Shweta Mohandas, CIS-India (CC-BY)
Originally posted to cis-india.org in parts One | Two | Three
Day 1
Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1)The need for balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers 2) Questions around fixation and signal piracy 3) Need for consensus and towards a diplomatic conference
Opening Statements by Group Coordinators
Uruguay on behalf of the GRULAC spoke about the Marrakesh treaty and highlighted how this was the first treaty that looked at human rights and copyright. Uruguay also mentioned the need to look at exclusion and the need for dissemination of knowledge.
On behalf of the Baltic states, Poland expressed their interest in discussing the Limitations and Exceptions (L&E) agenda, with focus on persons with other disabilities, as well as conveyed their interest in examining the Toolkit on Preservation.
The African group coordinator Ghana, highlighted the need to look at the contribution to Sustainable Development Goals, they also showed support for Senegal and Congo on their work on artist copyright and resale rights.
Singapore made the statements on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group (APG) group coordinator Indonesia, they commented on the need to work towards a fair and balanced broadcast treaty, and to narrow existing gaps which would require a delicate balance. They also stated that the treaty needs to be comprehensive and inclusive, with limitations and expectations for Libraries, Archives and Museums and areas of cultural importance, as well as access to broadcast content for education and research.
Agenda Item 5: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations
The need for Balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers
China, Ghana, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, in their statements highlighted the need for balance between the rights of the broadcasters with suitable limitations and exceptions. Iran in their statements also highlighted the work of libraries, archives and museums in education. Iran also highlighted that different parameters for Limitations and Exceptions in member states’ national legislations has the potential to cause barriers in the free flow of data for researchers and educators.
Colombia spoke about their concerns regarding the fixation rights laid out in the treaty and the working of limitations and exceptions under Article 11. Colombia stated that the use of the term “may” in Article 11 could result in countries ignoring the limitations and exceptions provisions when they adopt this treaty into their national legislations. They suggested the changing of the wording in Article 11 from “may” to “shall” to reflect a balanced and progressive treaty.
Nigeria in their statement highlighted the difficulties that were faced by students and educators during Covid 19, when schools and libraries were closed. They also shed light on how limitations and exceptions were not granted uniformly.
Pakistan also emphasised on the need to look at the interests of educators, and supported the inclusion of mandatory limitations and exceptions while protecting the rights of the creators.
Questions around fixation and signal piracy
The Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) group, The United Kingdom (UK) , Canada, Tajikistan and The United States of America and Japan in their statements mentioned the need to protect broadcasters especially with respect to stopping piracy. The CEBS group stated that in the era of rapidly evolving technologies and changing digital environments there was a need to extend international protection against piracy to different types of transmissions of broadcasting organizations, including those over computer networks. Similarly, the United Kingdom also highlighted the rapid advancements in technology, which enables signal piracy through redirecting. The UK stated that Article 7 of the draft treaty did not provide sufficient protection, an issue that needed more deliberations.
Need for consensus and progress towards a diplomatic conference
Pakistan, China, Kingdom of Eswatini, The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) in their statements mentioned that they were looking forward to a diplomatic conference. Pakistan highlighted the need for open and inclusive negotiation in the diplomatic conference.
India expressed that the scope of protection in the revised draft is more comprehensive and in line with technological developments. The definition of the term broadcasting has also been made more comprehensive with the inclusion of the word “any means”. The definition provided for fixation has been provided along with the rights of fixation under Article 7, which may be the most relevant steps to prevent unauthorised exploitation by a third party to the values represented by the signal. India also stated that the treaty is capable of covering piracy in the digital environment and includes broadcasting of all types of broadcast. India also stated that they support the finalisation of the treaty, maintaining the interest of all member states on fundamental issues.
Presentation by the Chair and Vice Chair
- On Article 11 the Chair stated that the list could be made clearer, and also clarified that the list is not a closed list. With respect to the works in the public domain the Chair clarified that the broadcasting and distributing of works in public domain, only the work carrying the signal will be under the treaty.
- With regard to the scope of fixation the Chair clarified that the scope of fixation is only for the entity emitting the signal. The focus of the treaty is to limit the rights to signal based rights.
Day Two
Rights of broadcasters
Iran wanted clarifications about whether the rights granted to broadcasters under the treaty would be a negative right (right to prohibit) or a positive right (right to authorise). Iran also highlighted that there was a need to clarify definitions in the treaty, particularly with respect to user generated contents shared on websites such as Youtube, in comparison with traditional broadcasters.
The Chair clarified that the treaty provides two sets of rights, positive rights under Article 6 and 7 and negative rights under Article 8 and 9. The Chair also clarified that the treaty aimed to bridge the various legal frameworks, based on copyright, under a rights based approach and a signal based approach. In the signal based approach, the positive right under Article 6 is based to protect only live signal and the protection ends at the point of fixation, hence there is no relation between the right of fixation Article 7 and the right to prohibit transmission and deferred transmission under article 8. The Chair further clarified that the positive right ends at fixation after which the right to prohibit comes into play. With respect to User Generated Content the Chair clarified that the current draft of the treaty focused protection to traditional broadcasters and not other service providers.
Terms of the Right The USA highlighted their concern over the possible perpetual term of fixation rights and requested that a revised text could have some explicit time limit. Singapore echoed USA’s concern over the absence of limitations on the duration of the rights of the broadcasters which could give broadcasters perpetual protection of a programme. Similarly Pakistan questioned the need for a right of fixation highlighting that piracy was an enforcement issue. With respect to the term of protection the Chair clarified that the treaty sought to provide practical protection to broadcasters of their live signal, and not the content of the broadcast. Further clarifying that one of the main aims of the treaty was the protection of simultaneous retransmission, and to provide protection in case there was a fixation of the signals.
Limitations and Exceptions
Iran and Brazil highlighted issues about limitations and exceptions. While Iran stated that the inclusion of the three step test in the treaty would water down the limitations and exceptions provisions, Brazil highlighted that the Article 11 of the treaty did not follow the text of the Marakesh convention or the Beijing treaty regarding Limitations and Exceptions. Brazil highlighted that there was a need to clarify in the text of the treaty itself that the list provided under the Article is illustrative and not exhaustive. In addition to this they stated that the text of the treaty should also establish the presumption that all the examples listed have already fulfilled the three steps. Brazil also highlighted the question about the consequence of the proposal on works in the public domain that are not sufficiently clear. The draft should ensure that public domain content when broadcasted should not receive another layer of protection.
Communia, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Innovarte also highlighted issues that might come up with broadcasting works that are in the public domain. Communia provided examples where the broadcasters might have the only good copy of historic events and reporting that have now become a part of the public domain, however the broadcasters could reappropriate these which are in the public domain with new exclusive rights through this treaty. Communia hence suggested a need for exclusion of public domain works in the treaty. Innovarte highlighted Article 6 of the Berne convention which allows for exceptions related to public interest such as use of excerpts.
Agenda Item 6 and 7 – Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, for Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other disabilities
Working towards a binding international L&E instrument
The beginning of the discussion on Limitations and Exceptions began with the CEBS Group, Group B, the European Union and the USA emphasising on the need to look at other avenues to implement L and E without going for a legally binding international instrument. Some of the solutions provided included strengthening existing national legislations, existing solutions within the framework of the existing international treaties, exchange of best practices, and capacity building for countries to implement L&E’s in their national legislations.
Ghana on behalf of the African Group stated that there was a need to provide mutual benefit between those who generate and those who use creative works. Ghana also highlighted the issues with cross border access and sharing of copyrighted materials which is becoming increasingly difficult for libraries, archives, museums and research institutions to access. Ghana highlighted the need for a strong support in development of a legal instrument on Limitations and Exceptions, for libraries, archives, museums and for persons with disabilities other than blindness. South Africa in their statement also highlighted the benefit L&E’s would provide to both creators and users, and the cross border transfer of data. And extended their support to the statement of Ghana and work towards an international instrument whether model law, joint recommendation or a treaty.
Day Three
Working towards a binding international L&E instrument
Iran, Pakistan and Kenya highlighted their support toward the African proposal as well emphasized the need for an internationally binding treaty on L&E. Saudi Arabia mentioned the need for Limitations and Exceptions to benefit the preservation and sharing of cultural heritage, as well as for persons with disabilities. Iran emphasied on the need for adequate balance and copyright protection and a balance between different national legislations. Iran stated that there was a need to have an international legal instrument in order to harmonise national legislations, in the absence of which there would not be a free flow of information. Iran also emphasised on the need to look at the priorities of developing countries with respect to the Development Agenda. Pakistan also highlighted the issues that came to light during the pandemic, especially with regard to cross border use of information by educational institutions. In addition to this Pakistan stated that it looked forward to a binding instrument that was not too prescriptive. Kenya shed light on the concerns around the increasing knowledge gap between the developed and the developing countries, and the migration from analogue to digital environment.
Limitations and Exceptions and Cross Border Flow of Data
Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Uganda and Algeria extended their support to the Work Programme on L&E by the African Group. Nigeria in their statement expressed how L&E were essential for research, cultural exchange, and how it had the potential to help people around the world who still lack access to educational and research materials. Nigeria also highlighted that a legally binding international treaty would help harmonise and balance the copyright system with other instruments such as the TRIPS agreement and the WIPO internet treaties, and facilitate smooth transborder trade in both online and traditional media. Iran stated that the creation of L&E for online and crossborder use of data is imperative, especially for the benefit of online teaching and research as well as bridge the digital divide by facilitating access to knowledge and technology.
The European Union (EU) and France however were not in support of a legally binding instrument.The EU stated that they would prefer a non-binding instrument such as a toolkit, while France stated that the current international framework of copyright is sufficiently flexible to allow members to implement L&E in their national legislations, as well as to find appropriate tools to meet the needs of education, research and preservation. France expressed their reservation in moving towards a normative framework and stated that the states could look at the exchange of best practice at national level and support in drafting national legislations. The United States stated that topics such as text and data mining and contract override were not issues that were fully discussed yet at the committee level.
Observations by the Chair
- The Chair noted that there continued to be a disagreement on whether to pursue international instruments for Limitations and Exceptions.
- The Chair also noted that while there was a lot of support for the proposal, there still was no consensus on the proposal. The Chair suggested that the African Group work with the member states that highlighted their reservations and work together with the Chair to see if the proposal could be revised, or to look at portions of the proposal that enjoyed the support to be advanced.
