TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Jul26/02)
14 July 2026
Third World Network 

WIPO: Developing countries call for text-based negotiations on copyright exceptions and limitations

Geneva, 14 July (TWN) – Developing countries call for the initiation of text-based negotiation on copyright limitations and exceptions during the adoption of the report of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), at the 68^th session of Assemblies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The 68th series of meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO is taking place from 7 to 15 July at the WIPO headquarters, Geneva in a hybrid mode.

Introducing document WO/GA/60/3, WIPO Deputy-Director General Sylvie Forbin (Copyright and Creative Industry Sector) described the SCCR as caught in "a paradoxical situation," its twice-yearly week dominated "for two-thirds of its time" by two long-standing items. These are the draft broadcasting treaty and copyright limitations and exceptions (L&E), even as Member States press the Committee to take up digital and artificial intelligence questions.

On the treaty, in her final report before retiring after ten years, Forbin observed that "after more than 27 years of discussions without successful conclusion," it was "time to take stock." On L&E she reported that "the toolkit-based approach has prevailed," a formulation that itself records the distance between the mandate and the outcome.

The positions among Member States were more starkly divided on L&E, with such division mapoing along development lines. The 2012 General Assemblies mandate directs the SCCR toward "an appropriate international legal instrument or instruments" on exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.

The Africa Group, through South Africa, said that “14 years have passed since the mandate of the General Assemblies and the SCCR has not yet reached an agreement to begin text-based work,” that its own proposal "contains substantive text which could be a baseline for norm setting negotiations," and it implored the Assemblies to intervene accordingly.

The Group stated the protection of broadcasting organization is an important issue, “considering the important role of broadcasters in transmitting information and knowledge.” Therefore, the Group gave its reassurance to “engage constructively under the methodology proposed to finalize the work of this Committee and achieve a text with greater consensus on the protection of broadcasting organizations.” However, they asked that the “…text of the broadcasting treaty should be balanced and take into consideration the interests of various stakeholders while remaining true to the mandate as envisaged by the General Assembly.”

The Group said that they look “…forward to an instrument which ensures the protection of broadcasters against piracy of the signals while guaranteeing access to knowledge and information for the benefit of society.”

Egypt called the Africa Group proposal “the best way of living up to the mandate given by the Assemblies of 2012.”

On the subject of copyright L&E, the Africa Group stated that a binding treaty “… is essential to the promotion of information flow for public interest purposes, including cultural exchanges as well as education and research. In this regard, an appropriately designed instrument on limitation and exception would significantly alleviate the needs of people around the world who still lack basic access to books and other educational materials. … the WIPO General Assembly acknowledged in 2012 the desirability for norm setting work on L&Es with special focus on limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. To date, the SCCR has not reached an agreement to begin the text work in this critical area.”

The Africa Group said that the Group’s proposal contains substantive text which could be a baseline for norm setting negotiations, stressing that it is a comprehensive proposal.

China supporting both the agenda items stated that it continues “to conduct work on the protection of broadcasting organizations restrictions and exceptions and other items so that consensus can be arrived at an early date…”  At the same time, China stated that it has also been “proactive in promoting discussion on the restrictions and exceptions and so as to enter the discussion on substance.”

GRULAC, through El Salvador, emphasized that flexibilities are "fundamental for developing countries." The Group stated: “With regard to discussions on limitations and exceptions, we welcome the proposals aimed at strengthening flexibilities which are fundamental for developing countries and essential in ensuring a system that responds to the needs of the population and the institutions that serve them. We believe that limitations and exceptions for preservation, education and for the benefit of persons with other disabilities are essential to ensure that the copyright system maintains an appropriate balance between protection and access”.

GRULAC has contributed to the debate on the digital environment through a proposal for a work plan which does not seek to establish binding norms but rather to address in a structured manner the challenges and opportunities posed by emerging technologies.

Iran said that for developing countries “effective limitations and exceptions are not merely legal mechanisms. Developing this international legal instrument is not an option but an obligation.” Hence, it welcomed the Chair’s preparation of the informal document on limitation and exception treaty and hoped that it will “…open the door to genuine text-based negotiation at the 49th session, not another cycle of general exchanges.”

However Iran also strongly stated that, “Toolkits and technical assistance, valuable as they are, … do not discharge the mandate this Assembly assigned”. Further on the broadcasting treaty, Iran joined the growing developing country voice that the treaty is for signal-based treaty in its traditional sense and “protocols that exceed this mandate have been and remain the principal obstacle to progress after more than two decades”.

Iran also supported updating the mandate of the committee and stated that “copyright in the digital environment cannot, can no longer be treated as a marginal or occasional subject. The digital environment is now the principal operating environment for the creation, distribution and exploitation of copyrighted works. Persistent digital divides, unequal technical capabilities and disparities in access to knowledge require international solutions that fully reflect the needs and priorities of developing countries.”

Brazil lent its support to bring in the call for change in the agenda and highlighted “the importance of the digital environment as the main theatre where disputes over copyright and related rights will play out in the future and indeed are already playing out. At this point, the debate over issues such as transparency and fairness in the digital distribution of works and on its exploitation by artificial intelligence models has become the main theme of the committee …”

Botswana stating that “a balanced copyright system promotes innovation rather than weakened copyright,” called for “…progress towards international legal instruments on limitations and exceptions covering libraries, archives, museums, education, research institutions and people with disabilities.” Highlighting the importance of the L&E treaty it stated that the treaty “… directly affect access to educational materials and preservation of cultural heritage in Developing Countries.” Botswana also lent its support for a broadcasting as long as the treaty remains signal-based.

Namibia stated that an “…effective limitations and exceptions are indispensable to a legitimate copyright ecosystem which is critical in addressing persistent gaps in access to education and learning materials which support innovation and which enables meaningful participation in the knowledge economy.” It supported to the Africa Group proposal and advocated for “…the transition of these discussions to a text-based negotiations aimed at concluding international legal instrument on limitations and exceptions to copyright…” and towards this end the Group’s proposal “…offers a structured pathway to what’s the finalization and adoption of an appropriate international legal instrument or instrument”.

India reiterated its position that “protection under the proposed Treaty should apply only where the broadcasting organizations has obtained the necessary authorization to transmit the copyrighted content carried in a program carrying signal.” In other words, differentiating the copyright on content away from the protection of signal, as two distinct systems.

India further advocated that the treaty “… should preserve adequate flexibility for Member States to implement its provisions in accordance with their domestic legal frameworks, national priorities and development objectives. Such flexibility is essential to maintain an appropriate balance between the interests of broadcasters, copyright owners, related right holders, users and the wide public interest.” It further recognized the that a “balanced copyright framework should facilitate access to knowledge, education, research and culture while ensuring effective protection of the legitimate rights of creators and right holders.”

The developed countries rejected any binding L&E instrument. Group B (though Germany), the Central European and Baltic States group, the European Union, Japan and the United States held that the existing international framework already affords sufficient flexibility.

The United States "does not support further binding norm setting activity at the international level for exceptions and limitations and likewise opposes any text-based discussions." It also opposed the draft text of the Broadcasting Treaty, stating: “the text of the current draft instrument exceeds the General Assemblies mandate by including articles that would grant broadcasters the right of fixation and protect their signals used in making available to the public of stored programs. These post-fixation rights would interfere with copyrights and related rights of audiovisual content producers disrupting long-standing contractual practices in the television broadcasting industry and impede otherwise permissible public uses of previously broadcasted content. We have therefore repeatedly requested removal of these post-fixation articles from the instrument text”.

The EU said it "cannot support work towards legally binding instrument," preferring "capacity building" and "possible nonbinding instruments."

The observer International Authors Forum, quoting a South African author, said "authors across the African continent do not support expanded exceptions and limitations," and the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations said, "there is no need to consider new binding norms," licensing being "one of the most effective enablers of access."

However, it must not be forgotten that the now-developed economies that today resist an instrument with binding exceptions themselves built their educational and cultural capacity, historically, on expansive copying and comparatively weak protection, a developmental sequence that the sufficiency-of-the-existing-framework position does not address.

Third World Network (TWN)’s statement tracked the treaty text article by article. Article 7's right of fixation, it said, "would require educators, libraries and researchers to license a broadcast merely to record it for the public interest use". Article 8 "extends protection to stored program signals made available online, drifting towards control of on-demand content"; and Article 11's exceptions "remain permissive rather than mandatory, leaving the public interest safeguards optional."

TWN added that the definition of "broadcasting organization" risks capturing online platforms that only occasionally stream live content, and that the draft "would let broadcasters claim rights over materials they neither created nor licensed, including public domain content." It is to be noted that the revised texts prepared for the 47th and 48th SCCR sessions "carried only minimal changes and retained Articles 7 and 8, so the specific textual concerns of the African Group and other developing countries were not reflected," and on that basis "cautions against recommending a Diplomatic Conference."

The negotiating record supports the reading that TWN's mandate objection is not an isolated civil society position but the stated concern of a substantial bloc.

The Islamic Republic of Iran said the 2006 and 2007 mandates "call for a signal-based treaty limited to broadcasting organization in the traditional sense," and that "protocols that exceed this mandate have been and remain the principal obstacle to progress after more than two decades."

The United States, coming from a different vantage point, said the current draft "exceeds the General Assemblies mandate by including articles that would grant broadcasters the right of fixation and protect their signals used in making available to the public of stored programs," that these "post-fixation rights would interfere with copyrights and related rights of audiovisual content producers," and that it had "repeatedly requested removal of these post-fixation articles."

Mexico said protection should be "focused exclusively on signal protection."

India said the treaty should protect "only lawful broadcasts" where the broadcaster "has obtained the necessary authorization."

Botswana and Zambia both insisted that the instrument remain "signal-based" and avoid "creating unnecessary new rights over the underlying content."

The observer Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) put the blockage plainly: "the broadcasters want to own something they do not create, license, or pay for," and if they will not accept a treaty confined to signal theft, "then the subject should be removed from the SCCR agenda." KEI also recorded that the revised text "does not have a single bracket despite the large differences among negotiators and the whole negotiation is taking place in secret."