(Previous episodes here).
From its early beginnings, WBU’s 2000 policy action on the international norm-setting stage had two pragmatic objectives. First, WBU was firmly of the opinion that the copyright regime of exceptions and limitations for the visually impaired of the world needed improvement, because access to published works was notoriously inadequate, and previous experience had shown that this important objective could not be left to the goodwill of national legislators alone. Second, the international copyright framework needed to be framed in such as a way as to allow for the import and export of works in accessible formats, thus creating a “global lending library” benefiting in particular those visually impaired persons living in economically weak countries.
From its early beginnings, WBU’s 2000 policy action on the international norm-setting stage had two pragmatic objectives. First, WBU was firmly of the opinion that the copyright regime of exceptions and limitations for the visually impaired of the world needed improvement, because access to published works was notoriously inadequate, and previous experience had shown that this important objective could not be left to the goodwill of national legislators alone. Second, the international copyright framework needed to be framed in such as a way as to allow for the import and export of works in accessible formats, thus creating a “global lending library” benefiting in particular those visually impaired persons living in economically weak countries.
According to a number of delegations and experts, however, the fulfillment of the WBU’s clearly formulated policy objectives would have run counter to existing, established principles of international copyright protection.
At the origin of the countries’ early willingness to engage in international copyright norm-setting activities, arguably, lies the strong interest in assuring the protection abroad of their domestic authors. In fact, absent obligations at the international level, domestic authors, normally, are not protected in foreign countries. With regard to the protection of domestic print disabled persons, however, national legislation would regularly suffice, hence no clear need for international norm-setting in favour of this specific category of users. Additionally, print disabled persons travelling to developed countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations already available in those countries’ national legislations. A further argument derived from international copyright principles is that copyright obligations stemming out of treaties and conventions are traditionally limited to the protection of foreign works. Part of the solution to the “book famine” envisaged by the WBU, however, would have required international obligations directly protecting domestic users. Finally, no “one size fits all” exceptions and limitations would have been suitable, as proven in particular by the very existence of the “controlling,” yet flexible three-step test.
(To be continued, hopefully next week).
At the origin of the countries’ early willingness to engage in international copyright norm-setting activities, arguably, lies the strong interest in assuring the protection abroad of their domestic authors. In fact, absent obligations at the international level, domestic authors, normally, are not protected in foreign countries. With regard to the protection of domestic print disabled persons, however, national legislation would regularly suffice, hence no clear need for international norm-setting in favour of this specific category of users. Additionally, print disabled persons travelling to developed countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations already available in those countries’ national legislations. A further argument derived from international copyright principles is that copyright obligations stemming out of treaties and conventions are traditionally limited to the protection of foreign works. Part of the solution to the “book famine” envisaged by the WBU, however, would have required international obligations directly protecting domestic users. Finally, no “one size fits all” exceptions and limitations would have been suitable, as proven in particular by the very existence of the “controlling,” yet flexible three-step test.
(To be continued, hopefully next week).
