IPA Blogs

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.

The WIPO SCCR meets twice a year. But what is WIPO? Who is Darren Tang? IPA will be posting daily blogs from the marathon five-day meeting. Acronyms will be flying. You can read our jargon-buster below. What can you expect from next week’s meeting?

  1. Politics: With 191 Member States, this is international multilateral diplomacy at its finest. And slowest. The agenda has been virtually static for some time and what constitutes ‘progress’ can be difficult to discern for unseasoned WIPO-watchers. Developed and developing nations have differing agendas when it comes to many aspects of IP policy and so there is always horse-trading. Draft Action Plans (DAPs) have been recently presented well ahead of the meeting so progress is possible but is it in the direction we hoped for?
  2. Broadcasting: Point 1 on the agenda (as it has been for some time), the Broadcasting Treaty proposal was launched way back in 1996. A diplomatic conference to finalise the treaty is starting to look like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. IPA believes that concluding discussions on the Broadcasting Treaty would be a good thing if other Creative Sector Organisations (CSOs) concerns can be ironed out. 
  3. Exceptions and Limitations (Es and Ls): Discussions on Es and Ls are three-pronged in nature: libraries and archives, educational uses, museums. The potential impact on the livelihood of publishers (as demonstrated by what happened in 2012 in Canada) is huge. It is vital that the international publishing community has a voice in this forum to defend copyright as the foundation of the industry and efficient affordable licensing as the solution to many of the needs in both developed and developing Member States.

Our first WIPO blog will be out on Monday evening. You can refresh your memory of what happened last time here.



The acronyms

WIPO: The World Intellectual Property Organisation. A self-funded agency of the United Nations with 191 Member States (MS) dealing with all types of largely intellectual property (IP). Most of the self-funding comes from income from the registration of international patents. Its work on copyright is mainly normative (i.e. treaty making) but also includes the guided development of national law. The Berne Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the Marrakesh Treaty are examples of WIPO instruments.

SCCR: The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which meets twice a year, usually in May and November,  for 5-day meetings.

Es and Ls: Exceptions and Limitations (to copyright), currently a standing agenda item of the SCCR.

CSO: Creative Sector Organisations – a loose grouping of organisations from the publishing, music and film and other sectors, coordinated by the IPA.

ABC: The Accessible Books Consortium. A formal stakeholder platform primarily financed by WIPO to develop the availability of published works in accessible formats around the world. The board consists of representatives of copyright holders and print disabled communities. IPA is an active and founding participant.

Other WIPO committees are the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Rights (CDIP), Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual Property (IP) and Genetic Resources (GR), Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (TK), which also encompasses Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE), as well as the Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) and the Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS).


The people

Francis Gurry: WIPO Director General (DG) since October 2008. Worked for over 20 years in the WIPO secretariat before becoming DG.

Sylvie Forbin: WIPO Deputy Director General (DDG) since 2016. Her early career was as a French diplomat. She joined WIPO after 15 years as Senior Vice President for Public and European Affairs for Vivendi.

Darren Tang: Chairman of the SCCR, CEO of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore.


The WIPO groups

WIPO Member States are also organised into groupings (either regional or economic):

  • Africa Group 
  • Asia-Pacific Group (APG)
  • Central Asian, Caucasus and Eastern European Countries Group (CACEEC)
  • Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS)
  • Group B (Developed countries (including North America, Western Europe, Autralia New Zealand, Japan, Turkey and Israel), so-called because they use meeting room B).
  • Latin American and Caribbean Countries Group (GRULAC)


The jargon

The Broadcasting Treaty: Negotiations started in 1996 (following adoption of the WIPO Internet Treaties) to protect broadcasters signals in the light of new technologies. Over two decades later discussions are ongoing.

Informals: Off-site meetings used to resolve points of contention (e.g. language in a proposed text) away from the stiffness of the plenary chamber. They take place in a separate chamber on the WIPO campus and are strictly for country delegations only. NGOs are not invited, but can follow the audio feed from the plenary chamber provided they do not report publicly what is said.

Side-events: Events and presentations organised by groups or stakeholders during the breaks around the official SCCR agenda.

Last modified on Continue reading

The uncensored book fair of Iranian independent publishers

Every year, early in May, Iranian publishers have the busiest time of the year with the Tehran International Book Fair being held for a period of ten days in the capital. All publishers - except those who have been banned due to previous violations - gather from across the country. 

Last modified on Continue reading

At this year’s Leipzig Book Fair, IPA’s Freedom to Publish Committee chairman, Kristenn Einarsson, joined Hungarian publisher and IPA 2018 Prix Voltaire nominee, Tamas Miklos, as well as German publisher Christoph Links to discuss Europe and Freedom of Expression. Freedom to Publish was a visible issue at the Congress with the Börsenverein promoting its “Für das Wort und die Freiheit” campaign and putting a giant #FreeGuiMinhai hashtag on the central staircase.


While the conversation didn’t stop at the borders of Europe it was interesting to hear that some freedom to publish challenges are closer to home than many Europeans think.

Last modified on Continue reading

Why should publishers care? A group of outstanding speakers tried to answer this question during the session I had the honour to chair on “Social Responsibility of Publishers”.

Last modified on Continue reading

I had the honour to chair a session on the second day of the Congress entitled : " Creating readers of the future". My panelists came from diverse backgrounds and represented almost half of the global publishing industry. All of them experts in the children's book market, I was curious to know whether children in Brazil had better access to books than children in China or India or vice versa. 

Last modified on Continue reading

The final day of the Congress started with a detailed look at 'Book Markets in India'. Emma House, Deputy CEO of the PA UK, spoke about the size and importance of each publishing sector and the variety of languages (India has 22 official languages but Hindi and English make up 90% of publications). André Breedt of Nielsen noted, educational publishing dominates the Indian market. Local publisher Himanshu Gupta (S Chand) claimed that Indian publishers are embracing digital as an enabler for hybrid learning. He was supported by Vikas Gupta of Wiley, who called on publishers to become platforms for smart digital content.

Last modified on Continue reading

After yesterday's intense high-level discussions about the future of publishing, copyright and freedom to publish, the second day began with a series of panels about the nitty gritty of publishing and finished with an emotional roller coaster and two standing ovations.

Last modified on Continue reading

Today was the first day of the 32nd edition of the International Publishers Congress, and this year it is hosted in New Delhi, India. The agenda of the congress is a promising agenda with a long list of panels on all important matters to publishers of this day, with sessions on the future of publishing, copyrights, CSR, and so much more. There is a lot of learning to be gained in such a conference, but here are my 5 highlight lessons from today's sessions.

  1. The publishing industry seems to shift interest every decade. In the 90s the focus was on marketing and sales, in the 00s the focus shifted to logistics and business development. However, one can only hope for the new shift in this decade to be towards authorship and better management of intellectual property. 
  2. Whereas IQ was developed as a concept to measure human's intelligence, and then EQ was formed as a way to measure emotional intelligence. Nowadays as publishers, we need to cultivate CQ, Cultural Intelligence, to learn about the differences and similarities between cultures and religions in a globalized and diversified economy like ours today.
  3. The future of publishing will not rely only on a great content curation but will also require strong analytical skills to understand our readers and what works.
  4. In the digital age we're in, the 5 biggest content publishers are no longer book publishers, but rather the tech platforms: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. And with them operating a completely different business model that doesn't rely on intellectual property(IP), the only way we can protect our IP is by talking with them directly about it rather than debating among ourselves how will we protect it from them.
  5. The new digital platforms are a product the new world economy with a whole new business model that doesn't come with a legacy that weighs them down as would be the case for traditional analog businesses that are trying to adapt to the new economy. 
Last modified on Continue reading

A full 26 years after the previous IPA Congress in New Delhi, we're back with a great programme. This will be the first of our daily blogs over the next 3 days.

The day started with a traditional candle lighting ceremony, before the Minister for Science and Technology, Dr Harsh Vardhan, arrived to launch the day's proceedings. IPA President Michiel Kolman gave a keynote address where he called on the publishing industry to stop being defensive and to shout about the industry's many successes, sentiments that were echoed by FIP President, NK Mehra.

Last modified on Continue reading


Just 4 days to go until the beginning of this year’s International Publishers Congress, back in New Delhi after a 26-year break.

The full programme is now online and is packed with interesting discussions on all aspects of the publishing industry. 

Last modified on Continue reading

Just recently, one year after being elected Vice-President of IPA, I was pleased to celebrate another IPA General Assembly during the Frankfurt Book Fair. Read the annual report here.

This has allowed me to reflect upon my exciting first year as Vice-President, where I had the opportunity to see firsthand and to collaborate in all the work we do on behalf of publishers around the world. 

While supporting Michiel Kolman’s presidency, I had the chance of travelling to many different cities and visit our member publishers all over the world. Michiel did of course his own share of traveling, visiting, among other places, the USA, China, Japan, the UAE, Russia and many European countries. At the same time, our Secretary General, José Borghino, supported both of us also doing a lot of travel, visiting among many other places, Canada, Argentina, Georgia, China, Korea, the USA, many European cities and most recently my home country of Mexico.

This way we were able, between the three of us, to represent IPA and defend publisher’s interests in many places and events throughout the year. As ever before, our main pillars are protection of copyright and promotion of freedom to publish.

Our collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is highly important. Throughout the year, I visited IPA’s and WIPO’s offices in Geneva on two occasions and in addition represented IPA at three Latin-American WIPO workshops, held in Mexico City, San José, Costa Rica and Bogotá, Colombia. At all of them I spoke to different regional authorities about the importance of copyright and the risks of introducing broader copyright exceptions.

The Costa Rica workshop was for awareness building of the Marrakesh Treaty, where I had a chance of interacting with people from the blind and visually impaired (VIP) community and learn from them. Among many other things, I learned that less than 10% of the world’s published works are accessible for VIP. There is a very important opportunity for us as publishers, to help change that through the Accessible Books Consortium, a WIPO initiative where IPA and other NGOs participate actively. We can and we should make a difference for millions of VIP around the world. As our former president, YS Chi, has said: ‘Publishing in accessible formats is not just a moral decision, but a good business decision overall.’  

In November I had the chance of participating in a large IPA delegation that attended WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) meeting in Geneva. We had very productive meetings with country ambassadors to Geneva and their representatives, with WIPO officials and with representatives of other creative sectors NGOs. In these days when copyright is being constantly challenged, IPA’s strong presence at such meetings is fundamental, because it allows us to explain the importance of a robust copyright system that fosters and protects the creation of new and innovative works.

Bogotá and Lima were very early on the travel schedule for me, and I was able to talk to our members there, the Cámara Colombiana del Libro and the Cámara Peruana del Libro, to discuss the work they are doing on the ground on behalf of their members and how IPA could be of help.  

Later during the year, I visited New Delhi and enjoyed the hospitality of our colleagues at the Federation of Indian Publishers, while discussing preparations for our IPA Congress in February 2018, about which I am really excited. I also visited the facilities of our magnificent venue hotel, the Taj Diplomatic Enclave. I learned many things about India, including that it is a country with rich cultural traditions and ancestry and, at the same time, the fastest growing economy in the G-20. 

During this visit, I also went to Dhaka, where I was able to see firsthand all the work done by our new full member, the Academic and Creative Publishers Association of Bangladesh. Together with the executive committee of ACPAB, we had a very constructive conversation with Bangladeshi Minister of Cultural Affairs, Asaduzzaman Noor, especially about freedom to publish. 

I had the opportunity of participating in very fruitful meetings between IPA’s and FEP’s leadership in Brussels and in Geneva, as well as visiting the offices of our German member, the Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels, in Frankfurt.   

There were many book fairs on my itinerary during this year. London, Buenos Aires, Göteborg, Madrid, Frankfurt and Guadalajara, where I had meetings with different IPA members to strengthen our ties and to discuss ways of collaboration.  

In London we had meetings of all IPA committees and there was the highly interesting Charles Clark Lecture on copyright which the IPA co-sponsors. In Buenos Aires our Secretary General and I had meetings with our member, the Cámara Argentina del Libro, as well as with the other Argentinian publishers association, the Cámara Argentina de Publicaciones. We also met with the Argentinian Minister of Culture, Pablo Avelluto, who used to work as a publisher at Planeta and Random House Mondadori. And finally, with the untiring help of our ex-President Ana María Cabanellas, we organised a meeting of the Educational Publishers Forum (EPF) for Latin America.  

As we all know, in many counties there are still severe restrictions on freedom to publish. For example, since the failed coup in Turkey in 2016, 29 publishing houses have been closed and their assets seized by the government. Their books were prohibited from sale in bookstores and schools. There are currently 157 journalists in prison, out of which 32 are also writers and publishers. Because of this, IPA awarded this year’s Prix Voltaire jointly to two courageous major figures of this drama. At the Göteborg Book Fair I had the privilege to present, together with the Chair of our Freedom to Publish Committee, the unstoppable Kristenn Einarsson, the Prix Voltaire to the Turkish writer and editor, Turhan Günay (through his daughter, Elif) and to Cavit Nacitarhan, Editor in Chief of Evrensel Publishing House of Turkey. 

In November I welcomed our Secretary General to Mexico City to have meetings with the Mexican PA, the head of the Mexican IP office and the President of PEN International. After that we attended the Guadalajara Book Fair together, where we participated in a meeting of the Grupo Iberoamericano de Editores (an IPA member and the peak body for Latin American and Iberian publishers) and again of the EPF Latin America.  

One of the amazing things about IPA is that we can always find common ground and opportunities for collaboration. The next chance to network and engage in productive dialogue with fellow publishers from around the world will be IPA’s International Publishers Congress in New Delhi, from 10-14 February 2018. Come and join us!


Last modified on Continue reading

Apart from conducting meetings all week with delegates of Members States, the IPA team has also been busy meeting with the Genevan Ambassadors of key countries. Sometimes we do so to thank them for their support and at other times we do so to quiz them about their positions when they undermine their own local publishers and creators. It’s always good to let our allies know that we appreciate them, and it’s equally important to let the other side know that we are listening to what they say and that, if we disagree, we are always ready and willing to explain our own positions.

Meanwhile, back at WIPO, the morning’s session kicked off with a discussion about a possible new agenda item for future SCCR meetings: resale right for visual artists, otherwise known as ‘droit de suite’. Resale right already exists in a number of jurisdictions and in places like Australia it works quite well. If resale right were to make its way onto the main SCCR agenda it would be a welcome change since it is a topic that expands creators’ rights in contrast to the insistent discussions around exceptions and limitations to copyright law which we have had to endure for some years. The discussion this morning revolved around a presentation by Professor Joelle Farchy on the report Economic Implications of the Resale Right, which she co-authored with Professor Kathryn Graddy and which concluded that artists were, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly in favour of implementing resale right internationally. In the end, the Member States decided to continue to discuss this topic but keep it under the ‘other matters’ rubric rather than the main agenda.

Also discussed today was a Scoping Study on the Impact of the Digital Environment on Copyright Legislation Adopted between 2006 and 2016 authored by Dr Guilda Rostama, as well as Professor Jane Ginsburg’s summary of a brainstorming exercise between copyright academics conducted at WIPO in April around the topic of the application of copyright in the digital environment. These developments surely point to a growing interest and imperative at SCCR to focus on the effects of the digital economy on the workings of copyright, although some Member States pointed out that the topic as proposed by the GRULAC Group (Latin American and Caribbean countries) goes beyond the scope of copyright protection.

A number of other topics were wrapped up in the last few hours of the day and the Chair’s Summary (usually requiring a painful and protracted negotiation) was accepted relatively easily. We were liberated from SCCR 35 just after 19:00 and we walked out of WIPO into a dark and cold Geneva night, tired but satisfied that some progress had been made on the Broadcasting Treaty but no damage had been done on the exceptions and limitations part of the agenda.

As a codicil, the rhetoric of the meeting swerved when some NGOs began talking about the economic success of nations that had supposedly more ‘flexible’ copyright regimes. Many of us from the Creative Sector Organisations heard in this rhetoric echoes of tech giants pushing for US-style ‘Fair Use’ — arguments that the IPA has consistently countered. At the end of the SCCR, it was good to receive a rebuttal, by Dr George Ford of the Phoenix Center in Washington DC, of one of the studies presented at the meeting which was attempting to indicate a link between ‘open exceptions’ and innovation.



Last modified on Continue reading
Tagged in: Copyright WIPO

On a grey and gloomy Genevan winter’s day, the IPA team plus our Creative Sector colleagues trooped into early morning meetings first with the Africa Group of WIPO Members States and then with GRULAC (the Latin American and Caribbean countries group). We explained our consistent position on the exceptions and limitations debate: namely that the current copyright framework already provides adequate flexibility and balance to allow for well-crafted national laws, and therefore no international instrument is required.

We understand that the Member States asking for broader exceptions are doing so because of the perceived gap between the resources available in developing countries and those available in developed countries, but, we argued, governments in developing countries should note the exceptions and limitations regimes that already operate every well in comparable countries and begin to modify them for their own local fit. Furthermore, we advocate that all governments work as closely as possible with educational publishers, treating us as key stakeholders in the creation of well-educated people, rather than threatening publishers’ business models by weakening copyright.

Back at the WIPO Conference Room, Daniel Seng from Singapore updated the SCCR on his gargantuan study on copyright limitations and exceptions for educational activities. In brief, like the Crews study yesterday, Seng’s work shows that there is already a plethora of national exceptions and limitations that work at a national level, obviating the need for a new international WIPO treaty in the education sector.

Glenn Rollans, current president of the IPA member the Association of Canadian Publishers, was present at the SCCR meeting representing the Canadian Copyright Institute and made a telling intervention about the language of ‘balance’ that is often used in copyright debates:

‘Thank you for the opportunity to make this written intervention. I represent the Canadian Copyright Institute, which has a mandate to inform Canadians on copyright issues.

I want to briefly address the vocabulary of the SCCR’s discussion of limitations and exceptions. Most participants in the discussion have emphasized their preference for a ‘balanced’ approach to copyright. I have sometimes used this language myself. After all, who can object to balance?

We should note, however, that this language is now commonly used to suggest that the best approach to copyright balances the interests of the creators of copyright-protected works against those of users of copyright-protected works. This is often framed as balancing a private commercial interest with the public interest.

This framing unfortunately welds a positive concept, balance, to a false construct. When you set the interests of copyright creators at one end of the balance beam and the public interest on the other, you presume that the two are opposed and separate, that the interests of copyright creators are presumptively incompatible with the public interest.

I suggest we all try to be more precise. Advocates of cutting back the rights of copyright creators should say this plainly in those terms, or use the term ‘extinguishment’. Advocates of extending the categories of uses for which rightsholders cannot expect compensation should say this plainly with that language, or use the term ‘expropriation’.

I suggest ‘balance’ is an appropriate term only in the context of advocating for the interests of users of copyright-protected works while at the same time genuinely respecting the interests of copyright holders — in other words, looking for ways for both to work together in the public interest.

In his 2016 Charles Clark Memorial Lecture, Australia’s Michael Fraser refers to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in its two brief paragraphs: 

  1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

‘These two limbs of the human right,’ Professor Fraser points out, ‘supplement each other and shouldn’t be taken separately. The copyright debate has been fatally miscast by pitting one limb against the other.’

Campaigning for winners and losers does not contribute to ‘balance.’ In a supposed pursuit of the public interest, it neglects the very significant extent to which protecting the rights of copyright holders protects the public interest. When a jurisdiction undermines the interest of its copyright holders, it undermines the many ways — cultural, educational, academic, social and economic — that those copyright holders contribute to the public interest. When it supports copyright holders, it supports broad areas of the public interest along with private interests.

The difficult job of resolving divergent or opposing interests gets easier when you identify the ways in which those interests overlap. It gets harder when you emphasize the separation between them. Let’s do what we can to make the SCCR’s job easier by ending the use of the word ‘balance’ as code for the erosion of protections for copyright creators.’

Rollans nailed it. 


Last modified on Continue reading
Tagged in: Copyright WIPO

With our unusually large contingent at this SCCR, the IPA team was able to attend a number of simultaneous meetings today, even before the SCCR morning session began. Some of us were at the meeting convened by WIPO to come up with a set of non-binding principles relating to the functioning of Collective Management Organisations; while others attended a high-level briefing by the USA delegation; and still others were at a joint meeting of the so-called Group B (developed) countries and the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS) group. The IPA was joined by other Creative Sector Organisations for the latter. These meetings are essential opportunities for dialogue but this morning the Members States were mostly playing it safe and giving very little away.

When the SCCR proper finally got under way at 10:00am, we immediately started discussing exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and education, including in particular draft Action Plans that had been prepared by the WIPO Secretariat. A good summary of all the plans is provided by the website IP Watch here. The IPA intervened on the draft Action Plan through our representative at the SCCR, Ted Shapiro, who is a Partner and Head of the Brussels Office of the law firm Wiggin. Ted said:

‘We would like to reiterate our view that the current international legal framework provides ample flexibility for Member States to enact exceptions and limitations consistent with their own legal traditions. It goes without saying that exceptions and limitations, which are legal defences to what are otherwise infringements of copyright, have a profound impact on all rightholders as well as other stakeholders. The Berne Convention/TRIPS/WCT three-step test provides the means for measuring this impact – which is why it is applied internationally and nationally both by legislatures and courts.

We believe that the draft action plan, while some details may need further clarification, provides a useful basis for a number of activities that could support exchange of info and capacity building that can inform countries — including, in particular, developing nations — in their efforts to ensure balanced national copyright laws consistent with the international framework. The IPA stands ready to participate in conferences and provide both legal and commercial experts to assist.

Peace love and copyright.’

The next agenda item was an update by Dr Kenneth Crews of his already monumental study on copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives. Crews’s presentation and the attendant questions from Member States and NGOs occupied the most of the meeting on either side of the lunch break. 

When we returned to the debate on Limitations and Exceptions on Educational and Research Institutions as well as on disabilities, Group B made a succinct statement pointing to the ‘the importance of the exchange between Members States of experiences with limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions.’ The IPA’s own position supports Group B’s observation that, ‘as the studies presented during the previous SCCR sessions have described, many countries have already established their own exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions which work well and respect the respective domestic legal systems within the current international legal framework. The work of this Committee should be shaped in a manner reflecting this reality and complementing the well functioning current framework.’ 

The EU group earlier in the day had observed that there was no consensus in the room that would allow a move toward a Treaty text for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and Group B agreed that the same situation pertained for educational and research institutions.

For the IPA, the take-away from the Crews study (and indeed other studies) is that a huge number of the Member States have adopted varied exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, educational and research institutions that fulfil specific national needs. In other words, the current copyright framework is flexible and responsive to local needs and there is no need for a one-size-fits-all international instrument.

As the shadows around the WIPO building deepened we embarked on a presentation by Blake Reid and Caroline Ncube about their scoping study on access to copyright protected works by persons with disabilities. Unlike the Crews study, which referenced all 191 Members States of WIPO, the response to the Reid/Ncube study was disappointing with data from only 20 Member States being available. It is difficult to see how useful conclusions can be made from such a shallow data pool.

The draft Action Plan will be discussed further tomorrow, as will be that other monumental study on copyright limitations and exceptions for educational activities by Daniel Seng.


Last modified on Continue reading
Tagged in: Copyright WIPO

The second day of SCCR 35 began with the now traditional ‘informal’ meeting of the Creative Sector Organisations (CSO) group, which the IPA coordinates with Benoît Müller (former IPA Secretary General and now consultant to the International Video Federation and Motion Picture Association). This meeting took place on the 13th floor of the ‘old’ WIPO building with sweeping views of the Jura Mountains on one side, and of Lake Geneva and the Alps on the other.

In this inspirational setting, the CSO group discussed the important events of the opening day and planned for the rest of the week, including the meetings that had already been arranged with individual Members State delegations and major regional blocs. We also coordinated our involvement in the ‘side events’ organized for today and tomorrow during the SCCR’s lunch time breaks. But more on that later.

Straight after the CSO meeting, the IPA team split up with some of us attending the plenary session in the main Conference Room. This session featured reports on progress from yesterday’s ‘informals’ that focused on the Broadcasting Treaty, while others in the large IPA contingent (see yesterday’s blog post) undertook a series of meetings off-site.

Members States continued their own informals in the morning until the first lunchtime side event of the week. This consisted of a panel organized by the Brazilian delegation and largely included copyleft advocates making the case for broader exceptions and limitations to copyright law. The one publisher on the panel, FEP President Henrique Mota brilliantly argued that authors and publishers relied on a strong and stable copyright regime to create and disseminate the precious content that others were wanting easier access to. Mota was lucid and passionate, pointing out that publishers assiduously paid for all their content as a matter of course, and that all we are asking for is that users accord us the same courtesy.

After the excitement of the FEP President’s intervention, Member States continued their informals on the Broadcasting Treaty away from the WIPO Conference Room before a final plenary session in the early evening.

Tomorrow, on Day Three, things will hot up for publishers with the first of two days centred on exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries, archives, and education

Last modified on Continue reading
Tagged in: Copyright WIPO

SCCR 35 opened on a windy but bright Monday morning at the WIPO offices in Geneva, Switzerland. In his introductory speech, WIPO Director-General Francis Gurry addressed the importance of multilateralism in a time when politicians’ perspectives are increasingly shifting from the international arena to a predominantly national orientation.

New SCCR President Daren Tang began the meeting as usual with a call for opening statement, but had communicated with the various Member States beforehand to keep their remarks to a minimum. As it had for all the recent SCCR meetings, the first agenda item for the week was a session working towards  a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations. International rules to protect television broadcasts from piracy have not been updated since the 1961 Rome Treaty. Most representatives of members States have agreed for some time that a new treaty would be desirable.

In the afternoon, the Member States convened what are called ‘informals.’ This entails leaving the open plenary session in the main hall and meeting elsewhere to discuss ways forward and text changes among themselves. NGOs and other observers in attendance are allowed to listen to these informals, but prohibited from reporting on the matters discussed. We hope that tomorrow the morning plenary session will allow us to report on any progress in more detail.

The IPA contingent present this week is the largest in living memory. Apart from the usual team of IPA  CEO José Borghino, and legal advisers André Myburgh and Ted Shapiro, also attending are IPA President Michiel Kolman, Vice-President Hugo Setzer as well FEP President Henrique Mota, FEP Director Anne Bergman-Tahon, (UK) PA CEO Stephen Lotinga, (UK) PA General Counsel William Bowes, and EC member Rudy Vanschoonbeek. Further representing the IPA will be Chiefs of Staff Rachel Martin and Sjors de Heuvel from Elsevier. All of us will be engaged in individual meetings with ambassadors and country delegations, which means we have a busy but exciting week ahead of us.


Last modified on Continue reading
Tagged in: Copyright WIPO

Beijing International Book Fair this year (23-27 August) was as lively as ever, due in part to the significant overseas contingent taking part. Of 2,400 exhibitors, 800 were non-Chinese, coming from 89 countries.

Surprisingly, and rather disappointingly, only 29 exhibitors were members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a grouping founded 50 years ago by Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Today there are 10 ASEAN countries, with a combined population of 600 million of which 40% are under 25 years old. Collectively, ASEAN represents the world’s third largest economy.

ASEAN publishers buy a lot of translation rights but sell very few to Western publishers, a fact that has each country’s publishers association (PA) trying to figure out a solution. Each has a national book fair that it has been trying hard to make into a regional hub that will lure more international publishers.

The ASEAN Book Publishers Association (ABPA), whose two-year presidency is held in turn by each country’s PA, has been operating since 2005, but wants to do more to boost cooperation among its members.

Regional activities along these lines have been plentiful in the past five years. In 2013 Bangkok was designated as the UNESCO World Book Capital, and in early 2015 the Publishers and Booksellers Association of Thailand (PUBAT) hosted the 30th IPA Congress the same year that Indonesian Publishers Association (IKAPI) was the guest of honour at Frankfurt Book Fair. The Singapore Book Publishers Association (SBPA) also partnered with Frankfurt Book Fair to organize conferences in 2015 and 2016. Malaysia’s Kota Buku – Book City, a government-funded agency, has been very active in promoting business and networking among ASEAN publishers.

To my mind, this flurry of activity means that the ASEAN publishing community is ready for strengthened intraregional collaboration, international partnerships and visibility on the world stage.  

What comes next is the new International Children’s Content Rights Fair (ICCRF), a response to the unmet needs of the regional book trade, which is believed to be poised to flourish.

The first ICCRF will be in Chiang Mai, Thailand’s most popular city to visit, on 6–9 December 2017, under the leitmotif of Creativity Beyond the Page. And it’s being organized by some of Thailand’s most experienced publishers and the country’s premier venue management company.

We held a promotional ICCRF reception at the Beijing International Book Fair, which was great fun and drew a good turnout.

Besides the main fair, activities will include two art-related initiatives: the 2017 Bologna Illustrators Exhibition, curated by the Bologna Children’s Book Fair/BolognaFiere; and the ASEAN Illustration Award, which is open to all illustrators of ASEAN nationalities, no matter where in the world they live.

The top prize is US$5,000. As one of the organizers, my hope is that these two activities will both inspire the region’s illustrators and promote their works on the international market. On the technology side, a ‘Maker Party’, organized by Thailand’s largest maker community, the Chiang Mai Maker Club, will bring together students, instructors, entrepreneurs and professionals interested in fusing engineering, art, design, and technology to create innovative products and media.

ICCRF will be the first book-related event to integrate an art exhibition with technology and innovation. And it will be Thailand’s first marketplace for buying and selling creative content rights for print media and technology. The event will promote a network of collaboration between entrepreneurs in print media and technology for the children’s and young-adult book industry, copyright owners, authors and illustrators in the ASEAN region and the rest of the world. It will be a ‘creative marketplace’ that can open doors to Thai and international publishers alike.

We’re very grateful to our ASEAN publisher friends who have given us their unfailing support in making the ICCRF a reality, and we look forward to welcoming you in Chiang Mai in December. 


Last modified on Continue reading

By Jessica Saenger*, edited by Ben Steward. The ‘homocleansing’ of the Russian edition of Victoria Schwab’s Shades of Magic series offers a topical hook on which to hang the publishers’ dilemma about duty to authors and their duty to stay in business.

This month the hit American author tweeted her outrage at learning that her Russian publisher had ‘redacted the entire queer plot w/out permission’. She added: ‘I was absolutely horrified. Wouldn’t have known if not for a Russian reader who read both editions. Publisher in total breach of contract.’

There are two strands to Schwab’s indignation: the redaction – or censorship – and the manner of that redaction. Quite apart from normal contractual requirements, simple courtesy would dictate that any author deserves fair warning of significant plot changes, whatever the reason. If this didn’t happen here, then the publisher may well have infringed the author's moral rights and be in breach of contract. That is for Rosman and Schwab to work out, although unquestionably the writer is entitled to be upset at discovering by chance that her work had been mangled.

That said, Schwab would do well to take a breath and consider where best to direct her wrath.

Explaining itself in the Vedomosti business daily, Rosman admitted it had censored a romantic scene between two characters in the second book of the Shades of Magic trilogy ‘so as not to violate the law banning the propaganda of homosexuality among minors’. In other words, to avoid criminal liability and having the book wrapped in plastic and given an 18 rating in Russia – thereby losing a large chunk of Schwab’s target readership – the publisher did what the law wants and altered the offending scene. It is Russia’s oppressive gay propaganda law that lies at the root of the problem, not the publishers who obey it.

The law imposes fines and up to three years in prison for giving minors access to content in which gay relationships are treated as equivalent to ‘traditional’ relationships. When it passed in 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia had violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

In addition, such laws also present a more insidious threat by passing the censorship buck to businesses, while the authorities can look uncompromising on conservative family values. And this law is well policed: the Kremlin uses it to create and maintain a sanitized mediascape where certain worldviews are illegal and only ‘right-thinking’ citizens have the right to self-expression. As well as being a deterrent to creativity, forcing publishers to do the policing puts an excessive burden of responsibility on them.

But the Shades of Magic case also raises other broader questions around copyright and licensing. It may be that this case is just the tip of a much larger iceberg, where systematic sanitization just goes unreported. If so, we have to ask ourselves where the line should be drawn. What problematic publishing behaviours may actually be justified to avoid a regulatory backlash? Does self-censorship play a part? What realities must publishers consider when negotiating rights deals in restrictive markets?

The questions are manifold, but two things at least are beyond doubt: trust is the basis of the publisher-author covenant, and freedom of expression is the bedrock of this industry. Protecting both of these is paramount.

Publishers and authors need to explore the issue in an open, collaborative way at international level. They should share lobbying strategies to challenge draconian laws and work together for legal environments that enable, not hinder, creativity. And they need to talk about the pressures, best practices, ethics and the realities of operating where freedom to publish is poorly protected without putting businesses or employees at risk.

The IPA is the optimal forum to drive forward this conversation, which will be in focus at our International Publishers Congress, in New Delhi, next February.

*Jessica Saenger is Legal Counsel and Director of European & International Affairs, Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels, and a member of the IPA Freedom to Publish Committee.


Last modified on Continue reading

By André Myburgh*. Ostensible reassurances about the benefits of the introduction of ‘fair use’ in South African copyright law (Why fears about ‘fair use’ copyright law are unfoundedneed deeper scrutiny.

Last modified on Continue reading

I recently had a chance to visit Dhaka to meet the IPA’s member there, the Academic and Creative Publishers Association of Bangladesh (ACPAB).

Last modified on Continue reading