Om te lezen: Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content

S.F. Musungu, R.A. Ghosh, C.A. Jasserand & P.B. Hugenholtz, Part I, II and III of a study commissioned by WIPO on Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content, WIPO.int 25 maart 2012. - in .doc-bestand.

The Annex to this document contains a Study on Using the Copyright Framework to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content prepared under the project on Intellectual Property, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), the Digital Divide and Access to Knowledge (CDIP/4/5/REV).  The part one of this Study addressing the Education and Research, has been prepared by Mr. Sisule F. Musungu, President, IQsensato, Geneva, the second part on Software Development Practices has been prepared by Mr. Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, Senior Researcher, Maastricht University, UNU-Merit, Maastricht, The Netherlands, and the third part on Public sector information has been prepared by Ms. Catherine Jasserand, LL.M, Researcher, and Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director, Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Part I: Using the Copyright Framework to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content for E&R Resources – Case Studies
Part II: IPR regimes for software:  Copyright, Open Source and Limitations and Exceptions
Part III: Public Sector Information

Recommendations Part I, p. 22 - 23:

(...) In addition to its role as a discussion/negotiations forum, WIPO invests significantly and is an important source of E&R resources on IP and related subjects.  The relevant E&R resources range from course and training materials through to studies, such as this one, through to a journal and other publications.  Taking into account the work that has already began under the Development Agenda Project on IP, ICTs, the Digital Divide and Access to Knowledge, WIPO could, within its mandate, play a more significant role with respect to OA for E&R resources.

To start with, as a significant provider of E&R resources on IP and related subjects, a first question that needs to be asked is what WIPO’s copyright management model for these E&R resources is.  To the extent that OA approaches can enhance access to E&R information and content WIPO could, as an institution adopt or, at least, pilot this approach to its E&R resources.  As noted in section 2.5 above, WIPO has already begun a process to consider the potential for OA with respect to its own materials and possible open licensing models for international organizations.  By adopting or piloting this approach at the institutional level, WIPO could achieve several objectives.  In addition to enhancing the availability of the said E&R information and content, the WIPO Secretariat could learn valuable lessons and gain experience that could be used in providing advice or assistance to those developing countries that are interested in using OA approaches.  Overtime, WIPO could also develop replicable best practices and generate useful information for assessing sustainability and effectiveness of these approaches.

There is also a clear role for awareness and education in this area.  While there is has been a significant rise in the uptake of OA as a copyright management model or practice for E&R resources, OA is still not well understood even by those who may associate with its principles.  Leveraging its mandate as a forum for discussion on copyright and related matters, WIPO should ideally continue to provide a space, in the CDIP or elsewhere, for raising awareness regarding this model and what it can and cannot do.  In the same context, WIPO provides an ideal forum and space to examine best practices in this area from different countries.

The greater interest and investment by governments and institutions in OA as a model for managing copyright in E&R resources is an important development.  As the uptake of this approach grows, it will be critical that better evidence is made available to policymakers, especially in developing countries, on the sustainability and effectiveness of this model. Taking advantage of WIPO’s increased investments in research and evidence gathering coupled with the broader interest in evidence-based IP policies and strategies, another role for WIPO in future could be evidence gathering and dissemination.  As this Study reveals, there remains limited data and evidence regarding sustainability and longer-term effectiveness of this model.  The body of evidence, particularly in developing countries, could be significantly enriched by WIPO.

 

Recommendations Part II, p. 64-65:

Recommendations are listed below with a primary focus on WIPO initiatives, and a secondary focus on member states activities:

1.    Avoid aggravating policy lag;  increase awareness of open source as a source of innovation in software.  WIPO, like many member states, has in the past not paid much positive attention to open source, although this has changed in the past few years.  The world's software industry is now, with few exceptions, run on open source software.  The global economy – the New York and London Stock Exchanges and NASDAQ – run on open source software (Linux) .  Mobile computing, the fastest growing way for ICT distribution in developing countries, is also dominated by open source software such as Linux and Google's Android .  It is important for policy makers at all levels to recognise that open source licensing is an innovation and licensing model that has been widely accepted by industry and provides a legitimate way for broadening ICT access.

2.    WIPO should include open source licensing and IPR issues in technical training.  Unlike many sectors of IPR, broadening access to software does not necessarily depend on exceptions and limitations;  open source software relies on copyright law within the boundaries set by TRIPS.  National PTOs and copyright offices often lack awareness of the IPR issues involved with open source software;  as it is an important policy option, WIPO should ensure the provision of technical training to increase knowledge and awareness among member states.  Several resources for this purpose have been created by member states themselves (especially within the EU's OSOR project)

3.    WIPO should specifically address open source in discussions on standards and IPR, specifically Standards Policy and Patent Policy, where open source software may be penalised.  Recent publications and policy statements in the EU (specifically, European Commission) are highly relevant for an appropriate approach

4.    Encourage the study of fiscal policies, such as equitable tax treatment for open source creators:  open source software contributions should be treated as charitable donations for tax purposes.  Where this is already possible, spread awareness among firms, contributors and authorities.  (Primarily an issue for member states, although perhaps also for WIPO – the ToR for this study specifically called for a discussion of fiscal issues)

5.    Avoid penalising open source in innovation and R&D incentives, public R&D funding and public software procurement that is currently often anti-competitive and favours specific proprietary brands to a far greater extent than most other sectors of procurement (member states)

6.    Avoid lifelong vendor lock-in in educational systems by teaching students skills, not specific applications;  encourage participation in open source-like communities (member states)

 

Recommendations Part III, p. 94:

1.    For any model of promoting access to and re-use of government information, having rigorous freedom of information laws in place is a sine qua non.  There are still numerous countries in the world that have yet to adopt such laws.   In those countries that already have such laws in place, public awareness thereof needs to be raised or increased.

2.    Governments should be encouraged to clear the copyright status of public sector information and other intellectual property rights that might prevent the public from accessing and re-using public sector information.  Governments might consider implementing one of three models:  (1) placing all public sector information in the public domain;  (2) excluding only official acts from copyright protection and allowing re-use of other types of public sector information under permissive (open) licenses, or (3) protecting all public sector information but allowing re-use through copyright waivers or permissive (open) licenses.  WIPO could play a dual role here by (a) drafting model laws, and (b) educating lawmakers in member states and/or providing technical assistance.  Alternatively, Governments might combine the different models to set up their own.  WIPO could also guide countries in finding the suitable model matching national copyright law and policy with public sector availability and funding options.

3.    Governments should be encouraged to set up their own national portals to facilitate the accessibility, dissemination and re-use of public sector information.  However, the decision to set up and maintain a governmental portal should be taken following an assessment of the financial sustainability of the model.

4.    In those countries where public sector information is (fully or partially) protected by copyright, this should be released under an open license, either by way of a (standard) license (such as Creative Commons) or a tailor-made license.  Here again, WIPO could possibly play a role, either by publishing best practices or by developing suitable standard license models.  Alternatively, countries might consider setting legal standards by regulatory means, such as laws or guidelines, permitting reutilization of public sector information under generous conditions.