16 December 2013
Monday afternoon’s session of the WIPO SCCR witnessed a spirited debate on the heart of the proposed WIPO broadcast treaty (Article 6) on the Scope of Application. The original consolidated text, SCCR/24/10 CORR, contains two alternatives, A and B with language detailing the relationship between the protection of signals, the underlying content and webcasting.
India provided an alternative formulation to Article 6. In Alternative A, the Indian language replaces “broadcasts” with the “signals” and deletes the “reservations” clause in respect of “broadcasts over computer networks.”
The original language of paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 in Alternative A (proposed for deletion by India) states:
(3) Any Contracting Party may deposit with the Director General of WIPO a declaration that it will limit the protection provided under this Treaty in respect of broadcasts over computer networks to the [simultaneous and unchanged] transmission by a broadcasting organization of its own broadcasts transmitted by other means, provided that such reservation shall only have effect for a period not exceeding three years from the date of entry into force of this Treaty.
(4) To the extent that a Contracting Party to this Treaty makes use of the reservation permitted under the preceding paragraph, the obligation of other Contracting Parties provided for in Article 8 does not apply.
In the language for Alternative B, the Indian proposal explicitly states that the Treaty’s scope of application “extends only to signals used for the transmissions by the beneficiaries of the protection of this Treaty, and not to the programs contained therein, and only to the extent of rights acquired or owned by them from the owners of copyrights or related rights.”
The Indian language on Alternative B(4) excludes webcasting from the scope of protection:
The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection in respect of: (i) mere retransmissions; (ii) any retransmissions where the time of the transmissions and the place of its reception may be individually chosen by members of the public; or (iii) any transmission, including any rebroadcast or recablecast, over computer networks subject to the extent of rights acquired or owned by the broadcasting organizations.
Here is the Indian language on Article 6.
Proposal from India
Article 6
Scope of Application
Alternative A
[Alternative to (1)
(1) The provisions of this Treaty shall provide protection to the broadcasting organizations for their signals on traditional broadcasting and cablecasting media to enable them to enjoy the rights to the extent owned or acquired by them from the owners of copyrights or related rights.
(2) The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection in respect of mere retransmissions by any means.
(3) and (4) Delete.
Alternative B
(Alternative)
(1) The protection granted under this Treaty extends only to signals used for the transmissions by the beneficiaries of the protection of this Treaty, and not to the programs contained therein, and only to the extent of rights acquired or owned by them from the owners of copyrights or related rights.
(2) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the protection of broadcasting organizations in respect of their broadcasts and only on traditional broadcasting media.
(3) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply mutatis mutandis to the protection of cablecasting organizations in respect of their cablecasts and only on traditional cablecasting media.
(4) The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection in respect of: (i) mere retransmissions; (ii) any retransmissions where the time of the transmissions and the place of its reception may be individually chosen by members of the public; or (iii) any transmission, including any rebroadcast or recablecast, over computer networks subject to the extent of rights acquired or owned by the broadcasting organizations.
SCCR26 is now in informals; KEI will provide detailed analysis of the current state of play on Article 6 (Scope of Application) and Article 7 (Beneficiaries of Protection) as negotiators wade through the consolidated text, the Japanese proposal and the Indian proposal.