome Convention, which defines “rebroadcasting” as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another.”  Love advises adding that the signal be “from a single source point to multiple recipient points,” which would exclude on demand point-to-point transmissions.  Article 3: Scope of Application (2) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply as well to the protection of programme-carrying signals of the broadcasting organizations used in their transmissions when providing access to the public to the stored programmes of the broadcasting organizations.… (6) Contracting Parties may, in a notification deposited with the Director General of WIPO, declare that they exclude broadcasting organizations that exclusively transmit their linear programme-carrying signals by means of computer networks from the scope of application of this Treaty.  Such notifications may be deposited at the time of ratifications, acceptance or accession, or at any time thereafter; in the last case, it shall become effective six months after it has been reposited. The treatment of webcasters has long been a controversial issue in the negotiation, with some arguing that to be limited to traditional broadcasting the treaty should exclude application to webcasts that never make use of traditional airwave-based broadcasting. Proponents of such extension point to the transition of some providers to web-only transmission.   The draft makes clear that countries may exclude webcasters through a reservation.  To limit the text to traditional broadcasting, Art. 3(2) and (6) could be deleted.  Article 6 Right of Retransmission to the Public […]  (2) Any Contracting Party that, before the entry into force of this Treaty, did not provide a right under paragraph (1) to broadcasting organizations in respect of entities that merely retransmit programme-carrying signals for the reception by the public while providing reasonable remuneration to rightholders of the programmes carried by such signals, may continue such a domestic legislative arrangement. One problem with giving broadcasters a right to prevent retransmissions to the public of their signals is that many countries require such retransmissions, for example to carry public broadcasts over cable, internet, or other forms of service that

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, Technical Assistance

The (Long) Road to the Broadcast Treaty: A Brief History

/

Lokesh Vyas; Luca Schirru; Sean Flynn  Members of the research team from the Program of Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP)’ Geneva Center published a “Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 145. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/145/ The document traces the discussions and statements made by Member States across all SCCR and General Assembly meetings from the launch of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in 1998 to the 45th meeting of the committee in 2024. The history can be used to analyze the evolution in the statements, positions, and proposals of countries over this long history. This note describes the pre-history of the Broadcasting Treaty before the creation of the SCCR. Berne Convention Broadcasting entered the international copyright scene in the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention, with the introduction of Article 11bis to the Berne Convention: “Article 11bis: (1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the communication of their works to the public by radio-diffusion.(2) The national legislations of the countries of the Union may regulate the conditions under which the right mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be exercised, but the effect of those conditions will be strictly limited to the countries which have put them in force. Such conditions shall not in any case prejudice the moral right (droit moral) of the author, nor the right which belongs to the author to obtain an equitable remuneration which shall be fixed, failing agreement, by the competent authority.”[2] The exclusive right in 11bis is limited to communications “to the public” by the particular means of “radio-diffusion.” It thus did not cover issues such as rebroadcasts by other means (e.g. cable, internet, etc.) or one-to-one transmissions. Article 11bis(2) gives governments flexibility in how to regulate the right. The importance of public interest regulation was emphasized by the Sub-Committee on Broadcasting which discussed the issue at the conference.[3]  In 1948, Article 11bis(1) was expanded to cover additional technologies, and Article 11bis(3) was introduced, creating an exception for “ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting body by means of its own facilities and used for its own emissions”.[4] The provision also permitted legislation to authorize the preservation of such recordings in official archives if they held exceptional documentary value.  The 1967 Stockholm Revision brought further modifications: Article 11bis(1) was revised to include the terms “broadcasting” and “rebroadcasting”. Article 11bis(2) remained unchanged; the wording of Article 11bis(3) was slightly modified, though without any substantial legal effect. Rome Convention The International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome, 1961) convened jointly by two UN agencies: ILO and UNESCO, as well as BIRPI (WIPO’s predecessor), included a related right of broadcasting organizations. As James Love has described:  “Broadcasting organizations made a discrete case for inclusion in the treaty as a beneficiary, even when making no creative contribution. Backed by sheer lobbying power, broadcasters claimed that, unlike theater owners, record or bookstores, they were tasked with making works available to the public without direct compensation from listeners, often with additional public service obligations, and were entitled to rights, even when none existed for the works broadcast.”[5] The treaty defined “broadcasting” as “the transmission by wireless means for public reception”[6] and “rebroadcasting” as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another broadcasting organisation”.[7] The treaty was thus limited to the protection of live broadcasts by traditional wireless means. The Rome Convention included a list of permissible limitations and exceptions.[8] Brussels Convention As Delia Lipszyc noted with the rise of orbiting or geostationary satellites in international telecommunications since 1965, broadcasting organizations expressed the need for adequate protection against the ‘piracy of signals’ when their television programmes were transmitted by space satellites.[9] The Rome Convention left ambiguity on this issue as it only covered “wireless” transmissions, raising doubts about whether it applied to broadcasts relayed through satellites.  International discussions on the legal challenges of “intercontinental broadcasts of television programmes by satellite” began in 1968 and 1969. Following these meetings, UNESCO and BIRPI jointly convened a Committee of Governmental Experts to examine copyright and related rights issues affecting performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasters due to satellite transmissions. The committee met three times—in Lausanne (1971), Paris (1972), and Nairobi (1973)—laying the groundwork for the 1974 Diplomatic Conference in Brussels.[10] In the 1974 Brussels Diplomatic Conference Report, Lipszyc notes that the General Rapporteur highlighted the issue’s urgency, as recognized by the three Committees of Governmental Experts. They explored several possible solutions, including: 1.) the revision of the International Telecommunication Convention or of the annexed Radio Regulations; the revision of the Rome Convention (1961); 2.) the adoption of a new multilateral Convention; or 3.) some other formula, such as the confirmation of the existing international agreements or 4.) the adoption of a straightforward resolution condemning the piracy of signals. Quoting from Lipszyc:  “As the preparatory work progressed, a consensus emerged in favour of the third solution; even though some countries considered that the Rome Convention granted broadcasters protection against unauthorized rebroadcasting of their signals transmitted by satellites, it was still clear that, because of the few accessions to that Convention, it did not immediately lend itself to a solution of this problem at world level. … At the meetings of the three Committees of Experts, discussions focused mainly on a number of drafts of a new multilateral convention designed to prevent the rebroadcasting of signals transmitted via satellites by distributors for whom they were not intended; but it proved particularly difficult to arrive at a general consensus on the content and terms of this Convention”. The above-referred Report highlighted that the main difficulty arose at the meeting of the First Committee of Governmental Experts (Lausanne, 1971) and took up a great deal of the proceedings of all three preparatory meetings. The problem was to know whether, if exclusive rights were granted to the originating broadcasting organizations in the sphere of private law and within a new international

Scroll to Top