A recent article published by EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries) contends that the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) draft study on Public Lending Right (PLR) is fundamentally flawed. The PLR system allows authors and rightsholders to receive compensation for the non-commercial lending of their works by libraries.
The WIPO scoping study assessed PLR systems across multiple countries, but was criticized for its alleged bias toward PLR as a solution for incentivizing creativity around the world. The international library community, including organizations like EIFL, FLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), LCA (Library Copyright Alliance), and the Canadian Federation of Library Associations (CFLA-FCAB), argue that the study overlooks key issues that impact developing countries, where libraries often operate under severely constrained budgets that may not be able to support a PLR system.
The assumption that a European-style PLR system could be easily implemented in these regions is viewed by these organizations of libraries as both impractical and neo-colonial. Their critique centers on the lack of attention to the financial and operational realities of libraries in the Global South. For instance, many libraries in African countries rely heavily on donations and charge fees for basic services – making the administrative costs associated with PLR systems difficult to afford. Additionally, the EIFL says that the WIPO study failed to consider that certain infrastructure, such as electricity and trained staff, would be required to operate PLR systems effectively.
The EIFL also claims that the WIPO study was strongly biased in favor of PLR as being inherently beneficial:
“Rather than taking an objective approach, recognizing that there are costs as well as benefits to the introduction of PLR schemes, the study seems to assume that PLR is automatically a good thing and should always be encouraged.”
The study encouraged extending PLR to schools and educational institutions, as well as applying it to specialized libraries under the Marrakesh Treaty, which aims to reduce costs and barriers for visually impaired individuals. However, such an expansion would run contrary to the spirit of the treaty and raised concerns about the study’s objectivity.
The EIFL article concludes that more objective research be conducted before the introduction of PLR in developing countries can be considered. While PLR may work well in well-funded library systems, EIFL says that a region-specific approach may be needed to address the realities and constraints of less developed nations.
