(Available episodes so far here).
In earlier times, a few national legislators already recognized the necessity of specific public policy intervention for the benefit of the print disabled. In 1964, the Sweden/BIRPI Study Group formed in preparation for the Stockholm Conference of Revision of the Berne Convention identified “reproduction in special characters for the use of the blind” and “sound recordings of literary forks for the use of the blind” amongst the exceptions provided for in some national legislations. At the international level, Brazil was the first country to raise the matter of the copyright status of visually impaired persons at the 1977 joint UNESCO/WIPO sessions, thereby proposing to set up a working group whose task would have been “to study suitable ways and means of facilitating the free flow of books and publications designed for the visually impaired.” The Committees decided to appoint the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind (WCWB - which later, together with the International Federation of the Blind, was to form the World Blind Union) to carry out a preliminary study for the Secretariats, supplemented by a brief overview of the solutions which had already emerged in national legislations. In 1979, the WCWB Study (the1979 Study) was submitted to the two Committees, and circulated to Member States for comments. At the 1981 WIPO/UNESCO joint sessions, the delegations of Brazil and of the United States of America proposed to set up a working group, in which representatives of the WCWB and of the International Publishers Association were invited to take part in an advisory capacity.The Secretariats of UNESCO and WIPO commissioned a study to Wanda Noel, a Canadian independent expert, on the application of the Berne Convention “to material for the visually and auditory handicapped” (the1981 Study).
Noel’s analysis contained draft model provisions assisting in the formulation of national legislation for visually impaired persons, which in 1982 were largely endorsed by the Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Protected by Copyright, chaired by Mihály Ficsor. In particular, the working group adopted two alternative model provisions, the main difference being that Alternative A was an outright exception, permitting the reproduction “without the consent of the author and without payment of remuneration,” whereas Alternative B consisted in a compulsory licence, requiring the payment of remuneration for use. At the following WIPO/UNESCO joint meetings, the Chairman of the working group expressed concerns as regards the model provisions, stating that the “this preferential treatment is a minimum and a more reserved attitude of representatives of authors would endanger the positive image of copyright and the public support for solving the fundamental problems of copyright protection.” Some countries, in particular Australia, Austria, Israel, the Netherlands and Norway, however, were strongly in favour of Alternative B, providing for a compulsory licence. Austria and Norway in particular stressed the importance of maintenance of the “symbolic nature of remuneration.” Striking a more restrictive tone, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America held that “exceptions to copyright were not necessary, as negotiations on a voluntary basis between the handicapped and the representatives of authors generally produced satisfactory solutions.” In conclusion, the Committees recommended further work in this field, and the question was kept on the Committees’ respective agendas. In the following, the Secretariats drew up a preparatory document (the 1985 Study) focusing on a number of points highlighted by the Committees, with the assistance of the same expert who had drafted the 1981 analysis. The more recent study expanded on previous discussions, by drawing a line between the “production of special media materials,” addressed by means of an exception or a compulsory license in domestic copyright law, and the cross-border distribution of those materials, “prohibited because of importation provisions contained in the copyright laws of most countries.” Two solutions were suggested to the “dual problem of production and distribution:” either the removal of those provisions obstructing international exhaustion, or the formulation of an “entirely new international instrument which would permit production of special media materials and services in member states, and the distribution of those materials and services amongst member states without restrictions.” The 1985 Study concluded by recommending the formulation of the new international instrument, as “it would solve both production and distribution problems by providing a legal mechanism for sharing materials and services for the handicapped around the world.” At the 1985 WIPO and UNESCO joint Committees’ meetings, Brazil, Guinea and Portugal manifested considerable interested in an international instrument.
(Next episode: The discussions' revival at the international level in the new millenium)
