[Prepared by Kenneth Crews for the 29th Session of the SCCR, Link] INTRODUCTION: A study of copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, commissioned by the World Intellectual Property Organization and delivered in 2008, provided a foundation for the subsequent consideration and evaluation of the issues by delegates from the WIPO member states. The original study was conducted by Dr. Kenneth D. Crews on behalf of WIPO, and he was again commissioned to be the principal investigator for the present 2014 report. This report offers a significant update and expansion of the 2008 study. First, the combined 2008 and 2014 studies offer analysis of the copyright laws from all but one of the WIPO member countries. Second, this 2014 project identifies countries that have revised their relevant statutes since completion of the 2008 report. These statutory revisions confirm an ongoing need for legal change and reveal specifically the relevant copyright issues on which lawmakers in diverse countries have taken legislative attention.
[Electronic Information for Libraries press release, Link (CC-BY)] After five years, it was time to update the 2009 EIFL Draft Law on Copyright in the light of legislative developments, current thinking on copyright policy, and library services enabled by new technologies. As a result, we have amended some of the exceptions and limitations, while introducing new provisions. We have also refreshed the layout and design of the document.
The EIFL Draft Law on Copyright including Model Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and their Users (2014) is a practical guide to assist librarians, as well as their legal advisors and policy-makers, when national laws are being updated. It is designed to support access to knowledge and the public interest mission of libraries.
[Cross posted from brandonbutler.info, Link, (CC-BY)] When can teachers share copyrighted works (or excerpts therefrom) with students without payment or permission?
While other parts of the law come into play in narrow contexts, this is primarily a question about the scope of the doctrine of fair use. Educators have struggled with the dimensions of fair use for decades, and we are now at a pivotal point in that struggle. Friday’s decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Georgia State e-reserves case may be the last word on this issue for a long time. What does it say?
Reposted from Association of Research Libraries’ Policy Notes blog, Link, CC-BY
On Friday, October 17, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit released its long-awaited decision in the Georgia State University (GSU) e-reserves case.Some key takeaways from the majority opinion include:
- Affirms that fair use is applied on a case-by-case basis;
- Rejects bright-line rules, such as using a ten-percent-or-one-chapter rule to allow fair use (a rule that the district court adopted);
- Affirms that even if a use is non-transformative, a nonprofit educational purpose can still favor fair use;
- Rejects the coursepack copying cases as applicable;
- Finds that a publisher’s failure to offer a license will tend to weigh in favor of fair use in terms of the fourth fair use factor; and
- Gives weight to a publisher’s incentive to publish, rather than focusing on the author’s incentive to create.
Prof. Raquel Xalabarder
Chair of Intellectual Property
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Click here for the full paper (PDF)
In February 2014, the Spanish Government proposed a bill to amend the Spanish Intellectual Property Law (TRLPI). Among other amendments, the bill introduces an ancillary right in favor of press publishers for the aggregation of news and other copyrighted content available online by means of a statutory limitation that authorizes the aggregation of online contents subject to an unwaiveable equitable compensation, managed by the corresponding Collective Management Organization [CMO]. Search engines are also authorized to link to this copyrighted content, this time without any remuneration.
The proposed statutory license has been severely criticized from all sides: by Spanish consumers’ associations, aggregators, search engines and providers of internet services, in general, as well as by some press-publishers. The bill is now under parliamentary proceedings.
[Reposted from TWN News, Link] Member States at the recently concluded 46th General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted a “no decision” outcome when consensus failed on four key issues.
This occurred on past midnight of the last day of the session that was held from 22 to 30 September 2014.
Despite intensive informal consultations over several days and evening some nights, the WIPO General Assembly concluded at 12.30 am without any decision on four areas viz. the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (Agenda item 16), Design Law Treaty (Agenda Item 15), the Standing Committee on Copyrights (Agenda item 14), and Matters Concerning External Offices and the establishment of WIPO External Offices (Agenda item 12).
Abstract: Exceptions and limitations to the rights of copyright owners aim to promote copyright goals in a rapidly changing world. Policymakers are often faced with the choice of either adopting an open-norm, such as fair use, to facilitate flexibility and adaptability, or opt for a strictly defined list of exceptions and limitations to facilitate more certainty and predictability. So far, this binary choice between bright-line rules and vague standards has created a deadlock.
This paper argues that in order to promote a reasoned implementation of fair use and serve both the purpose of copyright law and the rule of law, courts should subscribe to the doctrinal indeterminacy mandated by fair use, while at the same time encourage the implementation of concrete rules within that standard. Incorporating bottom-up norms, such as Codes of Fair Use Best Practices, in fair use analysis, would enable courts to do just that.
We would like to invite you to a workshop on Copyright Users Rights and the Clearance Culture in South African Filmmaking on August 18, at 10h00, at the NFVF, 87 Central Street, Houghton, 2198, Johannesburg. This workshop will be hosted by SASFED and its Affiliates, the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) at American University Washington College of Law in the United States, and the Intellectual Property Unit at the University of Cape Town. The workshop follows, and will report back on, research by the partner organisations on documentary filmmaker views and perceptions on the rights of filmmakers to reuse and transform material in their filmmaking without licensing restrictions.
[Cross posted from the European Open Edu Policy Project, Link (CC-BY)] It is well known that the rules that allow for certain educational uses of copyrighted works under certain conditions without permission of the rights’ owners vary greatly between countries. But how different are those rules? And how difficult is to access those differences? Can a teacher with no legal background determine alone whether a certain use is allowed or not in his/her country?
[Press release, government of Hong Kong, Link] The Government will introduce the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 into the Legislative Council (LegCo) on June 18 to update Hong Kong’s copyright regime and ensure that it keeps pace with technological and overseas developments.
The Bill also provides a number of copyright exceptions to facilitate reasonable uses of copyright works.
[UPDATE: the draft bill is published – Copyright Amendments Bill 2014.]
A recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-435/12 ACI Adam BV and Others) ruled that private copying limitations cannot permit downloads from unlawful sources.
João Pedro Quintais & Alexander de Leeuw, have a detailed peice on the case on the Kluwer Copyright Blog.
Here is an excerpt from the ruling:
Joint media release by 10 Library and Archivist Associations | Download PDF
[Reposted from EIFL, Link CC-BY)] Discussions by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright & Related Rights (SCCR) broke down in the early hours of Saturday morning 3 May, after the European Union (EU) attempted to block future discussion of copyright laws to aid libraries and archives fulfill their missions in the digital environment.