|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on Intellectual Property Issues (May26/05) WIPO: Broadcasting Treaty in continued deadlock; call to rethink copyright committee focus 24 May (TWN) — The Copyright Committee of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) meeting for its forty-eighth session, exposed deep substantive and procedural fault lines in the negotiations of a WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, raising serious questions about whether the process remains viable after more than twenty-five years of talks. WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR 48), meeting in Geneva from 18 to 22 May 2026, also had on its agenda consideration of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities; and other matters such as addressing topics including “Rights of Theatre Directors”, “Copyright in the Digital Environment” as well as considering proposals for various studies: ● Proposal for a Study on the Rights of Audiovisual Authors and their Payment Mechanisms for the Exploitation of their Works; ● Proposal for a Study on Copyright Protection of Technical Standards; ● Proposal for a Study on the Impact of the Creative Industries on the Economic Growth of Member States; ● Proposal for a Study on Types of Business Models and Economic Opportunities Created by and Through the Implementation of Technological Protection Measures (TPMs). The issue of enhanced and updated protection for broadcasting organizations concerning their programme-carrying signals has been on WIPO agenda since 1998. Far from demonstrating convergence, the session revealed continuing divisions on several core provisions particularly the right of fixation, protection for stored programme signals, and limitations and exceptions to be provided in the treaty. [The WIPO mandate was to prevent signal piracy, i.e. unauthorized retransmission of programme-carrying (broadcast) signals by updating existing agreements. However broadcasting organisations have pushed for expanded rights beyond traditional transmission to internet streaming platforms and beyond. This has blurred the distinction between protecting the signal itself and creating a new layer of control over the underlying copyrighted work such as films, music or journalistic work, potentially overriding existing copyright limitation and exceptions for education, personal use etc. In other words, this shift creates a "right of fixation," a new layer of intellectual property protection which allows broadcasting organizations to authorize or forbid the recording of their programme-carrying signals. Hence, this will force educators, libraries and researchers to obtain and pay for licenses just to record a broadcast for teaching or public interest research.] Prior to the adoption of the agenda, Brazil threw a warning shot. Expressing concern that other issues of greater relevance in the current digital age and for the development needs of developing countries were being sidelined, it suggested that the standing of the Broadcasting Treaty as part of the SCCR work programme needs to be rethought given that no consensus has been achieved. It called explicitly for the establishment of a standing agenda item on copyright in the digital environment. The Broadcasting Treaty seeks to protect broadcasting organizations by granting expansive exclusive rights to these organizations, with a list of narrow exceptions has long been championed by the European Union (EU) and Japan. The SCCR Chair, Peter Labody from Hungary, produced a revised draft text contained in document SCCR/48/3 for the consideration of the Committee. The Africa Group, in its opening statement, delivered the clearest political signal of the session. It stressed that any future referral of the Broadcasting Treaty to a Diplomatic Conference (to finalise negotiation and formally adopt a treaty) would be contingent on commensurate progress towards a legally binding instrument on limitations and exceptions (L&E) for libraries, archives, educational and research institutions, and persons with disabilities. The Africa Group and other developing countries including the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), Indonesia and Iran, also argued that the latest draft text departs from the WIPO General Assembly mandate to adopt a signal-based approach confined to traditional broadcasting organisations. Even developed countries remain divided, with the United States on one side and the EU and United Kingdom on the other, holding significantly different positions on the scope of the treaty. Civil society organisations, participating as observers, warned that the proposed text expands exclusive rights beyond what is necessary to address signal piracy, while failing to provide adequate protections for public interest use. The session also highlighted growing dissatisfaction with the drafting process itself. After eight revisions, many delegations and observers argued that the new Chair’s text continues to reproduce contested provisions without adequately reflecting the positions expressed by a significant part of the membership. The SCCR debate increasingly highlights the opportunity cost of continuing to prioritise broadcasting treaty negotiations that have failed to converge for over two decades, while progress on a legally binding instrument on L&E for libraries, archives, education, research, and persons with disabilities remains limited. This is despite the latter’s clear development relevance and the strong support it enjoys among developing countries, which constitute the majority of WIPO membership. Countries Question the Structural Balance of SCCR Work Programme & Broadcast Treaty Draft Text Prior to the formal adoption of the meeting agenda, Brazil intervened to register what it characterized as a structural imbalance in the SCCR's allocation of work. It observed that "more than half of the SCCR agenda is now dedicated to two specific standing items remnants of the pre-digital age" one of which, in its assessment, "has not moved in any direction for at least the last two decades." Against this, it noted that "new frontier developments of growing importance to Member States are maintained under other matters," producing, in its view, a subversion of the time that should be devoted to copyright and related rights in the digital environment. Brazil proposed that should the SCCR fail again to achieve consensus on the holding of a Diplomatic Conference to finalise the Broadcasting Treaty, the item should "be set aside and removed from the agenda and programme of work of this Committee" with time reassigned to substantive digital environment and artificial intelligence (AI) discussions. Brazil reaffirmed its support for continuing work on L&E, characterising it as "a major element of WIPO's Development Agenda" and "an instrument inherent to the intellectual property (IP) system available to developing countries in their quest to balance IP, the public interest and sustainable development objectives". It also drew the Committee's attention to GRULAC's proposal on copyright in the digital environment (document SCCR/47/7) and expressed support for the Indonesian elements paper (SCCR/48/4) on the same subject, describing both as evidence of "a clear cross-regional interest in a topic of utmost relevance for the global creative community". Brazil called explicitly for the establishment of a standing agenda item on copyright in the digital environment. The Chair took note of Brazil's concerns without engaging on them substantively and proceeded to the adoption of the agenda, indicating that the digital environment discussion could be raised under "other matters". South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group, said that the SCCR session should address the General Assembly mandates equally: the mandate to conclude a signal-based treaty on traditional broadcasting organisations, and the mandate to advance work toward an international legal instrument on L&E. It further said that for the Africa Group "these two processes should advance in tandem" and called for "a new resolve in advancing an instrument on limitations and exceptions so that it may be considered on an equal footing with the broadcasting treaty". The Africa Group reiterated its support for a treaty "strictly limited to addressing the problem of signal theft affecting traditional broadcasters and not extending to post-fixation activities" while expressing “deep concern" that "discussions in this Committee including the specific objectives of particular provisions raised by our group and other Delegations are not reflected in the Chair's draft." It added that "Our support for continuing to spend time discussing the broadcasting treaty is contingent on those discussions being reflected in the drafts that the Chair produces". The Africa Group also set out a comprehensive list of unresolved concerns. It opposed the inclusion of Article 8, which extends protection to signals used in making available to the public, of stored programmes, and raised questions regarding right of fixation( Article 7). The Group further observed that remuneration systems for retransmission (Article 6.2) are currently available only to countries with existing schemes; a restriction the Group characterised as inequitable and inconsistent, and needs to be a flexibility provided to all Contracting Parties similar to Article 11.2 in Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (adopted in 2012 and entered into force in 2020). The Africa Group further challenged the definition of ‘broadcasting organisation’ in the current text, contending that under the proposed definition “non-traditional entities such as online platforms can occasionally transmit live sports or other content in linear flow could be protected”, an outcome inconsistent with the treaty's mandate to protect broadcasting organisations ‘in the traditional sense.’ It called for a shift from an opt-out (Article 3.6) to an opt-in mechanism for organisations that transmit exclusively over computer networks, characterising such entities as not constituting traditional broadcasters and thus should not be covered by default under the treaty. On L&E for the Broadcasting Treaty, the Africa Group was unequivocal – that L&E provisions in Article 11 must be mandatory, not permissive. It concluded with a process demand; the current text is not ready for referral to a Diplomatic Conference, making clear that the “broadcast treaty must advance in parallel with an instrument on limitations and exceptions with a view to finalize both instruments concurrently”. El Salvador, on behalf of GRULAC, situated its opening statement within a development-oriented framework that emphasised the systemic importance of L&E flexibilities. GRULAC stated that L&E are “essential for developing countries and for ensuring that the system responds to the needs of the public and the institutions that serve them”. On the Broadcasting Treaty agenda item, the Group called for clarity on the objectives and scope of protection before any Diplomatic Conference could be contemplated. GRULAC also proposed a work-plan on copyright in a digital environment, which it said does not seek to establish binding norms but instead aims "to structure the Committee's work on the challenges and opportunities presented by emerging technologies including AI", adding that the outcome it expected was "the development of a good practices guide on the appropriate use of works, performances, phonograms and broadcasts in generative AI systems, contractual transparency and fair remuneration". GRULAC also expressed its interest in having copyright in the digital environment "considered under the substantive agenda of the SCCR" rather than under the residual "other matters" category. Indonesia, enumerated specific constraints that a mandate-compliant treaty must satisfy: it should preserve limitations and exceptions, respect national policy space, avoid “unintended overlap with copyrights and related rights in underlying content”. The delegation's emphasis on “national regulatory sovereignty, particularly for developing countries,” underscored the persistent concern that a rights-based expansion of the treaty's scope would disproportionately constrain the domestic policy space of Member States whose broadcasting and legal frameworks differ materially from those of industrialised nations. Iran invoked the 2006 WIPO General Assembly decision that the treaty “should be confined to the broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense and follow a signal-based approach”, characterising the inclusion of out-of-mandate provisions as “one of the principal reasons that this Committee has been unable to make progress for so many years”. It called for a disciplined approach to the text: proposals consistent with the mandate should be retained; proposals that go beyond it should be set aside. Iran further identified three substantive concerns. On definitions, it stressed the need to “preserve adequate policy space for Member States.” On the independence of protection from the copyrightability of carried content, it characterised this as a “sound principle faithful to the mandate" that "should be preserved without dilution”. On limitations and exceptions, which Iran situated within the contexts of education, scientific research, cultural exchange, and access to information, the delegation called explicitly for strengthening, not narrowing, of the relevant provisions. Developed Countries: Divided on What Broadcasting Treaty Mandate Permits The United States, while formally aligned with the signal-based mandate, used its intervention to press for a significant further narrowing of the Broadcasting Treaty draft text. Expressing disappointment that the draft text (SCCR/48/3) retains "post-fixation articles", specifically the right of fixation and protections related to making available to the public of stored programmes, the US characterised these provisions as exceeding the General Assembly mandate and proposed reducing the scope of rights to “a single exclusive right to authorize simultaneous retransmissions to the public of their linear broadcast signals,” describing this “single right approach” as the optimal instrument for addressing signal piracy. Notably, the US also noted that there is “interest among many Member States for a text that has far narrower applicability than it currently proposes”. Canada urged SCCR to “focus its efforts on issues where there is presently consensus and to set aside issues where further consensus is at least for now impossible,” noting that negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty have continued for more than twenty-five years. It added there are "increasingly clear limits on Member State consensus on certain issues," stressing that post-fixation articles cannot achieve consensus. In contrast, the United Kingdom intervened in support of a Broadcasting Treaty with a broader scope including:
Japan emphasised that the protection of broadcasting organisations “should be given the top priority over other agenda items” within the SCCR, and called for “broad consensus among Member States” and “flexibility to accommodate different national circumstances,” without specifying a position on the contested provisions. Civil Society: Structural Concerns on Public Domain, Library Access and Process Civil society organisations (CSOs) were critical of the direction of SCCR/48/3, with multiple CSOs identifying Articles 7, 8, and 11 as unresolved; and, in the assessment of some observers, unresolvable disagreement. Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) observed that existing treaties already include provisions on technical protection measures and digital rights management, and that broadcasters in the digital environment already deploy passwords and encryption as operational tools. Against this backdrop, KEI argued that the push for post-fixation rights reflects a demand by broadcasters to assert claims “over material that they didn't create, didn't license, didn't enumerate, even if it's infringing”, adding that the approach can only be understood as expanding rights well beyond what signal piracy requires. Communia International Association observed that after eight drafting iterations, the draft text still does not “adequately reflect the needs of access to knowledge,” despite consistent calls from multiple delegations for such amendments. It noted that broadcast signals “routinely contain public domain material” and that, without a clear safeguard, broadcasting organisations could place “new layers of exclusivity over material that already belongs to the public.” It added that broadcasters must not be granted “broader rights over signals than creators have over the content carried by the signals,” and the rights-based approach must at minimum ensure that “the same mandatory exceptions that already exist for copyrighted works apply to the signals”. Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) which works with library consortia in developing and transition economy countries, identified three articles as requiring substantive revision. In its submission, EIFL specified that right of fixation (Article 7), protection of signals used in the making available to the public of stored programmes (Article 8), and limitations and exceptions (Article 11), in their current form, “affect access by libraries to the underlying broadcast content” and “risk restricting use of the material by public institutions for social, educational and public interest purpose, even when those uses are permitted by copyright”. The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) stressed that “There is a fundamental disagreement in the room on those three Articles and unless there is some way to get past that basic disagreement, there doesn't seem to be any way that a Diplomatic Conference can be achieved and a Treaty agreed to by this body”. It raised the issue of drafting accountability, stating that “every time the facilitator comes up with a new draft, those Articles remain the same”, questioning whether the iterative process of textual revision is functionally incorporating the positions of Member States and observers who have called for changes to the contested provisions. The Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights characterised the most recent draft text as “essentially pretty much exactly the same.... on all the major issues”, questioning responsiveness of the drafting process to the expressed positions of a significant portion of the membership. The South Centre, speaking in its capacity as an intergovernmental organisation representing developing countries, expressed concern that the draft text “remains contested on fundamental points and expands beyond the agreed mandate under the approach of expanding exclusive rights of broadcasters with narrow limitations and exceptions”. Following the plenary statements on 18th May, the Chair announced a transition to informal consultations on the Broadcasting Treaty in a restricted configuration (group coordinators plus five delegations per group).
|
||
