[A2k] SCCR/35 EIFL statement on protection of broadcast organizations

Teresa Hackett teresa.hackett at eifl.net
Mon Nov 13 03:52:25 PST 2017


35th Session: Geneva, 13 – 17 November 2017

Agenda item 5: Protection of broadcasting organizations

I'm speaking on behalf of Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net).

When a new broadcast right goes beyond signal protection into post-fixation
rights, libraries must take notice to ensure fair access to broadcast
content for social, educational and public interest reasons.

Why do libraries show films? For example, in Senegal the library of the
Universite of Cheikh Anta Diop (UCAD) in Dakar shows films to mark
occasions such as World Environment Day to sensitize students to important
environmental and conservation issues.

The fact is that a new layer of rights that affects access to content is an
additional barrier to access to knowledge. Libraries would have to deal
with an additional set of rightsholders to clear rights for access,
creating extra costs and complexity on the rights clearance process. For
sure, it will add to the orphan works problem that is already huge, and
where policy makers around the world are trying to find legislative

Therefore any new instrument must contain a robust set of exceptions that
are future-proofed for changes in technology and cannot be taken away by
terms in contracts, or technological protection measures.

Consequently ‘Limitations and Exceptions’ set out in SCCR/34/4 IV. Other
Issues should be strengthened.

First, Part 1. should specify that contracting parties *shall* incorporate
in its legislation limitations and exceptions for specific uses including
private use, reporting of current events, use for the purpose of teaching
and research, making accessible for persons with disabilities, and for use
by libraries and archives.

Second, the three-step test set out in Part 2. appears to go beyond the
standard in the Berne Convention for quotations and news of the day, and is
not part of the Rome Convention. To avoid unintended consequences, we
recommend removing references to the three step text or, replacing the text
with a statement that countries should ensure that rights granted in this
treaty do not reduce the application of limitations and exceptions to
copyright and related rights in national law.

This is to ensure that new rights do not extend to content that is in the
public domain, to content that is licensed under an open content licence,
or that was never intended to be subject to such long terms of protection.

With these changes, the document would be improved.


More information about the A2k mailing list