• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Disagreement Persists As WIPO Negotiations For An Accessibility Treaty Move Forward

July 10, 2011 by Andrew Baker (IPilogue Editor)

Andrew Baker is a LLB/BCL candidate at McGill University Faculty of Law.

WIPO members have recently met to discuss a potential treaty for the disabled that would create minimum exceptions in copyright laws to facilitate access to copyrighted works by persons who are disabled, and permit the sharing of accessible works across borders.

Advocates for the disabled, such as the European Blind Union (EBU), have argued that blind and partially sighted people are denied full participation in education, employment, and culture by the failure of copyright law to create exceptions for the creation and distribution of accessible formats.  Many developed countries have exceptions in place in their domestic copyright laws to address these concerns.  For example, in Canada, updated provisions were considered in Bill C-32.  Nevertheless, the production and distribution of accessible print materials has remained low, particularly in developing nations, prompting several proposals for a WIPO treaty that would create binding exceptions in law.

At present, several nations, including the US and the European Commission, remain opposed to a treaty and support only soft law solutions and a non-binding recommendation.  Despite the EU’s stance, the European Parliament has recently called on the Commission to pursue a treaty solution highlighting the disagreement that exists over the issue.   Pressure has also been mounting from advocacy groups, such as the European Blind Union, who remain committed to a treaty.  See here for IPOsgoode’s past coverage regarding the EBU and EU Parliament’s support for a treaty solution.

Despite the point of disagreement over a treaty, the recent round of WIPO negotiations seems to demonstrate some progress on the issue.  A cross-regional group of member states, including the US, have put forward a document outlining shared viewpoints which could form the basis of a future international legal instrument.  This “consensus document” was submitted to WIPO as a formal proposal for a legal instrument.  Nevertheless, it appears that substantial disagreement persists as member states continue to adhere to their original positions regarding the nature of any future legal instrument with the US and EU remaining opposed to any form of binding treaty.

Despite the disagreement, the European Blind Union has noted that the negotiations have, “Made great progress towards a law to improve access to books for blind and other print disabled people.”  The EBU also thanked the EU Commission for its help in, “Draft[ing] the text and in its desire to consult the European Blind Union on the substance of that text,” while reiterating its commitment to a binding treaty and reminding the Commission that the EU Parliament also advocates for a treaty.

Despite the common ground struck at this round of negotiations, the form of any future legal instrument remains unclear.  A finalized draft document and further negotiations on how exactly any proposal will become law are expected in November 2011.

Posted in Copyright, copyright reform, Infringement, Licensees, Literary Works, Technology, WIPO

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« White House Commends Agreement Reached Between ISPs And Industry | Copyright Alerts: The Next Solution to Online Piracy? »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • Who Inherits Your Likes?
  • Game of Thones – Piracy is Coming
  • AEREO, Cable, What’s The Difference?
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (158)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (15)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (54)
  • events (88)
  • Fashion Industry (22)
  • Feature Post (206)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1242)
    • Copyright (617)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (79)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (157)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (15)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (104)
      • Originality (33)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (37)
    • Patents (381)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (75)
    • Trademarks (243)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (176)
    • Canada (80)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (74)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (85)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (64)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (34)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (4)
  • WIPO (16)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736