Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

Blog

Your blog category

Blog, Trade Agreements & IP

The Unclear Status of Copyright Exceptions and Limitations in the UK-India Free Trade Agreement 

/

On May 6, 2025, the United Kingdom (UK) and India announced that they had reached agreement on a bilateral free trade deal that includes a chapter on intellectual property.However, no agreement text was released. Rather, the UK Department for Business & Trade issued a summary of the agreement’s terms, and the summary acknowledged that “work is continuing to finalise the legal text and resolve the last issues.” In other words, at this point there is just an agreement to agree, rather than a real agreement. According to the summary, the IP chapter “will support our economies through effective and balanced protection and enforcement of IP rights.” The chapter will cover copyright and related rights, designs, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, and trade secrets, as well as the enforcement of IP rights. The summary provides little detail concerning copyright and related rights. It simply states that India will also commit to engaging on aspects of copyright and related rights, addressing the interests of UK creators, rights holders, and consumers. This includes around public performance rights and artist’s resale rights, which acknowledge the importance of royalty rights. India will also conduct an internal review of their copyright terms of protection.    Further, the summary notes that the chapter “will not commit the UK to domestic legislative change, nor will it undermine the UK’s own IP system or our international positions on IP.” Significantly, the summary is silent on copyright exceptions and limitations. In 2022, a draft of the UK’s proposed text for the IP chapter was leaked. The language concerning copyright exceptions and limitations was limited to the Berne Three Step Test and other treaties: Article H.7: Limitations and Exceptions   1. Each Party may introduce limitations or exceptions in its domestic law to the rights provided for in this Section [H]. but shall confine such limitations or exceptions to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of covered subject matter, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.   2. This Article is without prejudice to the limitations and exceptions to any rights permitted by international agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement, the Berne Convention, the Rome Convention, the WCT. or the WPPT.   ​The summary asserts that the agreement would support the economies of the UK and India through “balanced protection” of IP rights, but nothing in the summary, or the UK’s 2022 draft text, reflects balanced protection with respect to copyright. The Three Step Test, by itself, is too ambiguous to provide meaningful balance. Hopefully India insisted upon language that clarified that both parties had the flexibility to adopt more open-ended fair dealing or fair use provisions, like those recently adopted by former British colonies such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Nigeria. For example, the agreement could include language similar to Article 11.18 of the Regional Cooperation for Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed in 2020. That language provides that  3. Each Party shall endeavour to provide an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, among other things by means of limitations and exceptions consistent with paragraph 1, for legitimate purposes, which may include education, research, criticism, comment, news reporting, and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled. 4. For greater certainty, a Party may adopt or maintain limitations or exceptions to the rights referred to in paragraph 1 for fair use, as long as any such limitation or exception is confined as stated in paragraph 1. India initially participated in the RCEP negotiations, but withdrew in 2019 over issues unrelated to intellectual property.

Blog

Why Limitations and Exceptions Still Deserve a Bigger Role at WIPO CDIP

/

As WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) prepares to meet for its 34th session this May, an important question is back on the table: Are we doing enough to support access to knowledge, culture, and education through copyright limitations and exceptions? These legal flexibilities—designed to enable libraries, educators, researchers, and others to use copyrighted content under certain conditions—are vital tools for development. But despite being central to WIPO’s 2007 Development Agenda, they still play a limited role in the organization’s work. WIPO’s latest reporting shows a continued emphasis on supporting IP protection and enforcement. In the Director General’s report to the CDIP, most activities are framed around helping countries strengthen their IP systems. There is a brief mention of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) and its ongoing discussions on the Broadcasting Treaty and exceptions for libraries and education. But these references don’t tell us much about the real developmental impacts of those discussions—or the need to ensure that any new treaties respect countries’ ability to design exceptions and flexibilities that serve the public interest. There are some positive signs. One project approved at CDIP/30 supports the use of Text and Data Mining (TDM) by African research institutions. This is the first CDIP project specifically focused on copyright limitations, and it’s a promising example of how IP flexibilities can directly benefit research and innovation. But it’s also the only one of its kind. Meanwhile, WIPO’s Flexibilities Database—which could be a key resource—still focuses almost entirely on patent law and hasn’t been updated to include copyright-related flexibilities or real-world examples of how countries are using them. So what can be done? One idea is for Member States to propose new CDIP projects that explore how copyright limitations and exceptions can support public goals—like providing access to education materials, enabling preservation in cultural heritage institutions, or facilitating scientific collaboration. Another is to ensure that norm-setting activities, such as negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty, are carefully monitored by CDIP to assess their development impacts. These steps wouldn’t require major changes, just a commitment to make sure the tools already embedded in international IP law are better understood and more widely used. As WIPO’s work continues to evolve alongside emerging challenges like artificial intelligence, access to digital content, and global inequality, the importance of copyright flexibilities is only growing. CDIP was created to help balance the global IP system, and that balance depends on more than protection—it depends on access too. By giving limitations and exceptions the space they deserve, Member States can help WIPO truly deliver on its promise of development for all.

Blog

A Step Forward: World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Committee Inches Forward on Broadcast and Limitations

/

The Forty-Sixth Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) concluded with modest but meaningful progress on key agenda items, including on the Broadcasting Treaty, the limitations and exceptions (L&Es) agenda and the agenda item on copyright remuneration in the digital environment. The SCCR was Chaired by Vanessa Cohen, Copyright Director of Costa Rica. Broadcasting Treaty: Refined Focus, Continued Dialogue The Committee continued its examination of the Draft WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, which has been on the SCCR’s agenda since its first meeting in 1998. After the first failure to create a basic text for the negotiation in 2006, the 2007 General Assembly mandated that the SCCR achieve “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” before a recommendation to complete the treaty in a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The GA has further instructed that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006).  The Chair’s statements for SCCR 44 and 45 aptly summarized the current consensus on the committee on the bounds of a text that could be advanced to the Diplomatic Conference: “With respect to objectives, there is common understanding … that the treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy, should not extend to any post-fixation activities and that it should provide member states with flexibility to implement obligations through adequate and effective legal means” and “that the object of protection (subject-matter) of the treaty is related to programme-carrying signals linked to linear transmission”. But the bounds of these concepts have been pressed by Chair’s Drafts of a treaty that continue to use exclusive rights as a baseline, including rights to fixation and to make available stored programs on the Internet. This SCCR featured more vigorous debate over the draft than at the last few SCCR meetings, with a larger number of countries offering specific comments on provisions including on national treatment and reciprocity, exceptions and limitations, the protection of signals used in making available stored programs, and the functioning of the mechanism for alternatives to exclusive rights.  Some member states, including the European Union, the Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) supported moving the current text to a diplomatic conference. But the two days of deliberations showed significant concern about many of the draft text’s provisions. After the deliberations showed a lack of consensus on the document, Brazil proposed that the Broadcast Treaty be removed from the formal agenda of the SCCR and be worked on by groups of countries outside of the SCCR. Ultimately the Chair’s Summary concluded that the facilitators would create a new draft text and the item would remain on the agenda without any endorsement of a timeline toward a diplomatic conference. Opposition to the current Chair’s Text appeared to be growing. The Africa Group noted that “some members are concerned about the potential overreach of those protections, fearing that they could restrict access to broadcast or create unintended barriers to the flow of information.” The Asia Pacific Group similarly reported the views of some of its members “determination as to whether and how Intellectual Property rights should apply with respect to broadcasting is also a development to the issue that requires a delicate balance.” The Africa Group stated an additional position that “an instrument on the protection of broadcasting organizations should advance to a Diplomatic Conference jointly with an instrument on limitations and exceptions that meets the 2012 General Assembly’s mandate.”  Among the “Group B” coalition of wealthy countries, the United States continued to raise serious substantive objections, stating the view that “significant work remains to be done” on the Chair’s Draft, which “continues to exceed the GA mandate for a signal based approach to protect broadcasters in the traditional sense.” The US stated that it supports “a narrow text that is focused solely on the live signal,” including through deletion of the Chair’s Draft’s rights to fixation (Art 7) and making available stored programs (art 8).  Ultimately, while the level of engagement on the Broadcast Treaty was elevated, it does not appear the current text, especially its extensions to Internet-based transmissions and post-fixation rights to stored content, have sufficient consensus to move to a diplomatic conference. Limitations and Exceptions: A Foundation for Bridging Divergence The key issue for the limitations and exceptions agenda is reaching an agreement to begin text-based work on the 2012 GA mandate to work toward an “appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)” on uses by libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14). In SCCR 43, the Committee adopted a Work Program SCCR/43/8 REV to draft “objectives, principles, and options” for potential instruments. As noted above, the African Group will not support moving the Broadcast Treaty to a Diplomatic Conference without an instrument on L&E prepared to also be endorsed for finalization.  The Chair announced at the start of the L&E agenda that she had a meeting of “volunteer” member states the week before the SCCR to consult on ways forward. She further proposed that she could use the Chair’s position to “help put together a list of objectives and principles that could be seen as ground, a common basis” and that “could be seen as the cornerstone for a soft law instrument” that “could be an important tool used by WIPO and adopted by the General Assembly, it could provide Member States with significant guidelines and guiding principles.” She further proposed “the possibility of appointing facilitators to try and identify that common base.” All countries implicitly endorsed moving to text based work on principles and objectives for limitations and exceptions. The debate in the Committee was about where to start. Group B and CEBS endorsed starting to discuss the US proposed document – SCCR/44/5. The African Group and many developing countries opposed beginning with

Blog

The South Centre Publishes Resources from the "30 Years of TRIPS" Side Event at the WTO on Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries

/

On March 19th, 2025, an informal group of countries known as “Intellectual Property (IP) for Development” -Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India and Pakistan- hosted an informal side event, on the margins of the regular TRIPS Council session. The South Centre published the following commentary, program, presentations, and photos from this side event at this link, which are also shared below: Delegates and experts were invited to an initial discussion to reflect on the history of the TRIPS negotiations, 30 years after their conclusion. The formal Council for TRIPS session will hear a brief summary of the event and its key takeaways and reflections. The event took place in Room SI at the WTO and online, with participation of over 150 persons. The presentations, program, photos. [and videos] are available below:  W718 Side Event draft document Presentation: History of the TRIPS Agreement by Carlos Correa TRIPS Side Event Speech by Jayashree Watal Presentation: Restoring and Adding to the TRIPS Balance by Joshua Sarnoff Presentation: TRIPS restrictions on exports or imports when there is non-voluntary use of a patented invention by James Love Presentation: Non-disclosed information and trade secrets by Ellen ‘t Hoen Presentation: TRIPS and Copyright by Sean Flynn Presentation on Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS as well as Article 66 of TRIPS by Sangeeta Shashikant Event Photos Google Drive with Video Recordings Programme 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Welcome & Light Snacks 2:00 PM – 2:05 PM | Opening Remarks & Introduction –Ambassador Tareq Md. Ariful Islam, Bangladesh 2:05 PM – 2:35 PM | A History of the TRIPS Negotiations –Dr. Carlos Correa, South Centre 2:35 PM – 3:15 PM | Experiences of National NegotiatorsAmbassador Guilherme Patriota, BrazilMs. Jayashree Watal, India 3:15 PM – 4:25 PM | Panel: Key Issues & Provisions in TRIPS NegotiationsModerator: Dr. Viviana Munoz Tellez, South Centre Prof. Joshua Sarnoff (DePaul College of Law)Mr. James Love (Knowledge Ecology International – KEI)Dr. Ellen ’t Hoen (Medicines Law & Policy)Mr. Sean Flynn (American University)Ms. Sangeeta Shashikant (Third World Network – TWN) 4:25 PM – 4:30 PM | Closing & Summary – Amb. Ninad Deshpande, DPR India 4:30 PM – onwards | Farewell & Light Snack

Blog, Broadcast Treaty

Knowledge Ecology International will host roundtable on negotiating text for a WIPO Broadcast Treaty, April 3, 2025

/

In a Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) post made earlier today by James Love, KEI announced that it will host an informal roundtable on the WIPO broadcast treaty text that will be discussed at the WIPO SCCR 46 meeting from April 7 to April 11, 2025.  The meeting documents are available from WIPO here: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=86568, including the current negotiating text, here: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=641471 KEI’s announcement on the roundtable is linked here and can be read below: The format of the roundtable will be an information discussion of specific articles in the text, dealing with such issues as the definitions of beneficiaries and protected broadcasts, the rights granted, the provisions on national treatment and formalities, the treatment of fixation and post fixation rights (if any), the duration of protection, limitations and exceptions to rights, and other topics. Sean Flynn, The Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law, Luis Villarroel Villalon, the Director of Innovarte ONG in Chile, and James Love, Executive Director of KEI, will present some proposals for the text, but any of the particpants in the Zoom call will be encouraged in participate and share views as well. The discussion will be recorded. To register for the call, use this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/eeboYsSbSXSkDL6Xx3bsnA KEI will be posting links to some additional links to background documents shortly. 2023. Love, James P., “Comments on the September 6, 2023 Draft of a WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, the Definitions, Scope of Application, National Treatment and Formalities” (2023). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 110.https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/110 2023. James Love. The Trouble With the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper, Series. 85. March 2023. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/88 2023. Bernt Hugenholtz, Simplifying the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Proposed Amendments to the Third Revised Draft,https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/111 2023. Bernt Hugenholtz, The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Comments on the Second Revised Draft,https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/84 2025. SCCR 46, PIJIP Technical Comments 2025. Schirru, Luca; Vyas, Lokesh; Jawara, Haddija; Ruthes Gonçalves, Lukas; McGee, Katie; Misto, Yara; and Flynn, Sean Michael Fiil, “Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR (Global Version)” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 145.https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/145

Blog

Statement of User Rights Network on Design Protection for Graphical User Interfaces

/

Professor Sean Flynn delivered the following statement at the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Trademarks on the proposal by the United States and others for a Joint Recommendation on Graphical User Interfaces.  The Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights is an association of IP professors around the world which includes many who also specialize in design law. We support the proposal by the African Group for a study on GUIs before moving further on the proposal for a joint recommendation.  In particular, I draw attention to the work of Professor Sarah Fackrell‬ Burstein, who has studied the use of design law protection on GUIs in the USA. She pointed out in correspondence with me that in the USA “Copyright protection is generally available for this subject matter,” but companies use design protection for GUIs “so they can subvert the low standards of copyright.” In her work Uncreative Designs, 73 Duke L.J. 1437 (2024), she describes how in the USA GUIs are sometimes granted protection that would not meet the copyright standard by the Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone, which held that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. One can see many interesting examples of such GUIs at her BlueSky hash tag #SubFeistDesigns https://bsky.app/hashtag/SubFeistDesigns  The US experience suggests that the terms in the joint recommendation may be very important and guidance may be needed for countries that do not want to promote extending protection to GUIs that is beyond that normally available under trademarks and copyrights in most countries already. It may be especially useful to study the potential impacts on large generic markets, such as those for cell phones, where expanding IP promotions for GUIs may negatively affect emerging industries.  We would be happy to work with the African Group and others interested in engaging the scholarship in this area. 

Blog

Knowledge Ecology International Publishes Highlights from WIPO Discussions on Graphical User Interfaces

/

The 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions from various delegations on Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). A recent Knowledge Ecology International post authored by Thiru highlighted the key details from WIPO discussions on GUIs, and can be read at this link, or below: SCT 48 – Highlights from WIPO discussions on graphical user interfaces Posted on March 26, 2025 by Thiru As mentioned in a previous blog, Under the topic of industrial designs, the 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions. The first submission is an updated proposal (SCT/44/6 Rev.4) on a Joint Recommendation for Industrial Design Protection for Designs for Graphical User Interfaces, submitted by Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the European Union and its member states. The second paper (SCT/46/5) is a proposal by the African Group for a Study on the Impact of Design Protection for Graphical User Interface (GUI) Designs on Innovation. In advance of the Committee’s consideration of these two papers, the WIPO secretariat convened an information session on 21 February 2025 on Graphical User Interface (GUI) Design Protection. On Monday, 24 March 2025, a number of delegations weighed in on design protection for graphical user interfaces; several delegations referenced the February 2025 information session. The following extracts are taken from WIPO’s speech to text live transcript. This item will be revisited on Wednesday, 26 March 2025. In its opening remarks, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean region (GRULAC) said: “We are also following with interest the ongoing discussions on the protection of graphical user interfaces, GUIs, recognizing their increasing relevance in the digital economy.” Pakistan, on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, expressed interest in the African Group proposal on a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation (SCT/46/5). As regards industrial design protection for GUIs, most APG Member States are of the view that innovation by local firms through utilization and adoption of existing technologies can significantly improve local technological capabilities and enable a form of learning by doing. Such avenues can play an important role in the catch-up process of nascent industries in developing countries with industrial development in other countries. The group, therefore, remains interested in following up with further deliberation on the revised proposal for a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation contained in document SCT/46/5. The APG also views the continuation of discussions on the revised proposals regarding the utilization of country names or geographical names of significance as a priority. The group aims to engage in a spirit of collaboration to refine existing proposals towards an appropriate outcome based on inputs from concerned Member States. On this matter, the Chair noted: Item 4 involves two proposals. First, updated proposal by the of Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK and the U.S.A. and the EU and its Member States for a joint recommendation concerning industrial design protection for designs for GUI which is contained in document SCT/44/6 Rev.4. And Another proposal which is made by the African Group for a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation which is contained in SCT/46/5. I would like to remind you the fact that in the previous SCT meeting, SCT agreed to invite the Secretariat organize a virtual information session on GIU design protection prior to the next session of the SCT. Actually that information session took place online on the 21st of February. Now I request the Secretariat to report on the information session on GUI design protection. Now give the floor to the Secretariat. The WIPO Secretariat reported: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I will briefly report on the online information session on GUI design protection that was requested by SCT 47 in its March 2024 session. The information session took place online, exclusively online on February 21st this from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The session was structured in three parts. First, a discussion on the development of GUI designs in various sectors. This discussion was moderated by Mr. David Stone, a solicitor at A&O Sherman in London and featured also speakers from Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea and Brazil and Nigeria. Secondly, there was a presentation by the Secretariat on the findings from the two SCT questionnaires on GUI design protection. And finally, there was a presentation by WIPO’s department for economics and data Analytics on the economic research on GUI designs that has been carried out by the department. The information session around 200 Delegates registered for this information session. which was followed by 145 Delegates. The European Union provided the following perspectives: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The European Union and its Member States would like to congratulate you and your Vice Chairs on your election and we are looking forward to working during this session under your able guidance. Regarding the topic of GUI designs, the EU and its Member States would like to firstly thank the Secretariat for organizing the virtual information session on the 21st of February. We have listened with great interest to the reports of experts, the findings of the two questionnaires and the update about the forthcoming report by the chief economist of WIPO. The information session provided valuable insights into the current landscape of design protection across various jurisdictions. The presentations revealed significant commonalities in how different countries approach GUI protection and this suggests a strong foundation for potential international harmonization of design law. However, areas of divergence were also highlighted which present opportunities for working towards developing more unified and comprehensive approaches to GUI design protection on a global scale. On this basis, Mr. Chairman, we continue to be convinced that adopting the joint recommendation in document SCT/44/6 Rev 4 is a practical way

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Legislative Initiatives on Copyright in Brazil in 2024

/

Allan Rocha de Souza; Luca Schirru; Leon Queiroz Ramos  In Brazil, 2024 has been quite eventful regarding copyright, with the debate seemingly returning to center stage. The Senate’s approval of Bill 2338/23 (AI Bill) and Bill 2331/22 (audiovisual quotas on video-on-demand services), along with the enactment of Law 14.852/24 (Videogames Act), are the three major developments. However, no progress was made on Bill 2630/20 in the Senate (the so-called “Fake News Bill”) or Bill 2730/19 (copyright reform Bill) in the House of Representatives. Unsurprisingly, the most attention-grabbing development, which sparked numerous discussions and seminars, was the approval of the AI Bill by the Senate on December 10, 2024. This was mainly due to the uncertainties and tensions surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and the sensitive nature of the bill’s provisions on copyright. The Senate also approved Bill 2331/22, which introduces a fee for the commercial exploitation of audiovisual works in the digital environment—an initiative that is likely to impact user-generated content. Additionally, the Videogame Act (Law 14.852/24) was enacted, establishing a regulatory framework for video games in Brazil, including their normative classification as “interactive audiovisual works developed as computer programs.” AI and copyright The AI Bill (PL 2338/23), which establishes the regulatory framework for AI systems in Brazil, was approved by the Senate on December 10, 2024, and will now be reviewed by the House of Representatives. It is worth noting that the initial regulatory proposal was approved in the form of Bill 21-A/20 by the House of Representatives on September 29, 2021, but was later superseded by the Senate Bill.  In its structure, logic, and overall approach, it mirrors the European AI Act, representing a clear example of the “Brussels Effect.” However, such mirroring may be excessive and should not overlook national particularities and specific challenges. The relationship between copyright and AI is complex and only gained national prominence in April 2024, when a dedicated chapter was incorporated into the Bill. As with any subject of this level of complexity and uncertainty (and all matters related to AI regulation fall into this category), there are always aspects that could and should be improved. These aspects were highlighted in the study “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Contributions to the Regulatory Debate in Brazil“ . Research in general—and text and data mining (TDM) in particular—received insufficient attention that is not able to ensure that research can continue without serious risks and costs, which could hinder this critical activity for the country. These regulatory oversteps include: (i) limiting research to institutional settings, (ii) prohibiting public-private research collaborations, and, most importantly, (iii) requiring that training data be “lawfully accessed,” a condition with significant implications. Without cutting-edge research, the country risks stagnation. Moreover, these provisions will impact all data-intensive research activities, across all sectors, regardless of whether they involve AI system development. The remuneration and licensing obligations established for training AI systems with copyrighted works, while reasonable in cases of commercial uses with substitutive effects, impose high entry costs on domestic companies. As a result, the primary beneficiaries will be large technology players and database holders (mainly major foreign corporations) that own sufficiently large collections of copyrighted works to serve as training datasets for AI systems. Consequently, this framework will undoubtedly hinder national innovation and the development of AI systems that would reflect Brazilian characteristics — all of that without effectively ensuring compensation for authors and artists, which was supposed to be its main justification! As approved by the Senate, these constraints on research and national innovation will impact virtually all economic, industrial, and public interest activities that rely on or require large volumes of information and data—whether for fundamental research or the development of AI systems tailored to national demands. This will also affect corporate customization and internal systems development, as copyright protection extends to text, sounds, and images. Consequently, any AI system that processes these types of content will be affected. Videogames Act Published on May 3, 2024, Law 14.582/2024 (officially ‘Legal Framework for the Video Game Industry’) establishes the Videogame Act, which regulates the “manufacturing, importation, commercialization, development, and commercial use of video games” in Brazil (Article 2). It does so by establishing guidelines and principles for their use (Article 6), as well as proposing measures for fostering investment and development in the sector (Article 4). Additionally, the law explicitly excludes games involving betting with prizes, random outcomes, commercial promotions, or lottery-based modalities (Article 5, sole paragraph). The legislation introduces concrete incentives for national video game production by recognizing the sector as part of the cultural industry (Article 12), making it eligible for tax benefits and public funding, similar to other cultural goods. Furthermore, classifying investments in video game development as “investments in research, development, innovation, and culture” (Article 11, sole paragraph) will likely increase the availability of resources and foster growth in the sector. An interesting aspect of the law is the facilitation of video games for educational and training purposes (Article 10), particularly through the development of public policies within the framework of the National Digital Education Policy and the creation of a repository for games developed with public funds. Equally relevant for research and development is the possibility of state support for research, development, and improvement of educational video games, including the creation of a dedicated platform for educational games (Article 13, §1, IV). However, all of these policies are optional rather than mandatory, as they arguably should be. One of the law’s key contributions is its definition of “video game,” which directly references copyright legislation. It classifies video games as “an interactive audiovisual work developed as a computer program” (Article 5.1) and links their protection to the Software Law (Law 9.609/98), which has distinct provisions compared to the general Copyright Law (Law 9.610/98). Although it does not directly address copyright, the law provides definitions for multiple roles that different professionals can assume in the creation and production of video games. These include potential authors, such as visual artists (Article 7, §3, I), audio designers for games (Article

Africa: Copyright & Public Interest, Blog

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN SOUTH AFRICA HIGHLIGHTS THE URGENCY OF COPYRIGHT REFORMS

/

By ReCreate South Africa The cost of excluding billions of people in Africa and the Global South from access to knowledge could be huge for future generations. Knowledge-sharing in Africa is not always transactional, and the existing IP and copyright paradigms are not working well for creators or audiences on the continent. Creators are often poorly remunerated and in many cases audiences and students cannot afford access to knowledge and entertainment. Some global corporations take an extractive and exploitative approach to African creativity. Africa needs a new knowledge governance system to take into account the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge. These were the conclusions of an international conference entitled “Copyright and the Public Interest: Africa and the Global South” held last month in South Africa. The convenors were ReCreate South Africa, a coalition of creators and users of copyright material and the conference took place at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (3 February), at the University of Cape Town Library (5 February) and at Innovation City (6 February). This conference was a follow-on from ReCreate’s inaugural conference on the “Right to Research in Africa” held at the University of Pretoria and the University of Cape Town in January 2023. Conference partnered with Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP), the intergovernmental organisation, South Center, the University of Cape Town’s IP Unit, Mandela Institute, Law School and more. The conference was made possible by PIJIP and Arcadia, as well as Open Air. You can watch the full conference sessions online. IP as a tax on African Creativity: Protecting the Livelihoods of Creators In his opening input, Ben Cashdan, convener of ReCreate South Africa and former economic advisor to President Nelson Mandela, said that IP royalties are a de facto tax on Africa. “Income from IP royalties on all creativity, on all inventions around the world, topped $1 trillion in the past 24 months for the first time, and the United States gets about $130 billion of that. Africa gets a tiny fraction. Could that be because we don’t have creatives? Could that be because we don’t have actors, writers, musicians? Obviously not. The system operates in such a way that we don’t get the fruits of our labor here in this country and on this continent.” South African singer Mercy Pakela, whose music topped the charts in the 1980s, recounted how she had signed with record labels so that her music could be heard by music lovers around the world, but over 40 years later she still feels she has not received fair remuneration. Pakela said “I wish I knew then what I know now because then I did not know that it was business. I just wanted to be on stage. I thought it was just about talent.” Jack Devnarain, Chairperson of the South African Guild of Actors highlighted that many performers in Africa die poor due to the power imbalance between artists and their distributors or rights owners. He pointed a finger at those whose business models restrict the livelihoods of African performers and who are opposed to copyright reform.  “There are people, particularly the American-based organizations, the corporate giants in the Global North that are working very hard, and I’m talking about the publishers, the studios, the streamers, the broadcasters, that do not want South African actors to have a royalty earning right.” South Africa’s CAB and Why Teachers Need Fair Use The Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB), passed by Parliament in South Africa, but still awaiting the President’s signature, aims to solve the problem of exploitation of artists by introducing a right to fair royalties or equitable remuneration. The CAB also broadens access to knowledge for communities. Hence it addresses the needs of both constituencies, creators and users. The President has referred the Bill to the Constitutional Court over concerns that it may lead to arbitrary deprivation of property of rights holders. Advocate Iain Currie, lawyer for ReCreate raised questions around whether Intellectual Property is property in the traditional sense and also challenged the view that adjustments to Copyright laws in the public interest are arbitrary.  One of the main objectives of the CAB is to ensure that teachers and learners have access to educational materials, which is clearly a public interest goal. According to Dr Mugwena Maluleke, President of Education International, “there is a shocking shortage of 44 million teachers worldwide. A major catalyst for this shortage is the inability to attract and retain teachers due to inadequate conditions for providing quality teaching,” including a shortage of textbooks and learning materials. “Fair use in education is the key that unlocks the door to a world of knowledge and creativity, by allowing educators to utilize copyrighted materials in their teaching.”  Moreover “Fair copyright legislation is essential to enabling teachers to adapt and use the material and reach an increasingly diverse student body.”  Maluleke is also General Secretary of SADTU, the largest teachers union in South Africa, with a membership of over 250 000 teachers and workers.  Dr Sanya Samtani, Senior Researcher at the Mandela Institute in the Law Faculty at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg echoed these sentiments. “The Copyright Amendment Bill is an example of the state trying to regulate copyright, trying to fulfill its international obligations on copyright, and also its human rights obligations, which are constitutional and international in nature.” ‘AI for Good’ in Africa The conference considered the importance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in solving the world’s most pressing challenges, including climate change, pandemic responses and countering misinformation. Generative AI has understandably raised alarm bells amongst creatives. Professor Vukosi Marivate, Chair of Data Science at the University of Pretoria, described a project in which broadcast TV shows in South Africa could be used to train AI models to educate local communities about primary health care in indigenous African languages. Marivate said that a power reset needs to take place between local communities and Big Tech based in the Global North. This will allow AI to be used to protect

Blog

COMMUNIA’s submission to the Geo-blocking Regulation evaluation call for evidence

/

COMMUNIA recently made a submission to a call for evidence on the evaluation of the Geo-blocking Regulation which the European Commission is set to review the rules for this year. This regulation governs geo-blocking, including for audiovisual services and copyright-protected works. The European Commission has not yet introduced measures to improve access to audiovisual content, and audiovisual services and copyright-protected works are currently exempted from the regulation. Background on the Geo-blocking Regulation and additional information on COMMUNIA’s proposal to provide EU consumers with an opportunity to stream publicly funded content that is otherwise unavailable in their region against the payment of a fee are further detailed in a recent blogpost on COMMUNIA’s site by Justus Dreyling, which is included below: This week, COMMUNIA made a submission to a call for evidence on the evaluation of the Geo-blocking Regulation (available as a PDF file). The European Commission is set to review the rules for geo-blocking, including for audiovisual services and copyright-protected works, this year. After the stakeholder dialogue on access to and availability of audiovisual works has failed to deliver any meaningful change, we call on the Commission to use this opportunity to finally introduce measures to improve access to audiovisual content across the Union. The Geo-blocking Regulation was adopted in 2018 with the aim of promoting the internal market by improving access to goods and services for individuals. Audiovisual services and copyright-protected works were notably exempted from the regulation. As a result, most audiovisual content produced in the EU remains inaccessible to European citizens. COMMUNIA has called on the co-legislators on multiple occasions to consider broadening the scope of the regulation to include audiovisual services and copyrighted content or at least improve the conditions for audiovisual content that has received public funding for its production or distribution. As part of this submission, we renew our proposal for a model project based on a European transactional video of demand (TVOD) platform in order to provide EU consumers with an opportunity to stream publicly funded content that is otherwise unavailable in their region against the payment of a fee (PDF file).

Scroll to Top