Tag Archives: Accessibility

Mexico Ratifies Marrakesh Treaty

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) announced that Mexico ratified the Marrakesh Treaty.  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 Mexico’s ratification as well as recent news of Mongolia’s ratification, the Marrakesh Treaty is now halfway to the 20 necessary ratifications to enter into force.  Countries previously ratifying the treaty include Argentina, El Salvador, India, Mali, Mongolia, Paraguay,Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.

Bill C-65 in Canada was introduced in June in preparation for accession to the Marrakesh Treaty.  While the United States signed the Treaty in October 2013, signaling an intention to ratify, the Obama Administration has not yet sent the Treaty to the US Senate for ratification.

On the 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ARL Urges Swift Ratification of Marrakesh Treaty

On Sunday, July 26, 2015, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) celebrated its 25th anniversary.  The ADA, authored and sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and passed with strong bi-partisan support, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability including with respect to education and employment.  The ADA covers a wide range of disabilities and ensures that the civil rights of those with disabilities are protected.  This landmark piece of legislation represented world leadership in the area of promoting the rights of those with disabilities.

ARL has long supported the ADA and efforts to improve accessibility.  Those who are visually impaired or hearing impaired, for example, may face significant obstacles in attaining access to information or culture.  Those with physical disabilities may face limitations in accessing physical spaces.  The ADA helps to promote greater accessibility and protect the rights of those with disabilities.

As the United States celebrates this landmark piece of legislation and the many successes that the ADA has produced, continued efforts are needed to promote the rights of those with disabilities. The United States has a clear and concrete way to improve the rights of the print disabled by improving access to improving access to accessible format works.

In July 2013, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concluded a diplomatic conference resulting in the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Those Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The Marrakesh Treaty creates minimum standards for copyright limitations and exceptions for the creation and distribution of accessible formats and allows for the cross-border exchange of these formats. The cross-border exchange is a critical feature and could greatly alleviate what is known as the “book famine,” a situation in which the National Federation for the Blind estimates that no more than 5 percent of published works are created in an accessible format. The ability to import works from other English speaking countries would aid in growing the collection of accessible format works in the United States and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts in the creation of these formats. Perhaps of even greater benefit would be the ability to import works in other languages for those in the United States who do not speak English as a first language, such as large populations of Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian, German, Italian, Korean or Vietnamese speaking individuals. It would also benefit those who are learning foreign languages. Significantly, the treaty would allow those in developing countries, which generally have an even smaller number of accessible formats available, to import works from the relatively larger collections in the United States and elsewhere.

In order for the Marrakesh Treaty to enter into force, twenty countries must ratify or accede to the treaty. Currently, nine countries – Argentina, El Salvador, India, Mali, Mongolia, Paraguay, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay – have ratified and eleven more are needed.

The United States signed the Marrakesh Treaty in October 2013, signaling support for and an intention to ratify the treaty, but the Obama Administration has not yet sent the treaty to the US Senate for ratification. The United States should show leadership and be one of the first twenty countries to ratify the treaty. While the ADA has been a great success and 25 years of ensuring the civil rights of those with disabilities is a moment for celebration, more can still be done to improve the lives of those with disabilities.

Mongolia Ratifies Marrakesh Treaty for the Blind; 11 More Needed for Entry Into Force

Mongolia’s Parliament has ratified the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.  The Marrakesh Treaty now has a total of nine ratifications or accessions* and eleven more are needed for it to enter into force.  Countries that have previously ratified or acceded to the Marrakesh Treaty include: Argentina, El Salvador, India, Mali, Paraguay, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.

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.

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 of the Blind at no more than five percent, are created in 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.  The Administration has reportedly been working on its ratification package, but the package has not yet been sent to Congress.

Canada recently introduced a bill to amend its copyright law in preparation for accession to the Marrakesh Treaty.  The amendments would remove the restriction against creation of a large print book, allow broader export and make changes to the exception permitting circumvention of technological protection measures.  Passing this bill would be the first step toward accession for Canada.

A recent IP-Watch story quoting Michelle Woods from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) indicated that the twenty total ratifications needed for entry into force could potentially take place later this year, meaning that the Marrakesh Treaty would enter into force in early 2016 (the treaty will enter into force three months after the twentieth ratification).  With eighty signatories to the Marrakesh Treaty, as well as numerous countries that have indicated that efforts are underway to accede to the treaty, hopefully more countries swiftly ratify so that the treaty can enter into force and alleviate the book famine.

*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.  

Bill to Amend Canada’s Copyright Act in Preparation for Accession to the Marrakesh Treaty Tabled in the House of Commons

On June 8, 2015, proposed amendments to Canada’s Copyright Act were tabled in the House of Commons. These amendments, contained in Bill C-65, the Support for Canadians with Print Disabilities Act, would amend the Copyright Act in order to prepare for implementation of and accession to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (“Marrakesh Treaty”).

This bill follows the April 21, 2015 budget proposal, which signaled an intention to amend the Copyright Act and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty. In that proposal, the Canadian government noted that accession to the Marrakesh Treaty would benefit the approximately 1 million blind or visually impaired Canadians.

Under Canada’s Copyright Act, Article 32 provides a limitation to allow for the creation and distribution of accessible format works for those with disabilities. The current provision broadly permits the creation of an accessible work for persons with a perceptual disability. It does not, however, permit the creation of a large print book. The current exception applies only where an accessible format is not commercially available. A non-profit organization may export an accessible format copy, but only where the author of the work is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident or a citizen or permanent resident of the country to which the copy is being sent. Copies may not be exported where the organization knows or has reasonable grounds to know that an accessible format is available in that country within a reasonable time and for a reasonable price. Royalties are owed by the organization making or sending the accessible format copy. The current copyright law also has an exception to the prohibition against circumvention of technological protection measures, but only where it does not “unduly impair” the technological protection measure.

Bill C-65 makes several changes to Article 32. One of the most significant changes is that it removes the prohibition on the creation of large print format as an accessible copy. Large print is an important type of accessible format because many of those who are visually impaired do not require audio formats or may not read Braille. For example, with age, individuals often require larger print. The Marrakesh Treaty broadly defines an “accessible format copy” and the removal of the prohibition against large print in Article 32, complies with the Treaty and will greatly benefit an aging population.

Another key change would allow the sending of accessible formats to other countries, regardless of the nationality of the authors of the works. Bill C-65 allows for the export of accessible format works to both Marrakesh Treaty countries as well as non-Marrakesh Treaty countries. It would allow for injunctions, but not damages, where the accessible format was exported to a country where it was commercially available within a reasonable time, for a reasonable price and located with reasonable effort. Where a work is exported to a Marrakesh Treaty country, the owner of the copyright bears the burden of demonstrating commercial availability. Where a work is exported to a non-Marrakesh Treaty country, the non-profit organization must also show that it had reasonable grounds to believe that it was not commercially available.

Additionally, Bill C-65 permits circumvention of technological protection measures, removing the condition that the technological protection measure not be unduly impaired. It instead provides that circumvention is permitted for the sole purpose of enabling those with perceptual disabilities, or non-profit organizations who serve them, to access accessible formats of the work.

Introduction of Bill C-65 is a key first step in acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty. The Marrakesh Treaty currently has 8 ratifications and will need 12 more for entry into force. In the United States, the Administration has been working on preparing its ratification package, but it has not yet been submitted to Congress.

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.  

Flaws of the 1201 Rulemaking Process

It’s Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what’s at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation!  Today’s topic is “You Bought It, You Own It: Copyright policy should foster the freedom to truly own your stuff: to tinker with it, repair it, reuse it, recycle it, read or watch or launch it on any device, lend it, and then give it away (or re-sell it) when you’re done.”

You bought it, you own it.  This principle applies in the analog world, but in the digital world it is less clear.  In the digital world, technological protection measures (TPM) or “digital locks” may prevent a user from tinkering with a copyrighted work or product he has purchased, even if it is for a completely lawful purpose due to rules in the Copyright Act prohibiting circumvention of these locks.

ARL, as part of the Library Copyright Alliance, is currently involved in the Section 1201 rulemaking process, a procedure where the Copyright Office will determine what classes of works will receive an exemption from the anti-circumvention rules governing TPMs. The process takes place every three years—this is the sixth rulemaking—and individuals or groups can petition to have the previous exemptions renewed or expanded, or can apply for new exemptions.

The rulemaking process is time and resource consuming. Indeed, the 2009 rules were delayed and not announced until July of 2010. The entire process can take a year or more and because the exemptions are renewed de novo without any benefit of a presumption in favor of renewal, it is a burdensome procedure. These exemptions are not made permanent even after multiple renewals, but instead the entire process is repeated again and again.

It is important to note that the exemptions that are requested are for all for non-infringing uses. These are uses that would be permitted, without the time and expense of a rulemaking process, for copyrighted works in analog form which are not accompanied by TPMs. These uses might be for the same purposes as specific limitations and exceptions, such as the making of accessible format works for persons who are print disabled, or for fair use purposes. Despite the fact that these purposes are permitted where TPMs do not exist, in order to achieve these same purposes in the digital world, exemptions must be requested every three years.

This is a fundamental flaw in the language and interpretation of 1201. As LCA’s comments for the record at the House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the issue of technological protection measures points out:

The fact that every three years the blind need to expend scarce resources to petition the Librarian of Congress to renew their exemption—or that libraries and educators have to seek renewal of the film clip exemption every three years—demonstrates the fundamental flaw in section 1201. That flaw is that section 1201 could be interpreted to prohibit the circumvention of a technological protection measure even for the purpose of engaging in a lawful use of a work. Congress should adopt the approach proposed by the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 and its predecessors, attaching liability to circumvention only if it enables infringement.

LCA’s petitions for the 2015 rulemaking process highlight some absurdities. One of its petitions focuses on making literary works distributed electronically accessible for persons with print disabilities. Although this exemption has been continually renewed since 2003, the exemption must again be petitioned for and new evidence must be submitted. The second LCA petition requests an exemption for motion picture excerpts, including expanding the current exemption for all storage media, including Blu-Ray discs. The 2012 exemption applied only to a specific type of technological protection measure, known as Content Scrambling System, which is used with DVDs; because Blu-Ray discs used a different form of a TPM, this 2012 exemption did not apply.

In addition to the fact that the process is extremely repetitive, resource consuming and unnecessary, the rules have grown increasingly complex and long. In the 2003 rulemaking, the Librarian of Congress exempted four classes of works; these rules were laid out in 200 words. By contrast, the 2012 rules included eight classes of works—though five of these classes all relate to motion pictures, particularly excerpts or screen captures—and these exemptions amounted to nearly 1200 words. Consider, for example, the specific exemption for literary works distributed electronically. The word count more than doubled from its 2003 language to its 2012 language, becoming more complicated and including a cross-reference to Section 121 of the Copyright Act.

2003 exemption:

Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook’s read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.

2012 exemption:

(1) Literary works, distributed electronically, that are protected by technological measures which either prevent the enabling of read-aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other applications or assistive technologies in the following instances:

(i) When a copy of such a work is lawfully obtained by a blind or other person with a disability, as such a person is defined in 17 U.S.C. 121; provided, however, the rights owner is remunerated, as appropriate, for the price of the mainstream copy of the work as made available to the general public through customary channels; or

(ii) When such work is a nondramatic literary work, lawfully obtained and used by an authorized entity pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 121.

The result of the increasingly complicated and specific language across all the exemptions (in fact, the language for the benefit of the print disabled above is relatively simple in comparison to other 2012 exemptions) is that these exemptions become virtually unusable for many users.

The process should be re-thought to ensure that 1) resources are not unnecessarily wasted through a repetitive, time-consuming process and 2) the beneficiaries of these exemptions can clearly understand the rules and make use of the exemptions.

End of the Authors Guild v. HathiTrust Saga, A Victory for Fair Use

For the past several years, the HathiTrust and five of its member universities have been engaged in litigation after being sued by the Authors Guild. On January 6, 2015, the parties entered a settlement on the sole issue remaining before the district court, ending the litigation in a victory for HathiTrust and fair use.

In its litigation, the Authors Guild alleged that HathiTrust Digital Library’s (HDL) digitization of works for the purposes of use in a full-text search database, providing access to the print disabled, and preservation, as well as the Orphan Works Project developed by the University of Michigan, constituted copyright infringement. The Orphan Works Project was abandoned and not considered ripe for adjudication, while the other issues advanced. The district court found in favor of HDL’s motions for summary judgment on the remaining three issues.

In June 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit strongly affirmed fair use, finding that HathiTrust Digital Library’s creation of a full-text search database and providing access to the print disabled constituted fair use. On the issue of preservation, the Second Circuit remanded back to the district court – without determining the merits of whether such preservation constituted fair use – to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the claim. In its press release on the opinion, the Library Copyright Alliance applauded the decision noting that the

 Second Circuit rightly concluded that HDL’s activities are protected by fair use, ensuring the ‘safety valve’ of fair use is well-functioning and providing meaningful balance through limitations on the copyright holder’s rights. Fair use has long been relied upon to provide important protections for the public and promote new and transformative uses of copyrighted works, such as those facilitated by HDL.

Summaries and analysis of the Second Circuit’s opinion available here and here.

On January 6, 2015, the Authors Guild and HathiTrust settled the preservation issue, with the defendant libraries stipulating that they have complied with Section 108(c) of the Copyright Act and have only made replacement copies where the original was damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, and that an unused replacement could not be obtained at a fair price. The defendant libraries further agreed that for a period of five years, if the libraries do not comply with the stipulation, it will notify the Authors Guild, “which, although not a Remaining Plaintiff in this Action, will accept notice.”

While an appeal to the Supreme Court would still be possible, it appears from a release issued by the Authors Guild today that the Guild will not pursue this path. The Authors Guild begins its release noting that the settlement “brought to an end the Guild’s copyright infringement lawsuit against the group of research libraries known as the HathiTrust.”

Ultimately, the Authors Guild v. HathiTrust saga ended in a strong victory for fair use as the Second Circuit opinion will now stand. The library community applauded this opinion when it was released. The opinion had a number of notable implications. It strongly affirmed the use of mass digitization for purposes of facilitating fair uses (such as creation of a full-text search database or access for the print disabled). The Second Circuit also endorsed a “functional transformation” approach in conducting its fair use analysis, finding that a use is transformative if the works is used for a significantly different purpose than its original market purpose. Additionally, the Second Circuit, in a quick footnote, rejected the Authors Guild’s repeated claims that Section 108 of the Copyright Act restricts fair use.

Furthermore, while the parties settled the issue of preservation for purposes of use as a replacement copy, essentially noting that the parties will comply with Section 108(c) of the Copyright Act, practically speaking, as noted by Jonathan Band’s analysis, What Does the HathiTrust Decision Mean for Libraries?, libraries engaged in the activities of HathiTrust can make digital copies:

Because providing full-text search capability justifies the creation and maintenance of a database of text files, a library could create and maintain a database of text files if the library provided full-text search capability of those text files. Likewise, because access to the print disabled justifies the creation and maintenance of a database of image files, a library could create and maintain a database of image files if the library provided the print disabled with access to those image files. Additionally, the library could create appropriate backup copies of these databases.

 

[…]

 

In short, the HathiTrust decision indicates that a library could make digital copies of all the analog works in its collection, and store those copies as text and image files, if the library provided full text-search capability and full-text access to the disabled.

HathiTrust’s press release on the resolution of the litigation is available here.

ARL and ALA File Comments Opposing E-Reader Waiver Extension and Disability Tax

On October 27, 2014, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the American Library Association (ALA) filed comments* with the FCC opposing the petition for waiver extension by e-reader manufacturers. On January 28, 2014, the FCC granted a one-year waiver of its advanced communication services (ACS) accessibility rules for “basic e-readers” considered to be “single-purpose reading devices that consumers use for accessing text-based works (i.e., reading), not for other purposes such as ACS.” The e-reader manufacturers recently filed a petition requesting an extension of this waiver, which essentially creates a tax for disabled persons purchasing basic e-reader devices.

In the filing, ARL and ALA explain how basic e-readers are used, including for “co-primary uses” which allow the user to connect to the Internet and use the device to communicate with others via e-mail and social media services. ARL and ALA oppose the extension of the waiver, noting that denying the e-reader manufacturers’ petition “is consistent with the public interest. Finally, ARL and ALA argue that if a waiver is extended, that the FCC should narrow the scope of the waiver class and limit its duration. The full comments can be found here.

The comments focus on heavily on the public interest, noting:

As discussed above, the Kindles and other basic e-readers are capable of accessing ACS in potentially very convenient and useful ways. Access to these features on these devices, by disabled persons weighs heavily in the public interest. A denial of the waiver extension will increase public access to ACS through the Coalition’s e-readers. By requiring that the Coalition include accessible ACS functionality with the browser, the Commission will be supporting increased access for print-disabled members of the public through universally designed devices available to all consumers

Appallingly, the e-reader manufacturers defend their request for extension by arguing that persons with disabilities can purchase a more expensive device to address accessibility needs. ARL and ALA also point out that this proposal effectively creates a disability tax. Furthermore, not only would the proposal require a disabled person to pay more for a device with accessibility features, but such devices also have drawbacks such as heavier weight and less battery life:

Under the current e-reader ACS regime proposed by the Coalition and tentatively adopted by the Commission, disabled persons must pay a ‘device access tax’. By availing oneself of one of the ‘accessible options’ as suggested by the Coalition, a disabled person would pay at minimum $20 more a device for a Kindle tablet that is heavier and has less battery life than a basic Kindle e-reader. There is also some irony that the Commission’s current waiver rules would suggest that a blind person would need to purchase a device that is marketed for its screen with a high refresh rate, high resolution, and vibrantly colored screen in order to get the proper accessibility. In order to get the features that they do need, the blind will be forced to pay for an array of features from which they cannot benefit. It is completely inappropriate to ‘tax’ those with disabilities who seek information on the same terms at the sighted. By requiring that all of the Coalition’s products include accessible ACS, it opens a market for the print-disabled for the same e-readers at the same price points as for other sectors of the public.

ARL and ALA oppose extension of the waiver, but suggest that if the Commission does extend it, the Commission should amend the current waiver class and ensure that the extension is time-limited. ARL and ALA note that the “the current slate of basic e-readers offered by Coalition members do not fall under even this overly-expansive waiver class, sufficient evidence and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of modif[ication].” The comments suggest that one of the requirements be amended to read “the device is not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications, including any browser, and the device manufacturer does not develop ACS applications for its respective device” so that those e-reader devices that have a co-primary uses, such as to access e-mails, are not exempted. The comments note that with this amendment, “Any truly single purpose non-ACS devices will still fall under the proposed waiver class should the Coalition seek waiver in the future.”

*These comments were prepared in collaboration with students from American University Washington College of Law’s Glushko-Samuleson Intellectual Property Law Clinic*

UAE Becomes Third Country to Ratify the Marrakesh Treaty

On October 15, 2014, the United Arab Emirates became the third country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Print Disabled. The treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions designed to facilitate access to accessible format works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. It would also permit cross-border sharing of these works.

India and El Salvador ratified the treaty earlier this year. The European Commission recently proposed ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, which needs a total of twenty ratifications for entry into force.

The United States signed the Marrakesh Treaty in October 2013, but has not yet ratified.

European Commission Proposes Ratification of Marrakesh Treaty for the Blind

On October 21, 2014, the European Commission proposed ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. The EU signed the treaty in April 2014.

From the press release:

Michel Barnier, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Internal Market and Services, said “The Marrakesh Treaty will simplify the lives of millions of visually impaired people around the world. The EU can help to improve access to books with equal conditions for all and contribute to the fight against the book famine. The Commission’s proposal is a signal that Europe is ready to support the rapid entry into force of this important Treaty. I count on the Council and the European Parliament to authorise the ratification as soon as possible.” (emphasis added)

Two countries — India and El Salvador — have ratified the treaty which sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions designed to facilitate access to accessible format works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. It would also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible format works, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts in the creation of accessible format works and also facilitate the importation of works in other languages.

The treaty needs eighteen more ratifications to enter into force. The United States signed the Marrakesh Treaty in October 2013; when will it ratify the treaty?