The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 25.
In a first, Indian Singers Rights' Association distributes royalty
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-news-minute-april-14-2018-first-indian-singers-rights-association-distributes-royalty
<b>While singers say this benefits out of job artistes, the transparency in distribution remains questionable.</b>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">This info was published by the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/first-indian-singers-rights-association-distributes-royalty-79581">News Minute</a> on April 14, 2018.</p>
<hr />
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">In a first, the Indian Singers Rights’ Association (ISRA) distributed Rs 51 lakh in royalties to singers on Friday. The beneficiaries included popular playback singers KS Chitra, P Susheela, KJ Yesudas, SP Balasubrahmanyam and Srinivas.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking to The Hindu, ISRA CEO Sanjay Tandon <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/playback-singers-get-royalty-for-first-time/article23531481.ece" target="_blank">said</a>, “This ₹51 lakh royalty money will grow 10 fold if and when radio channels, television channels and mobile companies start paying us. Right now, only IPL teams, amusement parks and few other establishments have paid the royalty money.”</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking to media persons at the event, singer SP Balasubrahmanyam said, "The government has given a rule saying that royalty should reach the singers as well. This programme is organised to give a part of the shares to singers in South India. This is a good thing to be welcomed.”</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">In March last year, SPB and others were slapped with legal notices by renowned music director Ilaiyaraaja over performing his compositions without his explicit permission and a payment of royalty to him. While this took the singers by surprise, experts had clarified that Ilaiyaraaja was right in asking for royalty as long as he owned the copyright to the music.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking to Puthiya Thalaimurai channel, singer Chitra said, "Everyone knows a singer doesn't have pension or anything. After they sing, if the song is a hit, they will get a few shows here and there. We know a lot of people who are struggling to live. This will definitely help them, especially when they are aged and cannot go to work. This royalty will really be useful. We welcome this."</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">Singer Srinivas added, "This is not the case where you give money to someone who already has money. This is for a singer who has disappeared after singing 4- 5 songs. He's probably struggling in a village. When the money reaches him, it is a big thing. If we meet that social responsibility, it would be a success."</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">However, if royalty would go to singers of all ranks remains unclear.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; ">In a <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparative-transparency-review-of-collective-management-organisations-in-india-uk-usa" target="_blank">transparency review</a> conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, that compares the publicly available information on the websites of music collective management organisations(CMOs), ISRA did not <a href="http://isracopyright.com/distribution_scheme.php" target="_blank">detail</a> the “distribution of percentages, nor the administrative cut it seeks to take” as per the Copyright Amendment Act 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-news-minute-april-14-2018-first-indian-singers-rights-association-distributes-royalty'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-news-minute-april-14-2018-first-indian-singers-rights-association-distributes-royalty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2018-04-17T14:21:27ZNews Item35th SCCR: CIS' Question to Dr. Rostama on her Study on the Impact of the Digital Environment on Copyright Legislation
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, posed this question on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Rostamma.</p>
<p>My question relates to provisions allowing reverse
engineering of computer programmes. You mentioned that 81% of member states (with the scope of your study)
have exceptions for compilation and interoperability of computer programmes.</p>
<p>Can you comment, qualitatively, on how open/ strict you have
found the limitations and exceptions to be in your study? Is there a member
state that stands out in its treatment of limitations and exceptions for
computer programmers, and/or users of such digital objects?</p>
<p><strong>Answer: I would not like to make any
qualitative comments.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Read Dr. Rostamma's study <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_35/sccr_35_4.pdf">here</a></em>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-19T07:50:49ZBlog Entry35th SCCR: CIS Statement on GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. </b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>We would like to reiterate the importance of GRULAC Proposal
for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit
organisation in India that undertakes research on internet and digital
technologies from an academic and policy perspective.</p>
<p>In an environment of monopolies controlling the distribution
of digital goods and services, which connect users and creators, such a
comprehensive study assumes significant importance, especially for creators in the
global south.</p>
<p>We are especially concerned with the methods by which platform
intermediaries are enforcing their private IP rules on creators worldwide,
and if there are fair systems in place to address takedown, and the subsequent restoration
of works unfairly taken down from their platforms. It must be noted that there
is a serious lack of transparency as far as the conduct of such intermediaries
go, and often actions are taken without appropriate justification/explanation.</p>
<p>It is equally important that we continue to build on limitations
and exceptions for libraries, museums, archives, educational institutions,
researchers, and users’ in the digital environment.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-11-17T10:03:21ZBlog EntryRCEP IP Chapter: A Serious Threat to Access to Knowledge/ Cultural Goods?
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-law-arul-george-scaria-and-anubha-sinha-live-law-rcep-ip-chapter-serious-threat-access-knowledge-cultural-goods
<b>Negotiators from sixteen countries are currently meeting in Hyderabad for discussing a free trade agreement titled Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).</b>
<p>The blog post was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livelaw.in/rcep-ip-chapter-serious-threat-access-knowledge-cultural-goods/">Live Law.in</a> on July 27, 2017.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Looking at the latest available IP chapter (leak dated October 15, 2015), RCEP stands to adversely affect nearly half of the world’s population on areas like access to knowledge and access to medicines. We would like to highlight five issues related to access to knowledge/ cultural goods, based on the leaked IP chapter.</p>
<div>
<h3>Clear neglect of users’ rights</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As different scholars and courts have tried to point out, copyright is not just about the rights of creators, but also those of users. The agreement will hurt this balance embedded in our copyright law. The balance within the copyright system is ensured by a set of limitations and exceptions which permit free uses for purposes like education, research, etc., thereby serving interests of students,researchers, educators, computer programmers, and persons with disabilities. Studies have also pointed out that industries that depend on limitations and exceptions also contribute substantially to economic growth. For example a recent study (by Computer and Communications Industry Association) in the US found that companies that extensively rely on limitations and exceptions, like media device manufacturers, software developers, internet search and web-hosting providers, and educational institutions, represent one-sixth of the US GDP. Thus, it follows that when countries revise their copyright legislations they should make sure that it fairly benefits right holders as well as users, and not just benefit right holders at the expense of the users which is what is transpiring at RCEP. The language of the agreement indicates that while it is mandatory for countries to increase protection for right holders, a commitment to restore balance via limitations and exceptions is only optional or worse, absent.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Broadcasters' Rights</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The provisions regarding broadcasters’ rights also pose many concerns. First, RCEP engages in term extension without providing any economic rationale. The minimum term of protection stipulated under the Rome Treaty of 1961 (the major multilateral treaty in this area) is 20 years and India provides a term of 25 years for broadcasters rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The attempts to increase the term of protection to 50 years through RCEP, without conducting any impact assessment of the term extension on access to knowledge and cultural goods, is against public interest. Second, WIPO has been attempting to evolve a multilateral treaty on broadcasters’ rights for the last two decades and one of the major stumbling blocks in this regard is the lack of consensus among member states on what should be protected under the ‘broadcasters’ rights’ for purposes such as educational uses and private uses. RCEP provisions on broadcasters’ rights have conveniently ignored such exceptions and this again illustrates that the focus of RCEP is only on protecting the rightholders and not that of users.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Copyright enforcement</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of the enforcement related provisions are as problematic. This includes proposals for taking into consideration suggested retail price (SRP) or market value of goods for valuation of the infringing goods as well as for making available pre-determined damages for copyright violations on the election of the right holder. In jurisdictions like the US, this has resulted in local courts being forced to grant millions in damages for even minor copyright infringements. It is also important to mention here that some of the enforcement related provisions can also result in serious privacy violations. This includes the suggestion for adding obligations on internet service providers to disclose to the rightholders the identity of users suspected to be engaging in infringing activities.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Ensuring transparency and accountability</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The most troubling aspect of RCEP is that all the negotiations are being conducted in utmost secrecy without any public participation. Though the negotiators have already completed eighteen rounds of discussion, the negotiating text hasn’t been released officially and neither been a subject of parliamentary discussion nor public consultation. The public has a right to know what is being negotiated on their behalf and countries like India must take steps to release the negotiation text without any further delay. It is important to note that all these TRIPS-plus measures are being suggested without any consideration for the potential negative consequences on the society and therefore India must resist these TRIPS-plus provisions.</p>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-law-arul-george-scaria-and-anubha-sinha-live-law-rcep-ip-chapter-serious-threat-access-knowledge-cultural-goods'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/live-law-arul-george-scaria-and-anubha-sinha-live-law-rcep-ip-chapter-serious-threat-access-knowledge-cultural-goods</a>
</p>
No publisherArul George Scaria and Anubha SinhaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2017-08-01T15:24:51ZBlog EntryPlagiarism is rampant in Indian food writing – but finally, bloggers have a way to fight it
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/scroll-july-4-2017-chanpreet-khurana-plagiarism-is-rampant-in-indian-food-writing-but-finally-bloggers-have-a-way-to-fight-it
<b>“We have been cheated,” declared the headline of the blog post making the rounds of social media on April 25.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blogpost by Chanpreet Khurana was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://scroll.in/magazine/837273/plagiarism-is-rampant-in-indian-food-writing-but-finally-bloggers-have-a-way-to-fight-it">Scroll.in</a> on July 4, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The post, written by Rajkumar Saxena, former head of Mumbai’s Institute of Hotel Management, alleged that passages from his 1997 book on Awadhi cuisine, <i>Dastarkhwan-e-Awadh</i>,<i> </i>had been plagiarised by Sunil Soni, a veteran chef, in his new book titled <i>Jashn-e-Oudh: Romance of the Cuisine</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog’s text, like the headline, dripped with hurt and contempt: “Here is a case of… a learned, literate person who has no qualms about unhesitatingly lifting word-by-word the explanations, recipes etc. from [a] book authored by us and claiming it to be his original work…” Images from the two books were embedded to support the allegation. “We need to name and shame such so-called experts through social media. We seek your support…”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The support came almost immediately.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Celebrity chef Ranveer Brar, who had written the foreword for Soni’s book, <a class="link-external" href="https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1411953382194704&id=545723678817683&p=0&_ft_=top_level_post_id.1411953382194704%3Atl_objid.1411953382194704%3Athid.545723678817683" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">announced on Facebook</a> that he wanted the author to remove it. Outrage also erupted on the wall of Food Bloggers’ Hall of Shame, a closed Facebook group of 421 members dedicated to fighting plagiarism in food writing and photography in India. “How can people even think that they can get away with such a shameless act of plagiarising?” wrote Anushruti RK.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was an organic reaction. By blogging about his grievance, Saxena had tapped into the one space that Indian food writers are increasingly using today to redress the alleged plagiarism in food writing – social media.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“As a community, we are now discovering an average of one or two plagiarist websites/aggregators every week,” said Rhea Mitra-Dalal, the administrator of the Food Bloggers’ Hall of Shame, which shares dos and don’ts with members to protect their work. “We’ve had several run-ins with celebrity chefs, big food brands, restaurants, and food businesses, especially on their social media pages, where we have found plagiarised images. Public outcry on those pages has usually worked and we have got the plagiarised content down, but these are episodic and the basic mind-set hasn’t changed: it is fine to plagiarise, just apologise and take it down when caught.”</p>
<h3 class="cms-block-heading cms-block" style="text-align: justify; ">Cease and desist</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Saxena’s blog post was a last resort. He says he had first noticed the alleged plagiarism – “42 recipes, 24 explanatory notes and 12 chapter notes,” according to him – in <i>Jashn-e-Oudh</i> in January, and had informed his publisher HarperCollins India. HarperCollins responded by sending a cease-and-desist notice to Soni, copying his publisher Shubhi Publications, and set three demands: remove the offending material from <i>Jashn-e-Oudh</i>, acknowledge the copyright of the authors of <i>Dastarkhwan-e-Awadh</i>, and pay Rs 5 lakh.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soni and Sanjay Arya of Shubhi Publications claim they never received this notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On April 10, Saxena says he got an email from HarperCollins telling him it will not be pursuing the matter further because “currently HCI has put on hold all litigations due to some business-related issues”. “The copyright is definitely in your favour,” declared the email. “You are free to litigate this matter and file a suit for injunction. As far as shaming the authors/publisher on social media is concerned, as a publisher, we cannot opine on that. It is your personal decision...”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So, a fortnight later, Saxena did just that: he took his complaint to the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Around the same time, he and his co-author Sangeeta Bhatnagar sent a legal notice, through their lawyer, to Soni to cease and desist from further publication and distribution of <i>Jashn-e-Oudh</i>, and demanded Rs 15 lakh in compensation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This time, they got a seven-page response from Soni’s lawyer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While denying the accusation of plagiarism, the response from Soni’s lawyer said, “Your clients are liable to show their copyright in the alleged infringed work of our client as no copyright can be claimed in the traditional recipes and their preparation as same will be similar across the globe to get the same taste.” It added that no copyright can be claimed on the subject of Awadhi recipes since it is “a common topic and known and available to the general public at large. All the recipes mentioned in the alleged publication are known in the market”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Soni also denied the allegation when contacted for comment by <i>Scroll.in</i>.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block-heading cms-block" style="text-align: justify; ">Looking West</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The reply from Soni’s lawyer makes some sound legal points, all of which, according to food bloggers, are reasons why food plagiarism is so hard to prove: a recipe that is a list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted. Nor can a traditional cooking method be seen as the property of any author. Reproducing these, therefore, is not plagiarism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, substantial literary and artistic expressions are copyrightable, according to the US Copyright Office, and reproducing these is unlawful. Another suspect action is when a chef’s work is tweaked by changing just one or two ingredients. In 2012, the Food Network in the US cancelled chef Anne Thornton’s TV show <i>Dessert First</i>, because some of her recipes were only mildly different from those created by superchefs like Martha Stewart.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Bloggers like Mitra Dalal lean on these definitions to call their content original. “Most of us have unique styles of writing, and we often include anecdotes and other content to our posts,” she said. “So copy-pastes can often be quite correctly identified.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another useful metric, according to Mitra Dalal, are rules set in more mature markets where bloggers have already fought, and won, battles.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There are international guidelines for this,” she explained. “Loosely put, if every third word is different, the text cannot be deemed plagiarised. Also, you cannot say that an ingredient list is plagiarised.”</p>
<h3 class="cms-block-heading cms-block" style="text-align: justify; ">Small wins</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mitra Dalal and other food bloggers often fight their battles outside the court of law, which is good and bad. On the plus side, it’s faster and easier for them to control the context – but on the minus side, the wins are relatively small.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In July last year, for instance, 20 food bloggers alleged that the recipe aggregating app The Frying Pan had <a class="link-external" href="https://factordaily.com/bloggers-vs-frying-pan-copyright-content-aggregation/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">plagiarised</a> their work. They lawyered up, and got ready for a legal battle.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The Frying Pan had published our recipes and photographs without proper attribution, and without our consent,” said Deeba Rajpal, one of the 20 complainants. “We were advised that if we sought compensation, it would be a long haul. So, we only asked The Frying Pan to take our content down and never to use our work again without permission.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case didn’t go to court. The lawyers met and reached an agreement, according to Rajpal. “The app took our content down. The case never had a proper conclusion – it fizzled out.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Except on social media, where the Food Bloggers’ Hall of Shame kept the pressure up, slamming The Frying Pan – hard.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block-heading cms-block" style="text-align: justify; ">Can Google help?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Proving plagiarism in food writing is difficult at any rate, but there are factors that complicate the matter in India, according to Sunil Abraham of The Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The copyright law here, he says, has inbuilt exceptions and limitations that protect the rights of stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, content creators, consumers, the public who may not pay for the content, and the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many times, copyright holders in India have conceded or withdrawn legal cases because of limitations to the copyright law or the doctrine of fair use, which states that “brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim”. Just in February, a handful of publishers took back a lawsuit against a photocopier shop in Delhi University that had been selling study packs with materials reproduced from the publishers’ books.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Abraham said that often there is an economic incentive for plagiarising – take that away, and you fix half the problem.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For bloggers, a major source of income is Google AdSense, a popular <a class="link-external" href="http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/adsense.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">program</a> that allows website publishers to display ads on their pages and “earn money when visitors view or click the ads”. The problem is: if the advertiser cares only about page views and not the origin of the content, there is no incentive against plagiarism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For checking online copyright infringement, Abraham says, the onus should be on multinationals like Google, which host a large number of blogs and web versions of media articles. “Google is constantly indexing the internet,” he said in a phone interview from Bengaluru, so Google knows when a write-up or a photo has been published before.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To be fair, according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Google does entertain requests to remove online posts where a complainant can show copyright infringement. It’s a recourse that Mitra Dalal and some members of her Facebook group have found useful. But Abraham says this is less effective than if Google created hurdles to publishing content it deems plagiarised.</p>
<h3 class="cms-block-heading cms-block" style="text-align: justify; ">Need for reforms</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Where does all this leave Saxena? It’s hard to tell.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Social media has generated awareness about his case, and Saxena has filed a complaint with the Delhi Police under Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act. He plans to follow it up with a legal case. One thing that has certainly resulted from the episode is the food writing community’s intensified demand for clarity in laws to protect intellectual property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As Saee Koranne-Khandekar, who blogs at <a class="link-external" href="http://www.myjhola.in/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">myjhola.in</a>, wrote on Food Bloggers’ Hall of Shame: “What’s amazing is that the original work [by Saxena and Bhatnagar] has gone through three successful editions, is published by a major player, and is written by two prominent names in the industry. One would think theft of content would occur in the case of less lesser known works, but this is pure guts! I hope at least this incident marks the immediate need for reform in our laws.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/scroll-july-4-2017-chanpreet-khurana-plagiarism-is-rampant-in-indian-food-writing-but-finally-bloggers-have-a-way-to-fight-it'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/scroll-july-4-2017-chanpreet-khurana-plagiarism-is-rampant-in-indian-food-writing-but-finally-bloggers-have-a-way-to-fight-it</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPlagiarismCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2017-07-06T15:53:46ZNews ItemFixing Copyright for Education (SCCR34 Side Event)
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/fixing-copyright-for-education-sccr34-side-event
<b>This event, hosted by Communia, EIFL, Creative Commons, and PIJIP, provided an overview of legal trends and developments concerning education, and presented the reality of education today. Anubha Sinha was a speaker.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The speakers described legal challenges faced by educators using new technologies, and discussed how copyright limitations and exceptions can be adapted to be fit for education in the digital age. It was held in Geneva as a side event at WIPO’s 34th Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Speakers:</i></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>Sean Flynn,</b> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law. “Opening User Rights for Educational Uses.” <a href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Flynn-Empirical-Research-Impact-of-Copyright-User-Rights-in-Digital-Environment.pptx">Presentation</a> | <a href="http://infojustice.org/survey">Data</a></li>
<li><b>Chichi Umesi,</b> First Secretary, Mission Of Nigeria to the United Nations in Geneva. “The Importance of Education for Developing Countries.”</li>
<li><b>Teresa Nobre,</b> Legal Expert on Copyright, Communia. “Mapping Obstacles to Educational Uses in Europe.” <a href="https://rightcopyright.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/15casesin15countries_FinalReport.pdf">Final report</a> | <a href="https://rightcopyright.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/15casesin15countries_infographics.pdf">Infographic</a> | <a href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nobre-15-cases-in-15-countries-WIPO-presentation.pdf">Presentation</a></li>
<li><b>Delia Browne,</b> Education Lead, Creative Commons Australia / Director, National Copyright Unit (Schools and TAFEs) Australia. “Tales from Australian Copyright Law Reform Debate.” <a href="http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Browne-Fix-Copyright-4-Education-An-Australian-Perspective.pptx">Presentation</a> | Background documents: <a href="http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/law-reform/myth-fair-use-would-harm-australian-authors">Myth: Fair use would harm Australian authors</a> | <a href="http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/law-reform/myth-fair-use-decimated-educational-publishing-in-canada">Myth: Fair use decimated educational publishing in Canada</a></li>
<li><b>Anubha Sinha</b>, Centre for Internet and Society – India. “Access to Education Wins in Oxbridge Clash with Indian Photocopier.” <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/exceptions-limitations-education">Background document (by Lawrence Laing)</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/fixing-copyright-for-education-sccr34-side-event'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/fixing-copyright-for-education-sccr34-side-event</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2017-06-07T00:48:42ZNews Item34th SCCR: A Summary Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-a-summary-report
<b>The 34th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) was held from 1st- 5th May 2017 at Geneva, Switzerland. Anubha Sinha attended the session and provides an update on the status of discussions and noteworthy emerging/unsolved debates in the Committee. </b>
<p>Agenda items at this <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=42296">SCCR </a>included 1) Reaching consensus on text of Broadcasting Treaty 2) Discussion on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities 3) Discussion on artist's resale right 4) Discussion on proposal for analysis of copyright related to the digital environment. The Asia-Pacific group was represented by the Indonesian delegation - a break from Indian leadership. In comparison to previous SCCRs, the Indian delegation was less vocal, especially reflected in negotiations around the Broadcasting treaty.</p>
<h2>Broadcasting Treaty</h2>
<p>The delegations and secretariat (headed by newly appointed Chair, Darren Tang) began discussions in the earnest, keen on presenting a consensus to the UN General Assembly. Two days were spent in hammering out a feeble consensus on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_34/sccr_34_3.pdf">Consolidated text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues.</a> This was done entirely in the informals.[<strong>1</strong>] There was a high degree of divergence between positions, so much that the draft text ended up with additional language even on issues that had achieved a certain degree of stability. The most intractable issue emerged to be the definition (and inclusion) of deferred transmission.</p>
<p>Observers were not offered an opportunity to present statements, which was <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2768">alarmingly unfortunate</a>. Delegations are expected to mull over the fresh additions/modifications back home, and will again attempt to streamline the text at the next SCCR (November, 2017).</p>
<h2>Limitations and Exceptions on Libraries and Archives</h2>
<p>The Committee has been trying to come up with a legally binding instrument on this agenda. No draft text exists, only an <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_34/sccr_34_5.pdf">informal chart on limitations and exceptions</a> (prepared by the Chair) was used as a framework for discussions.</p>
<p>While African, Asia-Pacific, GRULAC, China and were keen on constructively moving towards a legally binding treaty, other groups/countries were less so.</p>
<p>The Central Europe and Baltic group (CEBS group) expressed that the agenda was best left for member states to legislate at the domestic level; they were willing to go only as far as "exchanging best practices" at this forum and adopting alternative approaches. Anything but a legally binding instrument, basically. EU, similarly positioned, suggested that the Committee should rather explore how <em>existing </em>limitations and exceptions under international treaties could function efficiently.</p>
<p>Argentina pointed out that issues such as cross-border works could not be addressed by the states themselves. Further, Russia said that existing treaties (Berne Convention, Rome Convention, WIPO Internet treaties) did not allow the introduction of the desired limitations and exceptions; and that it would be useful to merge limitations and exceptions on libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions.</p>
<p>Finally, Chile and Nigeria suggested that the Chair's informal chart could perhaps be adopted by the Committee as a working document, which was not met with much enthusiasm. Most states appreciated Dr. Crews' study and indicated that an update on the work would be useful for the Committee.</p>
<h2>Limitations and Exceptions on Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with other Disabilities</h2>
<p>Professor Blake Reid and Professor Caroline Ncube and team made a presentation on their scoping study on limitations and exceptions for persons with disabilities (Link <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2773">here</a>). On the issue of limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions the delegations looked forward to Prof. Daniel Seng's final study (in a future session). Rest of the discussion was split in a similar fashion as the previous session on libraries and archives.</p>
<p>Notably, the Indian delegation supported the discussions on limitations and exceptions with a view to produce an international instrument.</p>
<h2>Artists Resale Right</h2>
<p>The discussion around this agenda is in a preliminary stage and Dr. Graddy (Economist, Brandeis International Business School) presented an overview of the same basis a consultation with experts and stakeholders. Artists resale rights provide an artist with the right to receive a royalty based on the resale of an original work of art. Theoretically, resale rights may hurt market competition as they could potentially prompt buyers and sellers to transact in other countries which do not provision for resale royalties, to avoid bearing the cost. Further, buyers may potentially pay less as they may have to pay up when they sell next - as a result the resale right could hurt younger artists more than the older ones. However, a 2008 study of the UK market after the introduction of this resale right revealed no such adverse effects. Dr. Graddy attributed this to the fact that resale royalties were limited to 2% of the sales price or a ceiling of (~500 eur), and in comparison to the auctioneer's commission (15-20%) were not a major cost in the entire transaction.</p>
<p>This proposal was moved by Senegal and Congo (in a previous session), and has been strongly supported by African nations. Most observers were in support as well. Further, resale rights already exist in the European Union and certain other states. USA was vocal about not endorsing a normative instrument on this topic. </p>
<h2>Discussion on Proposal for Analysis of Copyright related to the Digital Environment</h2>
<p>This proposal, tabled by GRULAC (at a previous session) stressed on the importance of transparency in remuneration for performers in the digital environment. Several delegations commented on the wide breadth of the proposal and suggested it be narrowed down. USA made a distinction between copyright policy, and marketplace issues such as remuneration of artists and performers and bargaining power - making it clear that the SCCR should touch upon the former only. A presentation of a study-in-progress followed. The study will examine the national copyright laws relating to digital technology including limitations and exceptions (passed in the last decade or so), and how they govern intermediaries. The final study will be presented in the next session.</p>
<h2>CIS' Participation</h2>
<p>I made statements on agenda item <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives">limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives</a>, and <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment">GRULAC proposal for analysis of copyright related to the digital environment. <br /></a></p>
<p>In addition, I participated in a panel discussion on <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/sccr34"><strong>Fixing Copyright for Education</strong></a> alongside <strong>Chichi Umesi,</strong> First Secretary, Mission Of Nigeria to the United Nations in Geneva; <strong>Sean Flynn</strong>, PIJIP; <strong>Teresa Nobre</strong>, Communia; and <strong>Delia Browne</strong>,
Creative Commons Australia / Director, National Copyright Unit (Schools
and TAFEs) Australia. The panel covered obstacles to educational
uses of works in Europe and the need for opening up related user rights,
the ongoing Australian copyright reform debate and the recent interpretation by Indian courts of the reproduction exception for educational purposes in
the <a class="external-link" href="https://thewire.in/68151/delhi-hc-ruling-photocopying-du/">DU photocopying case</a> (Link to panel discussion material <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/sccr34">here</a>).</p>
<h2>Observer Statements:</h2>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives">Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities">Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions <br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities">Observer Statements on Proposal for Analysis of Copyright related to the Digital Environment</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p><em><strong>A summary by the Chair is available <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_34/sccr_34_ref_summary_by_the_chair.pdf">here</a>. </strong></em></p>
<p> <strong>[1]</strong> Informals are a different kind of negotiation-setting than the plenary and happen privately
between delegates and the chair. Observers are provided with an audio
feed of the discussion but cannot report anything that is said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-a-summary-report'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-a-summary-report</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-30T13:55:22ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Observers made the following statements on the agenda of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives on 3rd May 2017. </b>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://www.ifla.org/">International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): </a></strong><br />Thank you, Mr. Chair. We congratulate you
as leaders of body and looks forward to working with you to achieve the goals
of the in the interests of the national copyright system. We thank the Secretariat for
their hard work and IFLA is proud to have attended sessions of the SCCR
for many years and gratified that Member States understand and support the role
of libraries, archives and museums in promoting knowledge and the understanding
of diverse cultures.</p>
<p>As the U.S. states and its principles
document SCCR/26/8, exceptions and limitations facilitate the public service
role of libraries and are executives maintaining the balance between the rights
of authors and larger public interest, particularly education, research, and
access to information that is essential in today's society. But that balance
has eroded over time as rights holders have promoted fell ashes notion that
copyright is primarily or only about protection of rights not the public good.
In a world where information is increasingly borderless, as borderless as
broadcast signals, the idea that issues related to access to information are
local as one delegate astonishingly stated earlier this week is really
incomprehensible and misguided. This is not to say, however, that local or
national action is not needed as one element in the equation of access to
information. In this limited sense, we agree that the exchange of national
experiences in this body over the past several years has been helpful as have
been the studies commissioned by WIPO from Professor Kenneth Crews which
demonstrated the wide variation in exceptions and limitations existing in
SCCR's Member States, including their absence in numerous countries. We applaud
WIPO for commissioning these studies and urge that the Secretariat build on the
studies produced by professor cruise to develop a regularly updated searchable
database of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and museums to
be accessible across borders so that legislators and citizens who do not attend
these sessions can easily learn from other's experience on an ongoing basis. We
further recommend that SCCR capitalize on the past sharing of Member States'
national experiences and the suggested approaches in the Chair's chart of
SCCR/33 by creating a draft law on exceptions and limitations for libraries,
archives and museums in collaboration with all stakeholders so that there will
be practical outcomes for recent discussions in this body. Such a draft law
would draw on the committee's past discussions on the subject but not be
binding or prejudice in any way the outcome of the committee's own work. IFLA stands ready to work with its colleagues in the archival and museum communities
as well as with rights holders delegates to SCCR and the Secretariat to achieve
this objective. As for our recommendations or reactions to the Chair's final
chart from SCCR/33, IFLA supports this and we urge the Chair's chart be upped as a working document and certainly to the qua as an outcome of SCCR35. Finally
in response to the proposal by the Delegation of Argentina, SCCR/33/4, we hope
that the committee will request the Secretariat to prepare a study on issues
related to limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives and museums and a
cross-border context including digital uses. We are grateful to the Member
States that have placed and maintained limitations and exceptions for libraries
and archives on the SCCR agenda and look forward to continuing these
discussions. These outcomes will affect access to information and knowledge for
people throughout the world. Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www2.archivists.org/">Society of American Archivists:</a> <br /></strong>Thank you, Mr. Chair, I will try to be
brief. The Society of American Archivists, North America's largest professional
archival organisation looks forward to working with you and your Vice Chairs.
Our members manage billions of primary source works from across the global. SAA
believes in the importance of WIPO's work because copyright is central to the
mission of archivists. Archivists collect and preserve all types of creative
works for one reason only, use. Most archived works, however, have never been
in commerce, but people globally need them to maintain their culture, identity,
protect Human Rights and support innovation through new creative works. If such
works cannot be made available digitally, however, and across borders, they
might as well not exist. Archivists and librarians are conscientious about
copyright, but sometimes strict adherence to the law conflicts with our
collections and our mission. For example, a 1970's collection of over 120
interviews of legendary jazz musicians are available for on site study in the
archives of the U.S. research library, but, their general usefulness has been
hobbled by unbalanced copyright law because the original copyright assignment
mentioned neither derivative works nor the yet to be invented Internet. As a
result, risk averse librarians and lawyers were unwilling to allow zing tall
accessibility of the interviews. Although jazz cannot thrive without taking
risks, an archivist's obligation to the future requires that we minimize risk.
That's why we need reasonable exceptions to deal with the streams ambiguity
inherent in our collections. Copyright is already perceived to be under attack.
Can WIPO afford to torn away allies such as archivists? We have a very positive
public approval rating from the very people that you need to reach. To keep
archivists on board the development of exceptions for archives must remain on
SCCR's agenda. To this end the committee's work should continue based on the
previous Chair's chart and that chart should become a working document for the
committee. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Centre for Internet and Society</strong>: <br />Thank you, Mr. Chair. CIS works on issues of access to knowledge and other digital
rights in India. I would like to share with you my experience which highlights
the difficulty of building digital archives in India. Mr. Chair, earlier last
year the government of India embarked upon the important project of digitizing
the cultural audiovisual material stored in government and private collections to store material for preservation purposes,
and set up a virtual network of these repositories to offer online access. My
organization has been assisting them in this crucial public service mission. These works are oral traditions, dance,
music, theatrical practices, cultural practices – all of which lie largely
inaccessible and languishing in several small and large collections in India.
Since, the Indian copyright Act does not contain an exception for the purposes
of preservation by an archive; the entire project has suffered high costs in
terms of money and time. Money, because the project had to get expensive legal
assistance to set up processes to obtain rights clearance from all the
performers who were a part of the works and copyright holders- some of which
are orphan works, thereby compounding the problem. Further, partnering
organizations also expressed legitimate fears of supplying their works, in case
of a potential copyright and related rights violation that could implicate them
with civil/criminal liability.</p>
<p>In such a scenario, for the benefit of other states to
update their standards corresponding to this international legal instrument as
well, it would indeed be useful to adopt the proposals mentioned in the document <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_3.pdf">SCCR/26/3</a> that
address these issues, and others. Thank you.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ica.org/en"><strong>International Council of Archives</strong>:</a><br />Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And the ICA congratulates you on your election and that of your Vice Chairs and we look forward to working with you. Archival institutions exist throughout the world. Governments, organisations and individuals create records to provide evidence of their actions to document their rights and obligations and to preserve their heritage. Archives acquire and preserve these documents and make them available for all to use as the raw materials for cultural, academic, social and scientific research. The nature of archival material presents a particular problem. Archives hold billions of copyright works that were not created or intended for commercial purposes. Because they were never published, the rights holders for such works cannot be located. For these reasons, collective licensing is not a workable solution. The archival mission to make their holdings available for research is ham strung by a web of inconsistent copyright laws that have failed to keep up with social and technological development. In this body systemic discussion of the eleven topics, archivists provided a rich array of real life examples that clearly demonstrate the need for exceptions, for mutual recognition by Member States of exceptions and limitations to copyright that would permit archives everywhere to serve an international audience. The results of that excellent work was summarized in the Chair's informal chart on limitations, exceptions for libraries and archives. Every creator benefits from the work of his or her predecessors. Knowledge of that earlier work comes largely from libraries and archives. Many of the rights holders represented in this room could not have created their works without us. Why would creators not wholeheartedly support exceptions for archives and libraries that would only benefit their work. Regrettably, we continue to hear assertions from some groups that national solutions are suffer. It should be abundantly clear by now that national solutions are far from sufficient. We need solutions that apply in a global network environment. And in that regard, Mr. Chair, the Chair's informal chart on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives prepared at the end of SCCR33 refined and clarified the topics to be addressed and provides a practical approach to continue to move this initiative forward. We would support our IFLA colleagues called to have it adopted as a working document of the committee, and we would also support IFLA's call for a study of cross-border issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.</p>
<p><strong>German Library Association: </strong><br />I congratulate you on your election as a
Chair and I speak on behalf of German Library Association representing 10,000
libraries in Germany. Libraries and archives face a problem. There is a high
level of the international copyright protection, on the other hand, there is no
such uniformity in limitations. Limitations like the ones fixed in the already
mentioned Chair's informal chart, for example, for preservation, lending,
document delivery, are the basis of library services. But limitations and
exceptions are like a patchwork of different national legislations. For every
library service crossing borders that means to act legally library staff has to
know about the limitations and exceptions not only in their own country,
country of origin but also in the country of destination of that service.
Respective to the German library index and university libraries in 2016 around
60% of the acquisitions were electronic in technical universities the portion
of electronic acquisitions is even much higher. These numbers in international
comparison are even low. We can assert that research libraries are digital more
than they are paper based. In the electronic world, the problem is resources
usually are only available after agreement on license stipulations formulated
by the rights holders mostly. That means contracts are concluded. Contracts
eventually can override the limitations and exceptions. This committee might
agree on in one form or the other. The objective of facilitating cross-border
library teaching and research services could be achieved by introducing an
international mandatory instrument on limitations and exceptions. Another track
to facilitate cross-border use could be the introduction of principles of
harmonizations combined with a rule of mutual recognitions like proposed in the
document of the Delegation of Argentina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifj.org/"><strong>International Federation of Journalists: </strong></a><br />The International Federation of Journalists congratulates, again, the Chair and Vice Chairs on their election and the members of the Secretariat for their diligent work. We represent about 600,000 journalists in 140 countries worldwide north and south. The International Federation of Journalists, of course, understands ts essential role of libraries and archives specifically we fully support them having the freedom to have copies for preservation. The International Federation of Journalists has repeatedly called for libraries and archives to have proper direct funding to do this themselves and not to be forced to subcontract digital archiving to commercial operations. The honorable representative of Brazil referred earlier this morning to the potential to extend the outreach of libraries and archives in unprecedents ways.. Of course, this, the making of works available on the Internet, for example, and on its successes is an important supplement to the vital role of libraries and archives in the education and training of many including journalists. But when it comes to libraries and are executives making copies of works available off the premises, that is is it not, a publishing operation? The International Federation of Journalists believes that the solution to this issue is collective licensing and necessarily capacity building to insure that efficient Democratically controlled collective licensing is available in all Member States and can deal with cross-border issues as the collective licenses that already exist already do. Many of those 600,000 journalists particularly those who focus on international reporting are poorly paid. Where there is such collective licensing it makes important contribution to their economic survival as independent professionals with their own essential contribution to make to the recording and preservation of our culture from within our cultures and not relying on foreign reporting. Thank you.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/"><strong>Knowledge Ecology International</strong></a>: <br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman and congratulations
for your election. And for your Co-Chairs'. One thing I just wanted to mention
as related to libraries is in addition to the excellent studies that have been
done by Kenneth Crews and other people that have looked at library exceptions,
I thought it might be interesting to have the chief economist or other people
involved, but certainly the chief economist to look at the economics of the
library industry. I think that we look at libraries as part of the research and
development infrastructure for a country, not only as places people go to read
novels, but an essential part of the competitiveness and ability for a country
to have a strong high tech sector but also play an important role in the
development. And it would be interesting to know what the assessment is because
we hear it from other industries all of the time. They talk about the number of
jobs in the film industry or the number of jobs. It would be interesting to
know how many people are employed in different countries in the library sector,
but also what contributions the library sector makes to the economic
development of the country, and what challenges they face on pricing. The last
point I wanted to make is that clearly there is a set of issues that it's
really hard to reach on census on, and there is other areas where it's easier,
I would think, to reach consensus on. This discussion of the archiving and the
preservation of documents is a pretty good case. Certainly the making available
of what's put into, what's archived and preserved in terms of documents, it's
more challenging to reach consensus on that than it is to insure that people
have adequate exceptions to merely do archiving and preservations. And I think
that it would be unfortunate if in looking at their wide range of issues that
are facing libraries, recognizing that there is a very inadequate set of
exceptions in many countries according to the studies that have already been
done, that people don't move forward in areas where consensus could be reached
such as preservation and archiving because there are other areas that are more
controversial. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/www.eifl.net/" class="external-link">Electronic Information for Libraries</a></strong>: <br />Thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf
of the Electronic Information for Libraries and I would like to thank you for
giving me the floor and congratulate you upon your election to Chair this
committee. I would also like to congratulate your Vice Chairs. We would like to
thank the African Group, GRULAC, Asia-Pacific Group and the other delegates for
having spoken of the interrelationship between the Sustainable Development
Goals and the establishment of access to libraries and archives because emphasis
is placed on access to information. Ladies and gentlemen, the Internet is
global, but legislation on copyright stops at borders and that is why we are
here today. Digital technology has changed the world, which people have access
to information. Today the way we study and learn in fact means that people do
not have full access. We believe that copyright is important, and that
limitations and exceptions are crucial for a modern information infrastructure
as well as for open access and other licensin wills. We are very pleased that
other countries have modified proposals on copyright.. We are pleased that some
countries have expanded their exceptions or introduced new ones. However, some
countries who are updating their law are not enough to resolve a broader
problem, the demand for cross-border access to information for research
and culture. And the need to insure that nobody is left behind in access to
knowledge means that there is say need for this aspect to be taken into
account. There are specific issues which were compiled in a document and
submitted to this committee and I would like to invite you to read it. There
are printed copies available, but it can also be found on line. It begins with
the Internet is global. We also support IFLA's and ICAS interventions and we
hope that progress will be made swiftly in the SCCR in this issue. We thank you
very much for your attention.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/icom.museum/" class="external-link">International Council of museums (ICOM)</a>:</strong><br />Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity
to address this important agenda item.. The international Council of museums
represents important 36,000 museum professionals world wide. We are here, Mr.
Chair, to give our voice to museum professionals for this important agenda
item. After consultation with the international museum community and in keeping
with the results of the WIPO study on exceptions and limitations on copyright
for museums ICOM joined forces with our library and archive colleagues to
pursue exceptions to copyright for the benefit of libraries, archives and
museums as enumerated in the Chair's informal chart that provide for exceptions
for all three. This pursuit is not intended to disrupt markets, but instead is
targeted to instances where museums and indeed libraries and archives are
unable to carry out their often shared mission. ICOM was very pleased that the
Canadian delegation called for a museum study in 2013 while at the 26th session
of the Standing Committee on copyright and related rights. The study
on exceptions first draft was distributed and presented at the 30th session of
the SCCR in 2015. The study distributed business WIPO provides a broad basis of
understanding of the status of exceptions for museums within WIPO Member States
and provides for the basis for ICOM's continued advocacy of exceptions for
museums. The purpose of our intervention today is to signal that ICOM is
committed to the belief that a harmonized approach towards libraries, archives
and museums is both possible and necessary to achieve the overall objective of
obtaining operational exceptions for materials and cultural heritage
collections at the international level. [..] there are many instances where
museums, libraries and archives cross mandates given the nature of distinctive
collections. Libraries hold collections that include artifacts more
traditionally aligned with museum collections or have accessioned collections
that include unpublished materials often found in archives. Museums hold archival
collections, have libraries within museums, and include study collections as
part of their overall collections. Museums like archives nay oftentimes include
a vast array of artifacts in their collections and include materials that have
often been published and unpublished. At the same time, libraries, archives and
museums face the same obstacles created by copyright law in trying to fulfill
their respective missions being education, public interest, access to
collections and communication of scholarship. This is particularly true when
museums are examined not simply as stewards of art collections but as stewards
of historic scientific and natural collections as well. The similarities are in fact magnified when we examine the collections we face with our 20th century collections. Museums, libraries and archives face similar challenges in preserving, exhibiting and providing access and communicating about art collections. Thank you, Mr. Chair for the opportunity to address this important issue.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/httpwww.eblida.org/" class="external-link">European Bureau of library, information and documentation associations</a></strong>: <br />Mr. Chair, we congratulate you and the Vice
Chairs on your elections to office, and thank you for inviting the European
Bureau of library information and documentation associations which is the voice
of libraries in Europe to take the floor. The consolidated libraries and
archives studies in the SCCR30 and the museum study both from 2015 reveal that
the national frontier-based approach to copyright with regard to libraries,
archives and museums now in disarray, too disparate and stuck in the pre-Internet era. In the E.U. this has been the justification of proposal of
mandatory cross-border exceptions to copyright. Yet in face of the ever
expanding world wide web. National copyright laws are in need of constant
modernization to allow institutions to function optimally in an international
cross-border online environment. Now that the detailed discussion of the topic
has been summarized by the previous Chair's SCCR/33 document. We offer
practical suggestions for moving forward. First, we suggest that this committee
establishes the principles to inclusion in the note for overarching
international copyright framework for copyright exceptions and limitations
affecting libraries, archives and museums. The proposals made by the US
delegation in 26/8 offer useful guidance that can shape the content of the
committee's work. A comprehensive and effective solution for libraries should
set standard for and protect national copyright exceptions that impact on the
functions of these institutions, including preservation of materials and
content, copying for document delivery in any format including cross-borders.
Lending of works including remotely. Protecting limitations and exceptions for
override by contract terms and by holding partially inaccessible can due to
legal protections of TPMs. Making orphan works available on line to the public,
text and data mining of legally accessed coven tent. Acquiring work including
by importation and protecting libraries, archives and museums and staff
accounting for them in good faith for criminal or civil liability for
unintended copyright infringement. There are various ways in which the
committee can support work. And could be usefully adopted by this committee.
Secondly, in line with the EU's call for guidance to Member States, we would
welcome efforts from the Secretariat to further inform our discussions. In line
with the Poe proposal from Argentina which correctly addresses the need for
minimum set of exceptions and limitations nationally and the solution for
cross-border issues this what the E.U. itself is seeking to do domestically. We
would welcome a study on cross-border issue as a basis for further discussion.
In order to provide further guidance to Member States, this committee could
request the Secretariat to convene an expert group first and foremost of
library archive and museum copyright experts as well as copyright academics,
lawyers and relevant stakeholders to support the commissioning and tasking of
an agreed expert to develop modern WIPO draft law for libraries, archives and
museums. Finally this committee might wish to request that the Secretariat
provides a useful tool to assist its work by creating online publicly
accessible database of copyright exceptions and limitations. Additionally since
the pace of change in copyright law affecting the library, archive and museum
sector is to fast moving the committee might request an annual report from the
Secretariat of changes to nationals and practices in copyright and related
rights. Thank you for your attention.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/">Innovarte Corporacion:</a></strong> <br />Thank you very much, Chairman. We would
like to congratulate you upon your election. We would like to thank the excellent work on studies on libraries and archives.
The proposal to work with the aim of a treaty on exceptions and limitations to
copyright to protect the balance and legitimacy of the system for copyright and
related rights with regard to libraries and people with disabilities is
something we have been discussing in this committee since 2004 starting from a proposal which came from Chile. As discussions of the Marrakesh Treaty has
shown that provisions on copyright to protect categories of people who are
threatened or under mined by a lack of exceptions is not only possible but good
and it shows a means to protect libraries, archives and possibly also museums.
In this regard, we would like to request the members of the committee in good
faith to consolidate all of the work done based on the text which has already
been considered, the informal summary of the Chair of the committee as we have
seen it's based on textual proposals either for treaty or another form of
instrument which was proposed by various delegations including Brazil, India,
the United States and many others. We propose that the committee would adopt
this text without any prejudice to what form the work might take in the future.
We believe on another point that the proposal from Argentina is particularly
useful since it seeks to come up with a solution to the obstacle, namely, the
lack of harmonization of rules on libraries and archives at international
level. We believe it is a compliment to what has already been worked on by the
committee with regard to principles and topics which are necessary for
exceptions other than a national level. It should be subject to greater
analysis by this committee, thank you very much.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation: </a></strong><br />Thank you Mr. Chair. The EFF work supports the work of libraries and archives which have become more relevant in the digital age and which are more challenging now. The updating of exceptions and limitations are an important way to insure that libraries and archives are equipped to meet these two challenges of fulfilling missions in the digital age. In an ideal world EFF sees norm setting as the only way to ensure that WIPO members provide a basic level of modernized limitations and exceptions for libraries, however, we recognize that members do not have the appetite for norm setting in this area at this point in time for various reasons. In that light, we do support the proposal IFLA has made for a draft law and searchable database on library limitations and exceptions. This strikes us as a workable compromise that does not commit members to hard norm setting but which would be a useful interim step towards the harmonization of limitations and exceptions for libraries worldwide. Finally and on a different topic, I would like to express EFF's hope that in the next SCCR session time will also be made available for NGOs to make statements about the broadcast treaty. Thank you very much.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightLibrariesArchivesWIPO2017-05-30T05:55:43ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Observers made the following statements on discussion around limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions on 3rd May 2017. </b>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.communia-association.org/">Communia: <br /></a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity
to address for the limitations and exceptions for educational purposes. I would
like to give a brief statement that by saying Professor Seng's studies,
national countries had exceptions narrowly in various ways the copyright works
of educational activities. These narrow exceptions prevent certain educational
practices such as the quotation of entire image in a school presentation. When
it comes to modern educational practices, namely those that occur in digital
and online teaching environments, the legal standing is even more problematic.
Indeed, certain acts which teachers are allowed to perform in face-to-face
teaching may not be permitted in digital and online contexts. For instance, in
the Netherlands, the law is clear that a teacher can show a movie from a DVD in
class, but if the same teacher wants to show a video from a free publicly
accessible website, it seems that you'll need to be -- you will not be able to
do it. This is due either to inappropriate legislative techniques or to
domestic policy decisions. In any case, what is certain is cross-border
educational uses are compromised at the outset due to the current national
copyright laws, including within regions that enjoy a high level of
harmonization, such as the European Union. Therefore, continue to discuss this
issue in the forum which we will lead toward from an internationally binding
instrument as mandated by the General Assembly 2017 seems essential. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifj.org/">International Federation of Journalists:</a></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon. We've already introduced
ourselves. All these works are and remain one of the key raw materials for
education. The international federation of journalists deeply regrets the
educational and research institutions underfunded. No one is proposing,
however, as far as I'm aware, that schools and colleges should get free
electricity or free phone calls. Here, most clearly of all, the solution is
collective licensing through collective management organizations that are
democratically controlled by the rights holders they represent. There is a
wealth of misunderstanding of the issues. I take as one example the very first
statement on a pro education site and the magic of Internet indexing may enable
you to identify it, are which demonstrates how ill thought out the costs of
education can be, not withstanding the previous. This is addressed to the
European Union. It says, quotes, we want you to have the freedom to teach
without breaking the law. Good. Quotes, before teaching her students about how
representations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet have changed through the
ages, a teacher may have to ask permission from the rights holders of every
movie she wants to screen in class, unquote. It says, this is -- we want to
relieve educators from this impossible task, but I'm aware of nowhere in the
European Union and few countries in the -- what we're pleased to call the more
advanced economies where this is an impossible task. The school just pays for a
license from a collecting society and goes ahead with no further
administration. In my home country, United Kingdom, the collecting societies
are working successfully on streamlining the system of licensing and making it
more efficient in time and cash. Personally, I do recognize that some
categories of textbooks are overpriced...(Speaker went over time and was asked to stop).</p>
<p><strong>International Authors Federation:</strong></p>
<p>Thank you very much. As this is the first
time the International Office Forum has taken the floor this session, we'd like
to congratulate you, Chair, and your vice chairs on your election and thank the
Secretariat on their work. The international authors forum represents authors
from the text, screenwriting, and visual arts sectors and their interests in
copyright, as members of 60 organizations representing well over 600,000
authors worldwide. In ran increasingly homogenized world, cultural diversity is
important, authors maintain that in digital arts, literatures, language, and
music. It is the authors works being considered in the proposals being discussed
at WIPO. There are individual authors whose rights are involved in all
countries. Those rights must be given primary consideration. They need fair
remuneration if they are to continue the work everybody wants access to.
Without payment, they will not be able to continue to create. The diversity and
quality of content will suffer and the quantity of works produce produced will
be limited. We believe that there are already international copyright
provisions in place that work well to enable the development of licensing
frameworks, which enable access, including cross-border access provision
through educational institutions and ensure fair payment. Authors believe that
these existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility for countries
represented at WIPO to continue to work towards national solutions, such as
licensing frameworks, which can be developed according to local needs. Thank
you for your time.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/">Corporacion Innovarte:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair. The study of
exceptions for educational limitations in current legislation shows that there
is a fragmentation, that it's not appropriate to the countries, and very often
this is an insolvable problem for international and learning cooperation in the
area of communication. In order to overcome these, we think it's ins dispensable
to have an international agreement which will enable us to have a minimum of
common exceptions and limitations which will make it possible to have
compatible roles for cross-border use of educational resources. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pijip.org/">Programme on Information Justice and IP:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. You and I are from countries that have educational exceptions that
are open to the use of any work, for any education related activity or
purpose, and by any user — subject to a fairness test that takes into
account the rights of authors and rights holders. This openness in the exceptions environment enables innovations that
promote access to learning materials, including through new technologies
and over the internet. Tomorrow at a side meeting over lunch, Communia and American
University will be presenting the outcomes of different research
projects that examine the operation of user rights in practice. That
research shows that wealthy countries are developing openness in these
factors much more quickly and thoroughly than poorer countries
currently. But the research also shows that this is not a developing
country problem alone. Many wealthy countries as well lack exceptions
that allow such basic practices as showing a movie, streaming a video or
performing a play in a classroom setting. These problems are compounded
when we deliver educational products across borders through distance
learning. A lack of harmonization on these issues will produce a race to the
bottom where teachers like myself are forced to not deliver the best
materials possible for our students because of the lack of rights to do
so in some countries.I would encourage the process going forward to focus on the value of educational exceptions that<br />
cover all:</p>
<ul><li>Works,</li><li>Apply to all users, and that</li><li>Extend to a full range of activities</li></ul>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-05-30T05:51:42ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Proposal for Analysis of Copyright related to the Digital Environment
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment
<b>Observers made the following statements on GRULAC's proposal on analysis of copyright related to the digital environment on 5th May 2017. </b>
<strong><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/www.cisac.org" class="external-link">CISAC</a>:</strong>
<p> Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to thank the WIPO Secretariat for this initiative because I think it can contribute to a constructive discussion in this committee on a number of issues raised in the document proposed by GRULAC. CISAC would like to thank the two professors on their presentations on the work done in April, and we look forward in great interest to the presentation of the conclusions at the next meeting of SCCR in November. (CISAC) we have a number of -- I'd like to refer to the need to the transfer of values. The greatest challenge -- which is the greatest challenge facing creators, and then there's the changing role of Internet service providers. As very often the authors are marginalized by the digital economy and the value chain. And then the comments about the need to interpret WIPO treaties in the most faithful way possible to the original spirit and also prudence in implementing exceptions and limitations using other alternatives where possible, such as licenses. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>FILE: </strong><br />Thank you, Chairman, and I congratulate you and your vice chairs on your guidance at this meeting, and I associate myself with these statements made by -- the statements made by states such as the USA, E.U.. I'd also like to congratulate GRULAC on this proposal and recommend the committee, in the face of all these studies, which are very interesting, that we performers believe there are priorities, including, for example, the very low or zero remuneration being paid to authors for our works and our performances on Internet in the digital environment, and so we would, therefore, recommend that mainly this study should focus on that and the GRULAC proposal should be a permanent item on the agenda, and as regards the discussion of the legal systems used -- so this should be included and also the three conclusions reached by the professor should be included on the agenda of this committee. And in all this, the market is developing so rapidly, so we should invent our norms as quickly as possible so that we can compete on an equal footing, on a level playing field in this market. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/">Knowledge Ecology International: </a></strong><br />Thank you very much. I was -- like others, we'd like to take a harder look at the study. One observation I would make is in the original GRULAC proposal, looming large were issues about economics, concentration of ownership in the area of distributing works, questions about the fairness of the distribution of revenue between creative people and distributors of works. I think in some ways that what was described as the study, although it looked very competent and a great cast of characters in terms of the researchers, I would -- I think you may want to examine whether there's more economics or economists that can be brought in to shed more light on the issues raised in the initial paper. And the last thing I wanted to say is we're -- and we've talked to some Delegates about this, or actually, I should say they've talked to us about it and we agree, that the issue of metadata as it relates to digital works is really a new topic that has come about because of the digitalization of works and the development of the Internet. We often feel that the metadata's managed on behalf of right owners but not necessarily on behalf of either the creative individuals or the audiences or the readers or the listeners, and so I think this is a -- related to the GRULAC proposal. It may be a subset, but I also think it's a topic that we would like to see explored more. Thank you very much.</p>
<p><strong>PAAIG</strong>: <br />Thank you, Chair. I would like to focus on the role of limitations and exceptions in the digital environment for the priority of the committee at this time. There's things called non expressive uses, uses that are necessary for technological processes but do not compete with the copyright owner necessary to offer the services and Internet offer over it. We have been doing research on this topic and have been doing studies that suggest the presence of such exceptions is related to investment in growth of local digital technologies. We cannot have streaming without buffering, we can't have artificial intelligence, machine learning, text and data mining, Internet-based translation services without the right to use whole works for purposes that do not compete with the original, but only a small number of countries around the world provide these clear limitations and exceptions, and the lack of those limitations and exceptions is reducing local investment and local innovation in this area. As the experts note, the E.U. has taken a step in the right direction in this regard, creating a mandatory exception for certain technological processes in the directive. That model's not perfect. Many of these digital innovations that I mention actually require permanent copies. Nonetheless, the concept that we need a mandatory exception in this regard that can facilitate cross-border digital trade and local production and innovation should guide this committee. Thank you.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/"><strong>Corporacion Innovarte</strong></a>: <br />Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We're grateful for the work done by the Secretariat on this topic, as also the explanations from the professors that gave us their opinions. We think that the issue of guaranteeing fair remuneration for creators is extremely important. This item should be considered as a standing item on the committee's agenda. However, we also wanted to hearken back to what El Salvador said; in other words, there should be more participation and transparency in the work done in the group of experts in order to guarantee that all of the concerns and issues are covered that are related to this work. Finally, as to the checklists on contracts, this should include not just intermediary platforms such as YouTube, but also contracts between authors and producers or collective entities which also should be a subject of interest for this committee. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Latin Artists:</strong> <br />Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Latin artists represents associations of actors and other performers in the audiovisual field. We are grateful for looking at the precarious situation of artists and other creators in connection with the use of their performances in the digital era. This was described, effectively, by GRULAC in its proposal. This affects not only musical work but audiovisual works as clarified by the Delegation of Brazil at the last session of this committee, and despite the fact that the same Delegation has referred exclusively today to music. In this situation, we think that the solution is not just exploratory studies, as we heard this morning. We also need to bear in mind that this scope exceeds the specific problems indicated in the GRULAC proposal, more particularly in the need to find appropriate formulas to guarantee that artists and other creators can benefit from the economic content of their performances in the digital era; in other words, formulas that guarantee that artists and authors can have fair remuneration in online use of their interpretation and performance and works. From this viewpoint, we think in the framework of the study we have to look not just at computers or databases. This can simply distract us from the questions we have before us, something that seems to be of concern to certain Delegations, as was expressed this very morning. In fact, ultimately, sir, if the debate that took place at the last session of this committee focused on the proposal of GRULAC, the study should focus exclusively on the problems identified in that proposal. That is all. At any rate, we are attentive to the conclusions which we hope will be reached and presented at the next session of this committee, and we hope that they will foster a debate that can no longer be delayed. Artists and authors need solutions. With all due respect, we cannot allow this time wastage to take place. We need an equitable sharing and the economic benefits derived from the digital use of their interpretations and works. Lastly, Latin artists understands that this question should be a standing independent item on the agenda of the committee. Thank you very much.</p>
<p><strong>LCA</strong>: <br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to echo the statement of El Salvador and the United States that it will be very helpful to have written conclusions of the experts in advance so that we can react to them intelligently. Also, I would like to agree with the United States that the committee should focus on copyright issues and not more abstract market issues. If we start focusing on issues like the value gap, we also need to consider the value to authors of the free global distribution provided by Internet platforms. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.aadi.org.ar/">AADI</a></strong>: <br />Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the general association of performers and collective management of related rights of musical performers in the Republic of Argentina, I should like to congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman of this committee as also your new vice chairs. We wish them every success in their work with the cooperation of the Secretariat and the Delegations of the countries making up this committee. I have no doubt that you will have a successful outcome. Also, I'd like to congratulate professors to thank them for both of their presentations and also the Secretariat for its necessary and positive work to bring information to us. Since the first time that the GRULAC brought a document forward has welcomed this discussion. This was an informed document made available in December 2015 by the Delegation of Brazil. At that time and today, apart from a legal solution for each country, that has found four questions on this item, the document is 31/4, which plays a major role placing on the agenda the issue of performers' rights in a digital era to make the possible damage visible to them that are suffered by performers and artists as also to make it obvious who has caused this damage; in other words, major musical production companies. We have made this public and we have fought for obligatory reflective remuneration for artists and performers in my country. I would like to point out today we are not the only ones to have this stance. We have the extraordinary of Filia, which is a Latin America company of artists and performers, which stated at its annual meeting in October 2016, it is important for document SCCR/31/4, which proposes an analysis of copyright in the digital age to be made visible and to make obvious the various difficulties encountered as also to enable our artists to consolidate their work. I do not wish to dwell on these matters further, but I must say that on a daily basis, I see how major corporations make huge profits at the expense of performers. Is this some kind of a joke? But what we need is actions from whatever quarter can prevent their action and promote our action as performers in the digital era. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Centre for Internet and Society</strong>: <br />Thank you Mr. Chair. On behalf of CIS, it is my submission that the study can additionally focus on all the key actors along the entire supply and value chain involved in content dissemination in the digital environment, complementing the study of the legal environments. This would shed considerable light on national legal frameworks and also provide us evidence of transparency, or the lack thereof in the businesses involved and the extent of low proportions of copyright and related rights payment to the creators and their unfair treatment. Thank you.</p>
<strong><a class="external-link" href="http://eifl.net/">Electronic Information for Libraries:</a></strong>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair. There were very many proposals on the interest of libraries, including the management of copyright limitations and exceptions in the digital environment, digital exhaustion, licenses, territoriality, and the interpretation of the three-step test. I'd like to thank the two professors for their presentations. We'd be very interested in the findings with regard to the review of copyright laws for digital uses that was dealt with at the start of the presentation. When we looked at data from the Crews study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, we found that in countries that have amended their copyright laws in the last five years, digital copying is expressly barred in over 1/3 of them, even for preservation reasons. My question is are you also considering in the work the evidence and examples of problems experienced by beneficiaries of certain exceptions, such as the library and archive community, when working in the digital environment, as presented to this committee by the community over the last number of years? That would help to further inform the discussion and the possible conclusions. Thank you.</p>
<p> <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/36034"><strong>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property: </strong></a><br />I would like to support that aspect of the GRUAC proposal that focuses on the role of limitations and exceptions in the digital environment as a top priority for this committee. <br />There is an increasing recognition that so-called non-expressive uses – uses necessary for technological processes that do not compete with the copyright owner – are necessary to enable the internet and the services that are offered over it.<br />We at American university have been doing studies that suggest that the presence of open exceptions for technological processes isrelated to investment and growth of local digital technologies. Countries with more open exceptions do better at attracting investments in fields such as software engineering. We cannot have local streaming services without local buffering rights. We cannot have local search, artificial intelligence, machine learning, text and data mining, and internet based translation services without local rights to use whole works for purposes that do not compete with the original.<br />Only a small number of countries around the world provide the clear limitations and exceptions in these areas. And only a small number of countries have robust industries in related fields. But all these services are international by nature, and therefore the lack of harmonization of enabling rights is increasingly perceived as a barrier to trade.<br />As the experts note, the EU has taken a step in the right direction that can serve as a model in this regard – creating a mandatory exception for certain technological uses in the INFOSOC directive.<br />That model is not perfect. Many digital innovations I have mentioned use entire works on a basis that might not be viewed as temporary. Nonetheless, the concept that we need a mandatory exception in this regard to facilitate cross border digital trade is salient, and should guide this committee.<br />Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service.</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-30T05:39:22ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 34th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 1 May, 2017 to 5 May, 2017, made this statement during the discussion on the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>On behalf of CIS, it is my submission that the study can
additionally focus on all the key actors along the entire supply and value
chain involved in content dissemination in the digital environment,
complementing the study of the legal environments. This would shed considerable
light on national legal frameworks and also provide us evidence of
transparency, or the lack thereof in the businesses involved and the extent of low proportions of copyright and
related rights payment to the creators and their unfair treatment.</p>
<p>Thank
you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-15T10:42:28ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Discussion on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 34th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 1 May, 2017 to 5 May, 2017, made this statement during the discussion on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>CIS works on issues of access to knowledge and other digital
rights in India.</p>
<p>I would like to share with you my experience which highlights
the difficulty of building digital archives in India. Mr. Chair, earlier last
year the government of India embarked upon the important project of digitizing
the cultural audiovisual material stored in government and private collections to store material for preservation purposes,
and set up a virtual network of these repositories to offer online access. My
organization has been assisting them in this crucial public service mission. These works are oral traditions, dance,
music, theatrical practices, cultural practices – all of which lie largely
inaccessible and languishing in several small and large collections in India.
Since, the Indian copyright Act does not contain an exception for the purposes
of preservation by an archive; the entire project has suffered high costs in
terms of money and time. Money, because the project had to get expensive legal
assistance to set up processes to obtain rights clearance from all the
performers who were a part of the works and copyright holders- some of which
are orphan works, thereby compounding the problem. Further, partnering
organizations also expressed legitimate fears of supplying their works, in case
of a potential copyright and related rights violation that could implicate them
with civil/criminal liability.</p>
<p>In such a scenario, for the benefit of other states to
update their standards corresponding to this international legal instrument as
well, it would indeed be useful to adopt the proposals mentioned in the document <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_3.pdf">SCCR/26/3</a> that
address these issues, and others.</p>
<p>
Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightArchivesAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-15T10:35:36ZBlog EntrySeminar on Rethinking Copyright and Licensing for Digital Publishing Today (Delhi, January 23)
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017
<b>Against the backdrop of a growing global and domestic digital publishing industry on one hand and the recent judgment by the Delhi High Court that upheld the education exception to reproduction of academic and literary works, Pro Helvetia - Swiss Arts Council, Goethe-Institut Max Mueller Bhavan New Delhi, and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) are organising a seminar to discuss and reflect on the relevance and functions of copyright and licensing within the transforming market practices and legal structures of the publishing industry today.</b>
<p> </p>
<img src="http://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-january-23/leadImage" alt="Seminar on Rethinking Copyright and Licensing for Digital Publishing Today, Delhi, January 23" width="400" />
<p> </p>
<h4>Poster: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-january-23/leadImage">Download</a> (PNG)</h4>
<hr />
<p>The two speakers at the seminar will be <a href="#philipp">Dr. Philipp Theisohn</a>, Professor of Modern German Literary Studies, Zurich University, and <a href="#kerstin">Ms. Kerstin Schuster</a>, Droemer Knaur publishing group. The session will be chaired by <a href="#zakir">Mr. Zakir Thomas</a>, Additional Director General (Risk Assessment), Directorate of Income Tax, Government of India.</p>
<p>Dr. Theisohn will address the question of whether the digital age requires a new approach to copyright thinking, and Ms. Schuster will discuss the dynamics of the international market for licenses in the contemporary publishing world.</p>
<p>Please join us at the CIS Delhi office on Monday, January 23, at 11:00 for the seminar. The seminar will include the presentations by the speakers followed by an open moderated discussion.</p>
<p>Further, it is our great pleasure to inform you that in a recent judgement on the Super Cassettes v. MySpace case, the Delhi High has strengthened the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by internet intermediaries in India. As CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment, we would like to invite you for an informal discussion about the case over lunch. This will take place after the seminar.</p>
<p>A brief analysis of the judgement can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Please RSVP by sending an email to Nisha Kumar at <a href="mailto:nisha@cis-india.org">nisha@cis-india.org</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Address:</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, first floor, B 1/8, Hauz Khas, near G block market, after Crunch, New Delhi, 110016.</p>
<p><strong>Location on Google Map:</strong> <a href="http://j.mp/cis-delhi">http://j.mp/cis-delhi</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3 id="philipp"><strong>Philipp Theisohn</strong></h3>
<p>Philipp Theisohn, who was born in 1974, studied Modern German Literature, Medieval Studies and Philosophy in Tübingen and Zürich. He gained his doctorate in Jerusalem and Tübingen and, since 2013, has been Professor of Modern German Literary Studies at Zurich University. He has produced numerous publications on German and European literary history from the 13th to the 21st century, in particular on “literary future knowledge“, the perception of literary property, and Jewish Cultural Poetics.</p>
<p>The focal points of his work and research are the literature of Switzerland, literary property/plagiarism as a literary historical phenomenon, science fiction and futurology, realism, Franz Kafka and Early Modern Poetics of Knowledge.</p>
<p>Theisohn is intensely involved in the transmission of literature far beyond the academic environment. He is a member of the jury for the “Swiss Book Prize“ of the Publishers‘ Association, an expert for inter-disciplinary and literary projects for the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia; he curates literary exhibitions, is active in a broad range of journalistic work, among other things for the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, and is in charge of the blog and website of the “Schweizer Buchjahr” which contributes significantly to contemporary literary discourse.</p>
<p>Among his most important book publications are: "Die Zukunft der Dichtung. Geschichte des literarischen Orakels 1450-2050" (“The Future of Poetry. The History of the Literary Oracle 1450-2050”); “Plagiat. Eine unoriginelle Literaturgeschichte”( “Plagiarism. An Unoriginal Literary History”) and “Literarisches Eigentum. Zur Ethik geistiger
Arbeit im digitalen Zeitalter” (“Literary Property. On the Ethics of Intellectual Work in the Digital Age”).</p>
<h3 id="kerstin"><strong>Kerstin Schuster</strong></h3>
<p>Having obtained a university degree in Romance Studies and Political Science, Kerstin Schuster worked in the bookselling trade. Since 1993 she is trading licenses for the international market. She has worked till 2001 for the literary agency Dr. Ray-Güde Martin, from 2001 until 2013 for the publishing house S. Fischer Verlag in Frankfurt, and since 2014 for the Droemer Knaur publishing group.</p>
<p>For many years now, Kerstin Schuster is also facilitating seminars on how to successfully offer and sell licenses in the international market.</p>
<h3 id="zakir"><strong>Zakir Thomas</strong></h3>
<p>Mr. Thomas is an expert in the field of intellectual property. He has served as a former Registrar of Copyright for the Government of India, and as a project director of the Open Source Drug Discovery Initiative under the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (a premier R&D org). His expertise spans across copyright, open source innovation, neglected diseases and innovation ecosystem in science and technology in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/events/seminar-on-rethinking-copyright-and-licensing-for-digital-publishing-today-delhi-jan-23-2017</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightLicenseAccess to KnowledgeDigital PublishingDigital Scholarship2017-01-21T14:51:56ZEventSuper Cassettes v. MySpace (Redux)
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace
<b>The latest judgment in the matter of Super Cassettes v. MySpace is a landmark and progressive ruling, which strengthens the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by Internet intermediaries in India. It interprets the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 to restore safe harbor immunity to intermediaries even in the case of copyright claims. It also relieves MySpace from pre-screening user-uploaded content, endeavouring to strike a balance between free speech and censorship. CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>On 23rd December 2016, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Deepa Sharma of the Delhi High Court delivered a decision overturning the 2012 order in the matter of Super Cassettes Industries Limited v. MySpace. The 2012 order was heavily criticized, for it was agnostic to the technological complexities of regulating speech on the Internet and cast unfathomable burdens on MySpace. In the following post I summarise the decision of the Division Bench. Click <a class="external-link" href="http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SRB/judgement/24-12-2016/SRB23122016FAOOS5402011.pdf">here</a> to read the judgment.</p>
<h3><strong>Brief Facts</strong></h3>
<p>In 2007, Super Cassettes Industries Limited (SCIL) filed a suit against MySpace, a social networking platform, alleging copyright infringement against MySpace. The platform allowed users to upload and share media files,
<em>inter alia</em>, and it was discovered that users were sharing SCIL’s copyrighted works sans authorisation. SCIL promptly proceeded to file a civil suit against MySpace for primary infringement under section 51(a)(i)
of the Copyright Act as well as secondary infringement under section 51(a)(ii).</p>
<p> The 2012 order was extremely worrisome as it had turned the clock several decades back on concepts of internet intermediary liability. The court had held MySpace liable for copyright infringement despite it having shown no knowledge about specific instances of infringement; that it removed infringing content upon complaints; and that Super Cassettes had failed to submit songs to MySpace's song ID database. The most impractical burden of duty that the court pronounced was that MySpace was required to pre-screen content, rather than relying on post-infringement measures to remove infringing content. This was a result of interpreting due diligence to include pre-screening.</p>
<p>The court injuncted MySpace from permitting any uploads of SCIL's copyrighted content, and directed to expeditiously execute content removal requests. To read CIS' analysis of the Single Judge's interim order, click <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-my-space">here</a>.</p>
<p>In the instant judgment, the bench limited their examination to MySpace’s liability for secondary infringement, and left the direct infringement determination to the Single Judge at the subsequent trial stage. In doing so, the court answered the following three questions:</p>
<h4>1) Whether MySpace could be said to have knowledge of infringement so as to attract liability for
secondary infringement under Section 51(a)(ii)?</h4>
<p>No. According to the Court, in the case of internet intermediaries, section 51(a)(ii) contemplates actual knowledge and not general awareness.</p>
<p>Elaborating re the circumstances of the case, the Court held that to attract liability for secondary infringement, MySpace should have had actual knowledge and not mere awareness of the infringement. Appreciating the difference between virtual and physical worlds, the judgment stated “<em>the nature of internet media is such that the interpretation of knowledge cannot be the same as that is used for a physical premise.”</em></p>
<p>As per the court, the following facts only amounted to a general awareness, which was not sufficient to establish secondary liability:</p>
<ol><li>Existence of user agreement terms which prohibited users from unauthorised uploading of content;<br />
</li><li>Operation of post-infringement mechanisms instituted by MySpace to identify and remove content;<br />
</li><li>SCIL sharing a voluminous catalogue of 100,000 copyrighted songs with MySpace, expecting the latter to monitor and quell any infringement;<br />
</li><li>Modifying videos to insert ads in them: SCIL contended that MySpace invited users to share and upload content which it would use to insert ads and make revenues – and this amounted to knowledge. The Court found that video modification for ad insertion only changed the format of the video and not the content; further, it was a pure automated process and there was no human intervention.</li></ol>
<p>Additionally, no constructive knowledge could be attributed to MySpace to demonstrate reasonable ground for believing that infringement had occurred. A reasonable belief could emerge only after MySpace had perused all the content uploaded and shared on its platform – a task that was impossible to perform due to the voluminous catalogue
handed to it and existing technological limitations.</p>
<p>The Court imposed a duty on SCIL to specify the works in which it owned copyright <em>and </em>being shared
without authorisation on MySpace. It held that merely giving names of all content it owned without expressly pointing out the infringing works was contrary to the established principles of copyright law. Further, MySpace contended and the judge agreed, that in many instances the works were legally shared by distributors and performers – and often users created remixed works which only bore semblance to the title of the copyright work.</p>
<p class="callout"><strong><em>In such cases it becomes even more important for a plaintiff such as
MySpace to provide specific titles, because while an intermediary may
remove the content fearing liability and damages, an authorized
individual’s license and right to fair use will suffer or stand negated.
(Para 38 in decision)</em></strong></p>
<p>Thus, where as MySpace undoubtedly permitted a place of profit for communication of infringing works uploaded by users, it did not have specific knowledge, nor reasonable belief of the infringement.</p>
<h4>2) Does proviso to Section 81 override the "safe harbor" granted to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000?</h4>
<p>and</p>
<h4>3) Whether it was possible to harmoniously read and interpret Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act?</h4>
<p>No, the proviso does not override the safe harbor, i.e. the safe harbor
defence cannot be denied to the intermediary in the case of copyright
actions.The three sections have to be read harmoniously, indeed.</p>
<p>
The judgment referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report as a relevant tool in interpreting the two provisions, declaring that the rights conferred under the IT Act, 2000 are supplementary and not in derogation of the Patents Act or the Copyright Act. The proviso was inserted only to permit copyright owners to demand action
against intermediaries who may themselves post infringing content – the safe harbor only existed for circumstances when content was third party/user generated.</p>
<p class="callout"><strong><em>Given the supplementary nature of the provisions- one where infringement
is defined and traditional copyrights are guaranteed and the other
where digital economy and newer technologies have been kept in mind, the
only logical and harmonious manner to interpret the law would be to read
them together. Not doing so would lead to an undesirable situation
where intermediaries would be held liable irrespective of their due
diligence. (Para 49 in decision)</em></strong></p>
<p>Regarding section 79, the court reiterated that the section only granted a limited immunity to intermediaries by granting a <em>measured privilege to an intermediary</em>, which was in the nature of an affirmative defence and not a blanket immunity to avoid liability. The very purpose of section 79 was to regulate and limit this liability; where as the Copyright Act granted and controlled rights of a copyright owner.</p>
<p>The Court found Judge Whyte’s decision in Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom Online Communication Services (1995), to be particularly relevant to the instant case, and agreed with its observations. To recall, <em>Netcom</em> was the landmark US ruling which established that when a subscriber was responsible for direct infringement, and the service providers did nothing more than setting up and operating tech systems which were
necessary for the functioning of the Internet, it was illogical to impute liability on the service provider.</p>
<h3><strong>On MySpace Complying with Safe Harbor Requirements under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 (and Intermediary Rules, 2011)</strong></h3>
<p>The court held that MySpace's operations were in compliance with section 79(2)(b). The content transmission was initiated at the behest of the users, the recipients were not chosen by MySpace, neither was there modification of content. On the issue of modification, the court reasoned that since modification was an automated process (MySpace was inserting ads) which changed the format only, without MySpace's tacit or expressed control or knowledge, it was in compliance of the legislative requirement.</p>
<p class="callout"><strong><em>Despite several safeguard tools and notice and take down regimes,
infringed videos find their way. The remedy here is not to target
intermediaries but to ensure that infringing material is removed in an
orderly and reasonable manner. A further balancing act is required which
is that of freedom of speech and privatized censorship. If an
intermediary is tasked with the responsibility of identifying infringing
content from non-infringing one, it could have a chilling effect on
free speech; an unspecified or incomplete list may do that.
(Para 62 in decision)</em></strong></p>
On the second aspect of due-diligence, the court held that Mypace complied with the due diligence procedure specified in the Rules - it published rules, regulations, privacy policy and user agreement for access of usage. Reading Rule 3(4) with section 79(2)(c), the court held that it due diligence required MySpace to remove content within 36 hours of gaining actual knowledge or receiving knowledge by another person of the infringing content. <strong>If MySpace failed to take infringing content down accordingly, then only will safe harbour be denied to MySpace.</strong>
<p>This liberal interpretation of due diligence is a big win for internet intermediaries in India.</p>
<h3><strong>Additional Issues Considered by the Court</strong></h3>
<p>MySpace also tried to defend its activities by claiming the shield of the fair dealing section of the Indian Copyright Act. However, the Court refused, stating that the fair dealing defence was inapplicable to the case as the provisions protected transient and incidental storage. Whereas, in the instant circumstances, the content in question was stored/hosted permanently.</p>
<p>MySpace also contended that the Single Judge's injunction order was vague and general and had foisted unimplementable duties on MySpace, disregarding the way the Internet functioned. If MySpace had to strictly comply with the order, it would have to shut its business in India. <strong>The Court said that the Single Judge's order, if enforced, would create a system of unwarranted private censorship, running contrary to the principles of a free speech regime, devoid of considerations of peculiarities of the internet intermediary industry. </strong>Private censorship would also invite upon the ISP the legal risk of wrongfully terminating a user account.</p>
<p>Finally, the Court urged MySpace to explore and innovate techniques to protect the interests of traditional copyright holders in a more efficient manner.</p>
<h3><strong>Relief Granted</strong></h3>
<p>Setting aside the Single Judge's order aside, the Court directed SCIL to provide a specific catalogue of infringing works which also pointed to the URL of the files. Upon receiving such specific knowledge, MySpace has been directed to remove the content within 36 hours of the issued notice. MySpace will also keep an account of the removals, and the revenues earned from ads placed for calculating damages at the trial stage.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/super-cassettes-v-myspace</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntermediary LiabilityCopyrightCensorshipAccess to Knowledge2017-01-18T14:31:25ZBlog EntryDelhi High Court’s Ruling Against Publishers is a Triumph For Knowledge
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge
<b>The court conclusively stated that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction would not constitute infringement.</b>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://thewire.in/68151/delhi-hc-ruling-photocopying-du/">published in the Wire</a> on September 23, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">In a <a href="http://thewire.in/66590/hc-dismisses-publishers-copyright-case-du-photocopy-shop/" target="_blank" title="landmark judgment">landmark judgment</a>, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Delhi high court has held that reproducing books and distributing copies thereof for the purpose of education is not copyright infringement. The ruling<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>legitimises the practice of photocopying prevalent in universities and other spaces of learning. The question of whether such photocopying without the permission of the copyright holders was legal <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-students-need-the-right-to-copy/article4654452.ece" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="arose in 2013">arose in 2013</a>. A group of five prominent publishers had filed a suit against the University of Delhi and its photocopying service provider, alleging infringement of their copyrighted titles. Specifically, they argued that the infringement arose from widely used ‘course packs’ which were photocopies of collated passages and chapters from various titles and, sometimes included entire books as well. At the heart of the matter lay the interests of students and their rights and ability to access education, academics invested in the importance of readership and the free flow of knowledge and the publishers who claimed that photocopies hurt their sales and that they ought to benefit from this practice, monetarily. The publishers wanted the court to restrain the defendants from committing ‘institutionalised infringement’ and make them <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/delhi/publishers-vs-photocopying-will-indian-institutes-pay-licensing-fee-729797.html" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="apply for bouquet licenses">apply for bouquet licenses</a> to carry on with the practice of photocopying.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The suit caused a huge furore. Soon, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Amartya-Sen-academicians-express-solidarity-with-students-rebut-publishers-claim-on-photocopy-issue/articleshow/18960713.cms" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="students and academics joined the fray">students and academics joined the fray</a> to mount a stronger defence against the publishers. Notably, Amartya Sen wrote a letter urging the publishers to reconsider the action. Thirty three academics delivered a joint statement against the suit and intervened as the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/judgment-in-the-delhi-university-photocopying-case-a-blow-for-the-right-to-knowledge/article9121260.ece" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge">Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge</a>, or SPEAK, while students put forth their interests through the <a href="https://kafila.org/tag/association-of-students-for-equitable-access-to-knowledge-aseak/" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge">Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge</a>, or ASEAK.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">Pending the adjudication of the matter, the court proceeded to temporarily injunct the preparation of such course packs.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The copyright law rests on a delicate balance between the interests of copyright owners (authors, publishers, creators, artists) and copyright users (those who use and enjoy the works). The law is designed to encourage the creation of works and simultaneously, to permit the users to enjoy the works and promote arts and knowledge.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">In the <a href="http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/CprAct.pdf" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Indian Copyright Act, 1957,">Indian Copyright Act, 1957,</a> section 52 lists a number of scenarios which do not constitute infringement, including a fair dealing provision. In other words, the section is the bulwark for public enjoyment of copyrighted work – it allows largely purposive acts, including fair dealing, tied to bona fide use and copying in research, educational institutions, libraries, review, reportage, criticism, incidental copying and a greater degree of use for the benefit of disabled people.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The act of photocopying, the court ruled, is reproduction of the work and constitutes infringement, unless it is listed under section 52. It found that the acts of photocopying, preparing course packs and their distribution fell within the ambit of section 52(1)(i), which states that “the reproduction of any work – by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction”, would not constitute infringement. Interpreting the clause in an expansive manner, the court deemed that the application of the clause is not limited to an individual teacher-student relationship, but is applicable to educational institutions and organisations such as DU and thus, the law must reflect the realities of our burgeoning educational system.</p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">The publishers contended that use of the copyrighted material should occur only during the course of the instruction, that is, in classroom lectures. The court disagreed and held that the course of instruction “…<span class="s1">include(s) reproduction of any work while the process of imparting instruction by the teacher and receiving instruction by the pupil continues during the entire academic session for which the pupil is under the tutelage of the teacher and that imparting and receiving of instruction is not limited to personal interface between teacher and pupil but is a process commencing from the teacher readying herself/himself for imparting instruction, setting syllabus, prescribing text books, readings and ensuring, whether by interface in classroom/tutorials or otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying doubts of students, that the pupil stands instructed in what he/she has approached the teacher to learn.”</span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="s1">Whereas the court liberally interpreted the provision on educational institutions, it also rigidly laid out the contours of the copyright law, pivotal in enabling public enjoyment of works. It held that copyright is a statutory right and not a natural or a common law right. Thus, the nature of copyright is limited and is subject to limitations and exceptions set in the law.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>It further added that “Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.”</span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">On the issue of charging a nominal fee (40 paise per page), it was held that the said rates could not cumulatively amount to be competing with the sales price of the books. They were reasonable operational costs and only if the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>reproduction charges were similar to the books, could they have been said to be functioning commercially. <span class="s1">Furthermore, the court observed that in an age of technological advancement, any act of copying for the purpose of education (within the ambit of section 52) – whether by pen and paper, or photocopying machines, or by students clicking pictures of textbooks on their cellphones should be permissible. </span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="s1">Justice Endlaw also pointed out that this flexing of user rights is in conformity with several international treaties. India is a <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="signatory to the TRIPS Agreement">signatory to the TRIPS Agreement</a> and the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank" title="Bern Convention">Bern Convention</a>, which allows India to decide “as to what extent utilisation of copyrighted works for teaching purpose is permitted..(provided) that the same is to the extent justified by the purpose” and does not “unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the author.” </span></p>
<p class="p1" style="text-align: justify; ">This fresh jurisprudence is a vindicates the freedom to exchange ideas and knowledge, which is crucial to fostering an excellent learning space. This will also ensure that eager students and teachers in developing countries freely share latest research and publications, without the slightest hesitation of operating in a grey area. <span class="s1">Justice Endlaw’s judgment has aptly restored the public-serving face of copyright law, which is a huge triumph for access to knowledge.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2016-09-26T15:07:07ZBlog Entry