Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Friends and followers of the nation and culture of India gathered in Geneva this week to celebrate India's Republic Day, with a ceremony and feast held in the halls of the UN World Intellectual Property Organization. Among the many achievements and areas of growth mentioned of the rising economy was its prowess in generic medicines production.
Ed Klaris writes: Recently, a photographer whose camera was used by a monkey to take a selfie settled a two-year legal battle against an animal rights group about copyright over the image. The lower court had denied the monkey a copyright, but the photographer did not want to face the appeals court. Whether monkeys can create copyrighted works is not exactly a pressing question for our time. But the important issues raised by this case and others about who owns creative work in an increasingly automated world are crucial to the future of copyright. With the advent of AI software, computers -- not monkeys -- will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.
A new report by the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) shows "great strides" in mobile phone penetration in least-developed countries. However, those countries are well behind developed countries when it comes to internet usage.
The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament organised last autumn the panel discussion titled, “Better Regulation for Copyright: Academics Meet Policy Makers” in Brussels. This is an initiative that together with a recently published study questions whether national and EU neighbouring rights for publishers are actually lawful. The article below gives an overview of the panel discussion and movements that followed in the legislative process in Brussels, with a special focus on the press publishers right, writes Ines Duhanic.
In recent years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Europe’s highest court, has made three important rulings concerning digital library activities in Europe, Vincent Bonnet and Barbara Stratton write on the EIFL blog.
The music community is ramping up its efforts to have significant new copyright legislation approved by United States Congress in 2018, amid key changes in the legislative apparatus, with the elevation of Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-New York) as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, a pivotal role that puts him at the heart of the US legislative system, and the retirement of the Committee's current Chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), at the end of the year.
What IP-Watch stories were readers reading most in 2017, and what does it say about the state of global intellectual property policy? In this article, we look at the most-trafficked stories of last year, and make a few assumptions. Asia, Europe, trade, health. These were the top targets of interest to readers among our offerings. Interestingly, despite all the sound and fury in Washington, our coverage there was not at the top of the list. Even more interestingly, neither was our extensive and world-leading coverage of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Current US law extends copyright for 70 years after the date of the author's death, and corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication. But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years—an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years. Under those laws, works published in 1961 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2018, where they would be “free as the air to common use.” Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2057.1 And no published works will enter our public domain until 2019. The laws in other countries are different—thousands of works are entering the public domain in Canada and the EU on January 1, writes the Duke University Center for the Study of the Public Domain.
The 12th Internet Governance Forum has closed its doors and sent home the last of the more than 2,000 die-hard internet governance adepts from 142 countries who stayed until a mere three days before Christmas in the halls of the United Nations in Geneva. Asking the adepts and the critics about what has changed in the forum that started because governments just could not agree on how critical internet infrastructures should be managed during the 2005 UN World Summit on Information Society, the first answer always is just “big”.
With originally 3,000 registered, it is the biggest international internet politics conference. But “big” is not only the size of the meeting, it is also the number of workshops, panels, best practice forums and bi-, pluri- and (nearly) multi-lateral meetings taking place over the five days. So this year Intellectual Property Watch, having participated substantively all week, decided to make an encyclopaedic endeavour to bring you the first IGF dictionary (or to make a dictionary about that encyclopaedic endeavour) in an effort to give credit to the richness of the forum, but highlight some problems, too.
The United States has been a steadfast supporter of the UN-led Internet Governance Forum since its inception over a decade ago, regularly bringing large and high-level delegations to the Forum. The US must have seen the forum as the lesser evil when governments from many continents pounded the desks during the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in Tunis over the US special role in overseeing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and thereby the heart of the domain name system, the root zone. But IGF 2017, held this week, saw a dramatic change in that regard.