Tag Archives: chafee amendment

THE MARRAKESH TREATY

by guest blogger Jonathan Band, policybandwidth

Read the full text of A User Guide to the Marrakesh Treaty

On June 27, 2013, a Diplomatic Conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held in Marrakesh, Morocco, adopted the “Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.” The Treaty is intended to promote the making and distribution of copies of books and other published materials in formats accessible to people with print disabilities. The Treaty would achieve this objective by obligating countries signing it (referred to as Contracting Parties) to adopt exceptions in their copyright laws that permit the making of copies in accessible formats as well as the distribution of those copies both domestically and internationally.

ARL worked closely with the U.S. delegation throughout the negotiating process, and through the Library Copyright Alliance was represented in WIPO meetings in Geneva and the Diplomatic Conference itself in Marrakesh.

I. Overview

The copyright law in many countries presents a barrier to the making and distribution of copies of works in formats accessible to the print disabled. The making of a copy in an accessible format such as braille, without the authorization of the rights-holder, could constitute an infringement of reproduction right. The unauthorized distribution of the accessible format copies could constitute an infringement of the distribution or making available to the public right. Similarly, the export or import of accessible format copies could trigger infringement liability.

For this reason, over 50 (primarily developed) countries have adopted exceptions that allow the making and distribution of accessible format copies. However, over 130 WIPO countries, in which the majority of print disabled people live, do not have copyright exceptions relating to the print disabled. Moreover, the existing exceptions do not always explicitly permit the import or export of accessible format copies. Because of the high cost of producing accessible format copies, and the relatively low demand for many individual titles, the ability to share accessible format copies across borders would benefit the print disabled in both developed and developing countries.

The Marrakesh Treaty addresses these problems by requiring Contracting Parties to adopt copyright exceptions that allow, under certain conditions:

  1. the making of accessible format copies;

  2. the domestic distribution of accessible format copies;

  3. the export of accessible format copies; and

  4. the import of accessible format copies.

The Treaty does not dictate how these goals are to be achieved; rather, it provides Contracting Parties with great flexibility concerning the implementation of their obligations. As Article 10(3) provides,

“Contracting Parties may fulfill their rights and obligations under this treaty through limitations or exceptions specifically for the benefit of beneficiary persons, other limitations or exceptions, or a combination thereof….”

The Treaty creates minimum standards for exceptions, with a ceiling presented by existing obligations under the Berne Three-Step Test.

Many aspects of the Treaty (e.g., the focus on actions by “authorized entities”) are similar to the specific exception for the print disabled in the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 121, also known as the Chafee Amendment. This similarity is no accident; parts of the Treaty are based on proposals originally offered by the U.S. delegation.

The Treaty represents a significant development in international copyright law because it is the first treaty devoted exclusively or primarily to creating international minimum standards for copyright exceptions. At the same time, it should be remembered that the Berne Convention itself contains exceptions for quotations, illustration in teaching, and news reporting.

51 countries signed the Treaty on June 28, 2013. The Treaty does not take effect until 20 countries ratify it, and then it is binding on the countries that have ratified it. (Under international law, signing a Treaty indicates a country’s support for the Treaty, but is a lesser step than ratification.)

II. The Treaty and U.S. Law

U.S. law currently complies with the Treaty’s requirements, and the United States could ratify the Treaty without amending the Title 17. The relevant exceptions for the print disabled appear in the Chafee Amendment, 17 U.S.C. § 121; the fair use doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (especially as it has been interpreted by the ARL Code of Best Practices and the recent HathiTrust decision), and the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201. These provisions map favorably against the obligations set forth in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 6, and 7 of the Treaty.

Even though the United States could ratify the Treaty without amending Title 17, the Treaty still has the potential to provide substantial benefits to the print disabled in the United States. This is because the Treaty should result in more Contracting Parties adopting exceptions permitting authorized entities to make accessible format copies and to export them to other Contracting Parties, including the United States.

Because of the high cost of producing accessible format copies, the increased ability to share accessible format copies across borders should result in more titles being available to the print disabled in the U.S. An authorized entity in the U.K. would be able to export an accessible format copy of an English history book to a print disabled professor in New York. Likewise, an authorized entity in Spain would be able to export an accessible format copy of a Spanish novel to a print disabled student in California.

For this reason, ARL supports U.S. ratification of the Treaty.

Notes from Register Pallante’s “The Next Great Copyright Act”

By Greg Cram, Rights Clearance Analyst, The New York Public Library

On March 4, 2013, Maria Pallante, the 12th United States Register of Copyrights, delivered “The Next Great Copyright Act” at Columbia Law School. In the lecture, Register Pallante reflected on the history of other major comprehensive revisions to United States copyright law. She argued that the time has come for the next general revision to begin by noting the complexity of current copyright law and its failure, in some areas, to stay current. She highlighted the work the Copyright Office has already undertaken in preparation for the next act, including reports on Digital First Sale, Orphan Works, Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, Mass Digitization, and others. Finally, she laid out a number of issues that are on the table for consideration in the next round of comprehensive revision.

The content of the next comprehensive copyright act is important to libraries and library patrons. Copyright law impacts library services at all levels, from the basics of making unsupervised copiers available to patrons to the complicated digitization of works in library collections. In the lecture, Register Pallante highlighted a few issues important to libraries, including the first sale doctrine, the libraries and archives exception, the blind and print disabled exception, and the length of copyright protection. The next copyright act is certain to implicate many library services, not to mention the general flow of content in modern society.

Because of the importance of this lecture, I am sharing my notes below. The lecture was recorded, but is not yet available on the Kernochan Center’s website. I strongly recommend watching the recording when it is available. I labored to take accurate notes and do not intend to misrepresent the content of the lecture. Even with my diligence, these notes should not be understood to be an official record or transcript of the lecture.

My notes on “The Next Great Copyright Act”

The next comprehensive review should begin soon. A comprehensive review is needed for two main reasons. First, courts are asking Congress to fix copyright law (see, e.g., Golan, Google Books, Tenenbaum). Second, more people need help navigating a complex law and shouldn’t and army of lawyers to understand copyright law.

There should be two main themes for the next great copyright act. First, it should be forward thinking, but flexible. Second, authors’ rights to enjoy control and exploit works needs to be meaningful. Authors are not the counterweight to the public interest because protecting authors is in the public interest. A copyright act that did not protect authors would be illogical. But, the law needs to recognize that some authors are different by giving weight to Creative Commons licenses and public domain declarations.

The issues on the table for the next comprehensive review include:

  1. Incidental Copies

    —Not all copies are the same

    —Perhaps there could be discrete exceptions for certain incidental copies

    —For more information on this issue, see the Copyright Offices 2001 study on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

  2. Public Performance Right for Sound Recordings

    —Copyright Office is a “strong supporter” of a public performance right for sound recordings

    —Disparities between terrestrial radio and internet radio royalty rates are hampering new business models

  3. Stronger Enforcement

    —The new law must respect the integrity of the internet, including free speech

    —There needs to be, however, a mix of legislative and voluntary efforts to combat infringement online

    —On solution may be to increase criminal penalties for streaming, or at least bring them in line with the penalties for distribution through downloads

  4. Small Claims

    —The Copyright Office is studying this issue

    —Small claims may be a way for rights holders to enforce rights when federal litigation may be too expensive

    —The Copyright Office could, potentially, take a lead role in administering small claims

  5. Statutory Damages

    —Review registration requirements

    —Look at statutory damages from all angles

    —Statutory damages are important part of copyright act and should be retained

    —Need to provide guidance to courts about how statutory damages should be applied

  6. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

    —The Internet has evolved since DMCA passage in 1998

    —Congress should review the § 512 safe harbors

    —Congress also needs to review § 1201 rulemaking, especially in light of the White House response to a petition on unlocking mobile phones

  7. Registration and Deposit of Published Works

    —The deposit requirements for registration should remain in next copyright act

    —Congress should review the legal incentives for registration

    —How can the Library of Congress add born digital works to its collection through this process?

    —The policies surrounding mandatory deposit should not be driven by the collection building activities of the Library of Congress (see the ACCORD Report for more information)

  8. First Sale

    —Digital first sale will be an issue on the table

    —Physical first sale may also need to be reviewed, depending on the outcome of the Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons case currently before the Supreme Court

  9. Other Exceptions/Limitations

    —The libraries and archives exception in § 108 should be updated

    —Update exceptions for the blind and print disabled in § 121 for the digital world

    —Explore new exception for higher education institutions

    —Personal space-shifting

  10. Licensing

    —Need to review growth of licensing schemes

    —Review mechanical licenses

Now the “bold” issues:

  1. Term of 50 years, renewable for an additional 20

    —The Supreme Court decision in Golan v. Holder is last word on whether life plus 70 years is constitutional

    —However, the term of copyright protection could be modified to 50 years after the death of the author, renewable for another 20 years

    —This would put the burden on the copyright owner to renew copyright term at the end of 50 years after death

    —Modeled after § 108(h), something the Copyright Office is very fond of

    —This proposal would be acceptable under various international treaties, including the Berne Convention

  2. Opt-Out v. Opt-In

    —Extended collective licensing could potentially solve many problems

Finally, Congress should expand the role of the Copyright Office. The Office could help to resolve questions of law or fact through advisory opinions. The Office could also help to establish best practices on a number of topics, including searching for copyright owners. If an extended collective licensing scheme is devised by Congress, then the Office could provide transparency to that system.