VZCZCXYZ0015
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0507/01 1751247
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 241247Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8695
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS GENEVA 000507 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SECSTATE FOR EB 
COMMERCE FOR USPTO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON KIPR WIPO
SUBJECT:  Eighteenth Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on 
Copyright and Related Rights 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  Member States at the 18th session of the WIPO Standing 
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) agreed to continue 
without delay their work on facilitating the access of the blind, 
visually impaired persons (VIP) and other reading-disabled persons 
to copyright-protected works.  Though certain non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) that do not specifically represent the blind 
community sought to mischaracterize the U.S. position as not 
supportive of the access issues for the blind through Internet press 
reports, the U.S. demonstrated its leadership in this area at the 
18th session by delivering, on day two of the session, a detailed 
account of its national experience, including U.S. Copyright Law 
exceptions and limitations and recent, comprehensive stakeholder 
consultations.  On day 4 of the session, Brazil, Ecuador and 
Paraguay tabled a draft treaty (internationally binding) that would 
mandate a specific copyright exception for VIPs for all member 
states and would, among other things, authorize the cross border 
movement of copyright works by users without permission from the 
rights holder.  Broader questions of limitations and exceptions to 
copyright law as they relate to libraries, archives and educational 
activities were also highlighted during discussions at the session 
and will be included in an upcoming limitations and exceptions 
questionnaire.  The SCCR also agreed to continue discussing a treaty 
on the protection of broadcasted signals, and the protection of 
audiovisual performances.  END SUMMARY. 
¶2. The 18th session of the SCCR was held March 25 - 29, 2009 in 
Geneva, Switzerland.  The meeting was chaired by Jukka Liedes 
(Finland).  Several non-governmental organizations from industry 
groups and civil society attended and delivered interventions at the 
meeting. 
 
¶3. The United States delegation was represented by Michael Shapiro 
and Neil Graham of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO), Maria Pallante and Steve Tepp of the U.S. Copyright Office, 
Nancy Weiss of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and 
Deborah Lashley-Johnson, IP Attach at the U.S. Mission to the UN. 
 
SCCR to Expedite Work in Favor of Reading Impaired 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
¶4. In continuation of its discussions at the 17th session, 
discussions at the 18th session of the SCCR meeting centered on a 
series of practical measures to facilitate access to 
copyright-protected materials by reading impaired persons, a key aim 
of which is to develop solutions to make published works available 
in accessible formats in a reasonable time frame. All participants 
supported moving forward with this work.  Specifically, the blind 
community has acknowledged in meetings with the U.S. that 
cooperative arrangements with publishers are needed, and fully 
support the work of the stakeholders' platform that will focus on 
contractual, technological and other arrangements among 
rightholders, charitable organizations and the blind community. 
Some representatives of this community, however, also maintain that 
a binding international instrument that would exempt some users from 
liability may be necessary to facilitate the movement of certain 
copyrighted works across borders.   Per the mandate prescribed by 
the SCCR meeting of the 17th session, the meeting of the 18th 
session was to focus on a discussion of national experiences and 
existing national laws to address the issue.   Thus, the United 
States came to SCCR 18 prepared to lead by example. 
 
U.S. Consultation Process 
------------------------- 
¶5. The U.S. intervention centered on its domestic consultations with 
American (and some foreign) stakeholders, noting both its open-ended 
and transparent nature and providing a few preliminary observations 
on lessons learned.  From the outset of discussions on exceptions 
for VIP in the SCCR, the United States noted the premise that issues 
affecting accessibility for VIP persons are fundamentally important. 
 The United States underscored its view that national consultations 
are a critical first step in any further work on this issue within 
the SCCR, and that deliberations regarding any specific instrument 
(whether binding or nonbinding) would be premature because we are 
still immersed in fact-finding and evaluation.  We also have been 
made aware that few countries and regions are actively engaged with 
their stakeholders at the domestic level. 
 
¶6. Against this background, the USDEL decided to deliver a 
relatively long intervention describing the U.S. consultation 
process and preliminary observations early in the Committee's 
deliberations on exceptions and limitations in order to set the tone 
for the overall discussion. The intervention included a detailed 
summary of the many questions the United States has raised with 
stakeholders in published, public inquiries, a summary of some 
initial points of common focus derived from public comments, and a 
summary of some of the nuanced issues (legal, technical and 
business) discussed by multiple stakeholders during a day-long 
public meeting. Our principal message was that the United States is 
constructively engaged with its stakeholders with a view toward 
finding timely, effective, and practical solutions to enhance 
accessibility of copyrighted works for the benefit of VIP (taking 
 
into account complex, inter-related issues of law, business, 
technology, and resources) and that those conversations will 
continue in the United States.  The U.S. noted that national 
consultations are important to find timely, efficient, and practical 
improvements in the availability of accessible copyrighted works. 
Specifically,  the United States believes that the Committee should 
actively pursue a strategy of "guided development" to identify 
whether there are specific problems and, if so, to act on possible 
solutions for improving access to copyrighted works for the benefit 
of blind and disabled persons.  Once the Committee has developed a 
deeper understanding of the underlying problems in national law and 
the international framework, if any, the SCCR has many tools to 
determine whether and how to address such problems.  The United 
States is aware that, outside of the Group B Members, a significant 
number of Member countries (including some proponents of the 
aforementioned treaty proposal) lack even a basic exception for VIP 
in their national copyright laws. 
 
¶7. With respect to U.S. Copyright Law, over a decade ago, the United 
States enacted amendments to our copyright law to establish a 
limitation on exclusive rights for the benefit of the blind or other 
persons with disabilities.  That provision was amended five years 
ago in an effort to improve access to educational materials.  In 
broad outline, under Section 121 of the U.S. Copyright Act, certain 
authorized organizations may make copies (or phonorecords) of 
previously published, non-dramatic literary works and certain 
instructional materials in specialized formats (braille, audio, or 
digital text) for the exclusive use of blind or other persons with 
disabilities without permission from the rightsholders. 
 
¶8. By all accounts, the U.S. intervention (which also was made 
promptly available to delegations) was very well received.  Group B 
incorporated the importance of national consultations into its 
statement on this agenda item.  In addition, delegates from Germany, 
France, Japan, and Australia personally thanked the USDEL for its 
hard work on this issue, noting that similar domestic consultations 
were needed in their countries.  In the plenary, SCCR Chairman Jukka 
Liedes (Finland) also noted that the US had done its homework for 
this meeting.  Liedes also noted that national consultations were 
underway in some countries in his conclusions for the meeting.  Even 
the delegate from Ecuador, a co-sponsor of the WBU treaty proposal 
thatis discussed more fully below, expressed its appreiation to 
the USDEL for the positive U.S. statemnt. 
 
WBU Proposal Tabled by Brazil 
----------------------------- 
¶9. On the fourth day of the sesion, the delegations of Brazil, 
Ecuador, and Parguay formally tabled a treaty proposal based on th 
proposal of the World Blind Union (WBU) that ha been circulating 
informally for many months.  With little surprise, the proposal 
attracted ready uport from developing and least developed 
countries, including statements made by the African group, GRULAC, 
and the Asian group and a number of delegations in these groups. 
Apparently concerned that the VIP treaty proposal could eclipse the 
full range of exceptions and limitations before the SCCR, some of 
these delegations stated that the Committee should work on 
exceptions and limitations within a "global and inclusive 
framework." Russia and China also supported the treaty proposal. 
 
¶10. In response, Group B, the EU, and the Central European and 
Baltic States received the proposal with interest as well as 
appropriate caution, and confirmed that they would take it home for 
further study.  Japan, Australia, Korea, Greece, the United States 
and a number of other member delegations also individually thanked 
the proponents of the proposal, with some noting that actual 
deliberations on the proposal at this time would be premature 
because Member States are still immesed in fact-finding and 
evaluation, and that, gien the diversity and complexity of the 
issues affecting accessibility for VIP, further study is needed. 
The full range of views on the treaty proposal is reflected in the 
Chair's conclusions with reasonable accuracy.  Group B did not 
object to discussing (as opposed to deliberating on) the treaty 
proposal at the 19th session, along with other potential solutions. 
The SCCR decided to continue discussions on the treaty and other 
proposals and contributions put forth by the Members at the 19th 
session, to give member states time to reflect on the best way to 
move forward. 
 
¶11. Unfortunately, certain activist NGOs (with Knowledge Ecology 
International perhaps taking the lead) were quick to take to the 
Internet with their spin on the meeting, and mischaracterized the 
actual positions taken by the US, the EU, Canada, and other 
delegations.  One particularly aggressive blog headline in 'The 
Huffington Post,' for example, noted that "Obama Joins Group to 
Block Treaty for Blind and Reading Disabilities."  To clarify the 
actual position of the US at the meeting, U.S. Mission in Geneva 
with the assistance of the USPTO and the Copyright Office prepared 
talking points for State and worked with the Disabilities Policy 
Office in the White House to prepare a press statement on the 
 
issue. 
 
Exceptions and Limitations Questionnaire 
---------------------------------------- 
¶12. There was a lengthy discussion in plenary on a proposed 
52-question questionnaire on exceptions and limitations prepared by 
the Secretariat for responses by SCCR member states to inform the 
Committee's future work in this area.  Chile (supported by a number 
of developing countries) intervened to expand the questionnaire to 
include additional topics, noting that a similar APEC questionnaire 
included more than 100 questions. Brazil proposed introducing 
questions that would require "analytic" answers, such as "Are 
exceptions and limitations sufficient in light of their underlying 
public policies?"  In response, the USDEL expressed a strong 
preference for an approach that was at once "concise" (not much more 
than 52 questions) but also allowed for "precise" responses (that 
is, giving member states with complex statutory provisions and case 
law the latitude to provide more information if needed to respond to 
the question).  Group B countries generally supported the 
"concise-precise" approach.  However, splitting the difference, 
Chairman Liedes noted in his conclusions for the meeting that the 
questionnaire will be expanded to include certain other topics, 
while Member States also will be allowed to submit additional 
information. 
 
Stakeholder Platform 
-------------------- 
¶13. For a number of months, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry and 
the WIPO Secretariat have conducted informal consultations among the 
principal VIP stakeholders (including blindness groups, publishers 
and other copyright owners, and NGOs) with a view toward identifying 
and facilitating practical solutions (such as encouraging the 
adoption of standardized accessible formats or building "trusted 
intermediary" relationships between VIP charities and publishers to 
encourage the production and secure distribution of content in 
accessible formats.  The Secretariat delivered an Interim Report on 
these discussions.  Gurry made clear at the opening plenary session 
that a stakeholders platform was not a substitute for an "enabling 
legal framework." At the same time, he noted that it is not the role 
of the Secretariat or the DG to propose or oppose a treaty, which is 
a decision of Member States.  At SCCR 17, the U.S. supported the 
stakeholder platform in principle and at SCCR 18, the U.S. 
reaffirmed its support of the process after reviewing and listening 
to the Interim Report. 
 
¶14. Egypt and a number of developing countries requested that the 
Secretariat "ensure" the effective participation of developing and 
least-developed countries in the stakeholder platform by making 
funding available for such participation. These countries also 
called for a stakeholder platform meeting to be held in a developing 
country.  The Chairman's summary requires the Secretariat to use 
"best efforts" to organize a platform meeting in a developing 
country. 
 
Protection of Audiovisual Performances 
-------------------------------------- 
¶15. There was wide support within the SCCR for continuing to work on 
an audiovisual performance treaty (AV Treaty) although no delegation 
was able to articulate a way forward.  The U.S. reaffirmed its 
commitment to the protection of audiovisual performers in their 
performances. However, the USDEL also stated that it was unaware of 
any narrowing of the wide differences on the issue of the transfer 
of exclusive rights from performers to producers, which resulted in 
the failure of the 2000 Diplomatic Conference on an AV Treaty. The 
Chair's conclusions simply state that the Committee reaffirmed its 
commitment to work on the AV Treaty. The Chair also stated that the 
Secretariat would prepare a background paper on the main outstanding 
issues and would organize informal, open-ended consultations in 
Geneva on possible solutions to the current deadlock. 
 
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations 
---------------------------------------- 
¶16. In advance of SCCR 18, the Secretariat organized an information 
session on recent developments in the broadcasting sector, including 
information on recent legal, business, and technological 
developments.  A number of speakers addressed the issue of signal 
theft. The United States restated its longstanding support for 
updating the 1961 Rome Convention for the protection of broadcasting 
organizations, while also restating its view that the prospect of 
successfully concluding such a treaty is remote because of the wide 
differences among the delegations on fundamental issues related to a 
possible new instrument. The USDEL carefully worded its intervention 
to avoid signaling any change in the direction of the U.S. position 
on the treaty (either forward or backward movement).  The Chairman's 
conclusions note that the Committee invited the Secretariat to 
continue organizing regional and national seminars on the draft 
treaty. 
 
Documents 
 
--------- 
¶17. Documents relating to the 18th SCCR meeting, including a 
Chairman's summary, are available at 
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp? 
meeting_id=17458. 
 
¶18.  Documents relating to the formal component of the United States 
consultation process with respect to accessibility for VIP are 
available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sccr/ 
 
STORELLA#