Difference between revisions of "World Intellectual Property Organization (2010)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Line 33: Line 33:
 
|Government or policy=Yes
 
|Government or policy=Yes
 
|Literature review=No
 
|Literature review=No
|Funded By=WIPO;
+
|Funded By=World Intellectual Property Organization;
 
}}
 
}}
 
|Dataset={{Dataset
 
|Dataset={{Dataset

Revision as of 11:41, 8 October 2016

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

World Intellectual Property Organization (2010)
Title: Updated Report on the Questionnaire on Limitations and Exceptions
Author(s): WIPO Secretariat - Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Year: 2010
Citation: WIPO Secretariat, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Updated Report on the Questionnaire on Limitations and Exceptions (2010)
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Data were collected through the replies to the Final Questionnaire on Limitations and Exceptions sent by 61 Member States to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Secretariat. The Secretariat examined more than 6,000 responses.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2010
Funder(s):
  • World Intellectual Property Organization

Abstract

The present document reports on the replies to the Final Questionnaire on Limitations and Exceptions to copyright sent by 61 Member States to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Secretariat.

Main Results of the Study

  • Out of 61, 44 Member States have a system of specific limitations and exceptions. Twelve Member States provide for mix of specific exceptions and open system, for example the United States of America fair use doctrine, which is very broad in scope and is being interpreted and applied by courts on basis of case law precedents; or more specific and limited, such as fair dealing concepts. Three Member States have an open system of limitations and exceptions. The Copyright Act of Chile contains a catalogue of specific statutory exceptions and limitations as well as a general exception of flexible character. Japan, one of the countries with specific statutory limitations and exceptions only, indicated that there are discussions being held regarding the introduction of an open system. Finland mentioned that its Copyright Act includes, besides specific statutory exceptions, also a system of extended collective licenses.
  • Fifty-seven Member States confirmed that their national laws include limitations and exceptions for educational purposes. There was only one negative answer, given by Seychelles. Three Member States did not submit any reply to this question. In their detailed answers, Member States described a broad range of limitations and exceptions for educational purposes.
  • Fifty Member States confirmed that their national laws include limitations and exceptions that permit copying by libraries and/or archives for purposes of preservation or replacement. Legislations of six Member States do not include any limitations and exceptions of this kind. Five Member States did not submit any reply to this question. In addition to allowing reproduction by libraries and archives for purposes of replacement of lost, damaged or unusable works from their own collections, many national statutes explicitly permit reproduction for purposes of replacement of lost, damaged or unusable works from the collection of another library or archive.
  • National statutes of 40 Member States include limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired. The legislation of 15 Member States do not include any limitations and exceptions of this kind. Six Member States did not submit any reply to this question. Nineteen Member States have general limitations and exceptions which in most cases cover any uses for the benefit of persons with any disability where the work is used in a manner directly related to the disability and to the extent required by the disability. Other Member States’ legislations include limitations and exceptions with narrower scope, either for the benefit of persons with print disabilities or visually impaired persons only or for the benefit of visually impaired and hearing impaired. In one case, the limitations and exceptions cover only the reproduction right but in most Member States relevant limitations and exceptions cover also distribution of works and in many cases any other uses. Some Member States exclude works created specifically for use by persons with disabilities from the scope of the exception.
  • Thirty-six Member States have in their national laws some limitations and exceptions for religious, social or cultural purposes. The legislation of 19 Member States does not include any limitations and exceptions of this kind. Five Member States did not submit any reply to this question. Japan informed that its law contains general exception for not-for-profit performances.


Policy Implications as Stated By Author

No policy implication stated.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Green-tick.png
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 61
Level of aggregation: Country
Period of material under study: 2010