What’s Missing from the Register’s Proposals

*Guest post by Jonathan Band, policybandwidth*

In her wrap-up testimony yesterday in the House Judiciary Committee’s two-year Copyright Review, Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights, identified three categories of policy issues: those that are ready for legislative process, those that warrant near-term study and analysis, and those that warrant further attention. Unfortunately, what many perceive to be the Copyright Act’s greatest flaw, the existing structure of statutory damages, received just a passing reference in the third “warrant attention” category. As numerous witnesses testified during the course of the Copyright Review, the threat of statutory damages of $150,000 per work infringed chills investment in innovative technologies and allows copyright trolls to extort settlements that greatly exceed the actual harm caused.

The Register paid more attention to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s prohibition on the circumvention of technological protection measures, 17 U.S.C. § 1201, which appears on the first two lists. While the Register’s recognition of Section 1201’s flaws is welcome, the Copyright Office has the power to address some of these deficiencies itself without additional Congressional action.

Register Pallante correctly observes that a wide range of stakeholders support “mak[ing] it easier to renew exemptions that have previously been adopted and are in force at the time of the triennial rulemaking proceeding.” She states that “the Copyright Office agrees that the process of renewing existing exemptions should be adjusted to create a regulatory presumption in favor of renewal.” Accordingly, she feels that “it would be beneficial for Congress to amend Section 1201 to provide that existing exemptions will be presumptively renewed during the ensuing triennial cases where there is no opposition.”

However, the Copyright Office need not wait for Congressional action to make the renewal process easier. The Register asserts that “the Section 1201 statutory framework requires that, to continue an existing exemption, proponents must bear the legal and evidentiary burden of justifying the exemption anew .…” In fact, Section 1201 itself imposes no such burden. It simply states that the Librarian must make a determination in a rulemaking proceeding whether to grant an exemption to users of a certain class of works and that the exemption lasts for three years. The statute says nothing about how the Librarian should handle renewals of existing exemptions.

The notion that a proponent must justify an exemption de novo every three years derives from a single sentence in a single committee report issued during the legislative process that resulted in the DMCA. This sentence states that the Librarian’s “assessment of adverse impacts on particular categories of works is to be determined de novo.” The Copyright Office in its administration of the rulemaking is not bound by this report language. Thus, it could decide to create a rebuttable presumption in favor of renewal.

Moreover, even if the Office chooses to give weight to this language, the language only states that the Librarian must take a fresh look at whether users of a class of works are likely to be adversely affected by Section 1201’s prohibition. It does not say that proponents must create a new legal and evidentiary record in support of renewal of the exemption. Instead, the Copyright Office and the Librarian could just review the record created in the previous rulemaking, as supplemented by interested parties in the current rulemaking. If opponents of renewal do not offer substantial evidence that renewal would harm the market for or value of their works, see § 1201(a)(C)(iv), the Librarian is likely to reach the same conclusion he reached three years earlier. In short, the Copyright Office could significantly lighten the burden of renewal by indicating that it will incorporate the record created in the previous rulemaking.

Additionally, in the category of policy issues that warrant near-term study and analysis, the Register identifies numerous other potential problems with Section 1201. She notes that some of the permanent exceptions may be too narrow in scope, and that the exemptions created under the rulemaking apply only to the act of circumvention, and not the development and distribution of circumvention tools.

Further, she observes that some stakeholders have suggested “a disconnect between the original purpose of Section 1201—protecting access to creative works—and its effect on a wide range of consumer goods that today contain copyrighted software.” (This was the subject of a DisCo post earlier this year.) She adds that “consumers have voiced discomfort that Section 1201 prevents them from engaging in activities, such as the repair of their automobiles and farm equipment, which previously had no implication under copyright law.”

It is true that the Copyright Office cannot change the scope of the existing permanent exceptions, nor extend the exemptions to the trafficking in circumvention tools. It is also true that the Copyright Office cannot unilaterally solve the problem of the application of Section 1201 to embedded software essential to the operation of larger devices and machines.

At the same time, the Copyright Office could take a more pragmatic approach toward exemptions for embedded software. For example, it could consider, and ultimately grant, a broad exemption for all software essential to the operation of hardware in the lawful possession of the user. Regrettably, in this rulemaking cycle the Copyright Office has gone in the opposite direction, drawing up classes as narrowly as possible. For the unlocking of devices from wireless networks, the Copyright Office has identified five separate classes for five different kinds of devices. It has done the same for the “jailbreaking” of devices so that they can access alternate lawful content. For circumvention of TPMs on vehicle software, for the purpose of diagnosis and repair, or after-market customization, the Copyright Office is considering only land vehicles, when the same issue obviously will apply to boats and aircraft.

By balkanizing the embedded software problem in this manner, the Copyright Office places a much greater burden on the applicants of each narrow class to meet the evidentiary standard the Office imposes. Section 1201 certainly does not require the identification of such narrow classes.

Obviously these measures will not address all the ills of Section 1201. Legislation along the lines of the Unlocking Technology Act, H.R. 1587, or the Breaking Down Barriers to Innovation Act, S. 990 and H.R. 1883, are necessary to do that. But the Copyright Office could adopt these measures now, without Congressional action.

The Register’s testimony raises too many other issues to be examined here. But one proposal merits attention. In the category of issues that warrant near-term study and analysis, the Register recommends a “formal and comprehensive study” of the safe harbors in Section 512 “to ensure that it is properly calibrated for the internet as we know it today.” Frankly, the Section 512 safe harbors have been studied to death. They have been the subject of numerous Congressional hearings and were a major focus of the Commerce Department Internet Policy Task Force report on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy. As the Register’s testimony acknowledges, the Internet Policy Task Force’s report led to a year-long process to produce best practices for the notice and takedown system. The safe harbors have been examined in law review articles, economic studies, and Congressional Research Service reports. The Register asserts that “it is time to take stock of Section 512.” In fact, Congress, the Copyright Office, the PTO, the copyright owners, the Internet service providers, and public interest groups have been taking stock of Section 512 continuously since its enactment.

A far better use of government resources would be a formal and comprehensive study of statutory damages, “to consider what is working and what is not, along with possible legislative improvements…to…ensure that it properly calibrated for the internet as we know it today.”

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

USA FREEDOM Act Reintroduced in House and Senate; ARL Urges Swift Passage

On April 28, 2015, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate introduced new versions of the USA FREEDOM Act. This legislation would put an end to the current bulk collection practices of the National Security Agency (NSA) taking place under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “library records” or “business records” provision. ARL supports meaningful and effective surveillance reform, such as that provided by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015.

Section 215 is currently set to sunset on June 1, 2015. However, Senator McConnell (R-KY) introduced a bill last week that would reauthorize Section 215 through 2020 with no amendments to protect privacy or limit bulk collection of data. Bipartisan efforts have been underway to promote meaningful reform to Section 215 and other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that impact civil liberties.

The current version of the USA FREEDOM Act represents a better version of the bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the last Congress. In May 2014, the House of Representatives passed a bill that had been severely watered down twice and resulted in many co-sponsors, as well as civil society organizations and associations including ARL, withdrawing their support for the bill. The Senate version of USA FREEDOM Act in the last Congress represented meaningful reform and would have advanced further transparency measures, but fell two votes shy of the necessary 60 votes for cloture. The current version of the USA FREEDOM Act is essentially a compromise between the House and Senate versions from the last Congress.

ARL supports this version of the USA FREEDOM Act because it would effectively end bulk collection of records under Section 215 and other authorities. It also provides some measure of transparency, providing for government reporting and declassification or summaries of FISA Court decisions. While the current version could go further in protecting civil liberties, as the 2014 Senate version did, the current USA FREEDOM Act still represents effective and meaningful reform and is highly improved from the version that passed the House of Representatives last year. ARL urges Congress to move swiftly to pass the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, restore privacy and civil liberties, and ensure that bulk collections are no longer permitted.

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

ARL Joins New Re:Create Coalition to Promote Balanced Copyright

*Cross-posted from ARL News*

Today, April 28, 2015, ARL joined US technology companies, trade associations, and civil society organizations in the launch of Re:Create, a coalition that promotes balanced copyright policy. A balanced copyright system depends on limitations and exceptions, such as fair use. As technology advances, it is imperative that the copyright law is responsive to these changes, balancing the interests of creators of copyrighted information and products with the interests of users of those products.

Re:Create promotes and defends the important balance of copyright. ARL’s member institutions, as well as the general public, depend on balanced copyright that includes robust limitations and exceptions. A balanced system ensures that copyright does not limit or impede new and valuable technologies and uses.

Fair use is responsive to the quickly evolving technology and has been called the “safety valve” of US copyright law. Fair use also accommodates the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, ensuring that copyright does not prevent freedom of speech. As ARL has shown in an infographic (PDF), fair use is a right, vitally important, for everyone and everywhere. This important doctrine is vital to the economy, innovation, new creativity, learning and education.

Deborah Jakubs, president of ARL said, “The mission of Re:Create squarely comports with the Constitutional rationale for copyright: ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts.’ ARL is proud to be a member of this coalition, which will work to ensure that copyright law supports this rationale and ensure that the copyright system provides an appropriate balance.”

The Re:Create Coalition launched with the following members: American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy & Technology, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Democracy Fund, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and R Street Institute.

For more information, visit http://www.recreatecoalition.com/.

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

Canada’s Budget Proposes Extension of Copyright Term for Sound Recordings, Ratification of Marrakesh Treaty

On April 21, 2015, Canada released its 500-page budget plan, which includes several references to intellectual property.

Among its copyright proposals, Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2015 proposes to amend the Copyright Act to extend the copyright term of sound recordings and performances from 50 years to 70 years.  The budget states,

The mid-1960s were an exciting time in Canadian music, producing many iconic Canadian performers and recordings.  While songwriters enjoy the benefits flowing from their copyright throughout their lives, some performers are starting to lose copyright protection for their early recordings and performances because copyright protection for song recordings and performances following the first release of the sound recording is currently provided for only 50 years.

Canada currently follows the international standard of providing 50 years of protection for sound recordings.  Canada is involved in the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a regional trade agreement with a total of 12 currently negotiating parties including the United States.  The United States has proposed a copyright term of life plus 70 years, or 95 years for published corporate works such as sound recordings.  Other countries with pre-existing bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) with the United States (Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore)  have pushed back against the extension to 95 years, instead advocating for a period of 70 years, the term that has been agreed to in previous US FTAs.  While the Canadian budget applies only to sound recordings, the proposal could indicate an intention to support the same term in the TPP.

On a more positive note, the new budget includes a number of proposals on “Helping Canadians With Disabilities,” including introducing implementing legislation for the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.  The budget calls to improve access to print materials for those who are visually impaired:

The Government will propose amendments to the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The ability to access printed information is essential to prepare for and participate in Canada’s economy, society and job market. According to Statistics Canada, approximately 1 million Canadians live with blindness or partial sight. The Government will propose amendments to the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (the Marrakesh Treaty). Aligning Canada’s copyright limitations and exceptions with the international standard established by the Marrakesh Treaty would enable Canada to accede to this international agreement. Once the treaty is in force, as a member country, Canadians would benefit from greater access to adapted materials.

This proposal is a welcome one and ARL urges Canada to move toward swift ratification.  Implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty would greatly improve access to accessible format works.  The Marrakesh Treaty allows for the cross-border exchange of accessible formats, allowing countries to avoid duplication of efforts as they can import existing accessible copies from other countries.  The Marrakesh Treaty currently has 8 ratifications and will need 12 more for entry into force.

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

ARL Opposes Senator McConnell’s Bill to Reauthorize Section 215 “Library Records” Provision

On April 21, 2015, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr introduced S.1035, a bill that would extend Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “library records” or “business records” provision, through 2020. The bill would not make any reforms to Section 215 and is a pure reauthorization of this provision that is set to expire on June 1, 2015.

Section 215 has been used by the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct mass surveillance, including the bulk collection of phone records. ARL, as well as many other organizations, have urged Congress and the Administration to pass reform that protects privacy and civil liberties. Minimum components to meaningful surveillance reform require ending bulk collection practices.

The upcoming expiration of Section 215 provides the opportunity to address the serious infringement on civil liberties caused by mass surveillance. Rather than endorsing and extending these practices for another five years, Congress should end bulk collection of records.

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

ARL Joins Letters to House and Senate Expressing Concerns Over Cybersecurity Bills

On April 20, 2015, ARL joined a coalition of 36 privacy and civil liberties organizations and 19 security experts and academics raising concerns regarding the Protecting Cyber Networks Act (PCNA, H.R. 1560) and the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA, S.754).  The letters urge members of Congress to oppose these bills because the proposed legislation, “threatens privacy and civil liberties, and would undermine cybersecurity, rather than enhance it.”

With respect to PCNA, the letter raises the following concerns that the legislation:

  • Authorizes companies to significantly expand monitoring of their users’ online activities and permits sharing of vaguely defined “cyber threat indicators” without adequate privacy protections prior to sharing.
  • Requires federal entities to automatically disseminate to the NSA all cyber threat indicators received, including personal information about individuals.
  • Authorizes overbroad law enforcement that goes far outside the scope of cybersecurity
  • Authorizes companies to deploy invasive countermeasures or “defensive measures.”

The CISA letter raises the same four concerns above, but also raises additional issues that the legislation:

  • Permits companies to share cyber threat indicators, which may include information about innocent individuals, directly with the NSA.
  • Authorizes companies to deploy countermeasures or “defensive measures” that could damage data and computer systems of innocent third parties who did not perpetrate the threat.  The CISA bill would potentially cause greater harm than PCNA with respect to this point because it specifically authorizes “negligent use of defensive measures that could cause significant, though not substantial harm to a third party’s information system.”

 

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

FCC Publishes Final Net Neutrality Rule; Lawsuits to Follow

On April 13, 2015, the FCC published its final Open Internet Order governing net neutrality in the Federal Register.  The rule will become effective on June 12, 2015, 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

ARL applauded the FCC’s vote in February to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier under Title II, ensuring that the Internet cannot be divided into “fast lanes” and “slow lanes,” while also retaining its Section 706 authority.  The rule bans blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.  It also prohibits unreasonable interference or unreasonably disadvantaging of an end user’s ability to select and access lawful content, applications and services, or an edge provider’s ability to make such content and services available to end users, subject to reasonable network management.

Now that the final Order has been published, a 10-day clock is triggered for legal challenges to the new rules.  While two lawsuits have already been filed, they may be considered premature because they were filed before publication in the Federal Register.  It is expected that the plaintiffs in those cases will refile, along with other lawsuits.  These lawsuits will likely be consolidated and a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation could determine, by lottery, which Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case.

In addition to these lawsuits, Congress may attempt to overturn the order through the Congressional Review Act which allows Congress to overturn an agency regulation by a majority vote in both houses of Congress within 60 days.  However, even if Congress did overturn the FCC’s Open Internet Order, the President must sign it, or Congress must overrule a veto with a two-thirds majority.  Given President Obama’s strong support for net neutrality, including for reclassification, it seems unlikely that the FCC’s Open Internet Order would be overturned in this way.

Congress might also consider overruling the FCC’s decision through legislation.  Indeed, in January 2015, a discussion draft bill was released to create a new Title X to the Communications Act to specifically deal with broadband providers.  While the draft bill would ban paid prioritization there are several concerns regarding the discussion draft, discussed in this previous blog post.

 

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

Copyright Status of U.S. Federal Government Works

Works that are prepared by employees of the government pursuant to their official duties are in the public domain due to an express statutory provision prohibiting the U.S. Government from claiming copyright in such works.  ARL has published an issue brief explaining the statutory provision prohibiting copyright protection for works of the U.S. Government, which is available here.

The brief details the statute and also points to a number of U.S. Government agency websites and White House website statements affirming that works by the U.S. Government are not eligible for copyright protection.  The Department of Labor, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Treasury are just some examples of agencies that include express recognition that materials produced by its government employees are not eligible for copyright protection.  The White House website similarly notes in its Copyright Policy, “Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected.”

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

Rigsby and Adjmi: Two Recent Fair Use Opinions

In March, two district courts issued opinions in cases involving fair use, finding that the facts of both cases supported fair use claims. The first, Rigsby v. Erie Insurance Company involved claims over photographs taken of a car accident. Interestingly, the court raised the issue of fair use, which was an argument either not raised or not developed by the defendants in the case. The second, Adjmi v. DLT Entertainment, concerned a parody of a popular 1970s television show.

Rigsby, et. al. v. Erie Insurance Company, et. al.

On March 16, 2015, the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin rejected the copyright infringement claims involving photographs taken of an accident and submitted as part of an insurance claim.

The court raised the issue of fair use, noting that a plaintiff’s claims of copyright infringement over photos taken documenting a car accident. Although two defendants did not raise the issue while the other two did mention fair use in their motion to dismiss, but did not develop the fair use argument, the judge nevertheless pointed out that “there is a strong argument that defendants’ alleged conduct qualifies as ‘fair use.’” Likening the use of the copying of photographs-at-issue to copying in the context of litigation, the opinion notes that

the only reasonable inference is that plaintiffs provided the photographs as part of the review of the . . . insurance claim. It is difficult to imagine how it could not be fair use for an insurer to copy or distribute a photograph for the purpose of evaluating an insured’s claim. Under that scenario, defendants would not be seeking to make any money off the photographs, to compete with plaintiffs or to confuse consumers. Further, plaintiffs do not suggest that they were harmed in any way by defendants’ use of the photographs.

The fair use argument in the case was secondary, however, to the issue of whether the photos were even protected by copyright. The district court found that the “plaintiffs do not identify anything original or creative about the photographs.” Rejecting the assertion that the lighting and copyright angles made the photographs original, the court pointed out that “every photograph must be taken at some angle and in some light. Plaintiffs do not identify any conscious choices they made regarding lighting or camera angles of the purpose of being ‘original.’”

Adjmi v. DLT Entertainment

On March 31, 2015, the Southern District of New York affirmed fair use in a parody case where the Adjimi, author of the stage play 3C, parodying the 1970s television series, Three’s Company, sought a declaratory judgment for fair use following a cease-and-desist letter from DLT, the rightholder to Three’s Company.

The court notes that

The animating principle of copyright law is the United States Constitution’s directive “[t]o promote the Progress of Sciences and useful Arts . . .” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. In practice, achieving that goal is an exercise in balancing the grant of property rights that incentivizes creative work, and the corresponding limits on the ability of the community to draw upon those ideas.

In determining what similarities exist between 3C and Three’s Company, the opinion points out that the plot premise, sets and certain scenes are copied from Three’s Company. However,

Despite the many similarities between the two, 3C is clearly a transformative use of Three’s Company. 3C conjures up Three’s Company by way of familiar character elements, settings, and plot themes, and uses them to turn Three’s Company’s sunny 1970s Santa Monica into an upside-down, dark version of itself. DLT may not like that transformation, but it is a transformation nonetheless.

[. . .]

[3C] has turned [Three’s Company] into a nightmarish version of itself, using the familiar Three’s Company construct as a vehicle to criticize and comment on the original’s light-hearted, sometimes superficial, treatment of certain topics and phenomena. Take first the cornerstone of Three’s Company, Jack’s false homosexuality: there is the obvious difference that 3C’s analogue, Brad, is actually homosexual: the abusive, demeaning treatment . . . constant homosexual slurs . . . and even rejection from his own family. This is a major departure. . . Three’s Company may have been ground-breaking and heralded in retrospect for raising homosexuality as a theme, but 3C criticizes the happy-go-lucky treatment of that issue.

The opinion notes that other topics, such as “homophobia, sexual aggression, drug use, self-consciousness, and self-esteem” were “merely glossed over” in Three’s Company. 3C, by contrast, criticizes and comments upon Three’s Company by “reimagining a familiar setting in a darker, exceedingly vulgar manner.” Thus, the court finds that the first fair use factor, the purpose and character of the use, “weighs heavily in favor of a finding of fair use.”

With respect to the second fair use factor on the nature of the copyrighted work, the court acknowledges that Three’s Company was a creative work. However, the three characters could be viewed as “stock characters to some extent.” Additionally, “Even granting that this factor weighs somewhat against a finding of fair use, it nevertheless does little to sway the overall determination.”

The third fair use factor evaluates the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted work used. The court notes that parody requires a “recognizable allusion to the original work.” However, the opinion points out that “3C copied many minor elements of Three’s Company, which had neither a parodic purpose nor were necessary to evoke Three’s Company” and found that “considered on its own, weighs against a finding of fair use.” However, the court continued, the standard for this factor in the parody context sets a floor rather than a ceiling and the minimal effect 3C has on the market “renders the third fair use factor of comparatively lesser importance.”

Finally, turning to the fourth factor of the market harm, the court cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell, noting that while “parody may impair the market for derivative uses by the very effectiveness of its critical commentary is no more relevant under copyright than the like threat to the original market.” The court finds that “there is no cognizable harm under the Copyright Act, and the fourth element weighs in favor of a finding of fair use.”

Evaluating the four factors together, the court determined that “the play is a highly transformative parody” that amounts to fair use. The court concludes, “The law is agnostic between creators and infringers, favoring only creativity and the harvest of knowledge.”

Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page

Two More Parties to the Marrakesh Treaty: Argentina and Singapore

The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled now has eight ratifications or accessions,* with Argentina and Singapore being the latest countries to deposit their notifications with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  Countries previously ratifying or acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty include: India, El Salvador, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Mali, and Paraguay.  Twenty ratifications or accessions are necessary for the Marrakesh Treaty to enter into force.

The Marrakesh Treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions to facilitate access to accessible format works.  It would also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible formats, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources in the creation of these accessible works.  Additionally, the Treaty would facilitate importation of works created in other languages.

With eighty total signatories to the treaty, hopefully more countries will join the eight current parties to the Marrakesh Treaty and swiftly ratify.  The United States, which signed the treaty on October 2, 2013, should ratify the treaty to help end the “book famine” where only a small fraction of books — estimated by the National Federation for the Blind at no more than five percent — are created in an accessible format.  While the United States has robust limitations and exceptions to allow for the creation and distribution of accessible format works, many countries, particularly those in the developing world, do not and their collections of accessible formats are even smaller than in the United States.  Additionally, persons with print disabilities in the United States would benefit from ratification, not only from the ability to import works from other English-speaking countries, but also because persons who speak other languages or are learning new languages — for example, Spanish, French, Russian or Chinese — would be able to import works in these languages from other countries.

*Countries that signed the Marrakesh Treaty during the one-year period in which it was open for signature must ratify the treaty.  Ratification is a two-step process where a country will sign the treaty, signaling that it agrees with the treaty and intends to ratify.  While a signature does not create a binding legal obligation and does not commit a country to ratification, it obliges the country to not commit acts that would undermine the treaty’s objective and purpose.  Countries that did not sign the Marrakesh Treaty can become a party to the treaty through accession, a one-step ratification.  
Please share...
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Print this page