Membership list, 2004 - 2007
David Mann, United Kingdom
John Heilbrunn, Denmark
Catherine Desbuquois, France
Rodolfo Cattani, Italy
Mildred Theunisz, The Netherlands
Agnieszka Pelczarska, Poland
Francisco Martinez Calvo, Spain
Corresponding members :
Teuvo Heikkonen, Finland
Ilias Margiolas, Greece
Desmond Kenny, Ireland
Leif Jeppsson, Sweden
Back to Contents
Library
Back to Copyright contents
Useful links
Advice Note that can be submitted to Governments
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
WBU RESOLUTION ON COPYRIGHT AND PARTNERSHIP WITH PUBLISHERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
This General Assembly notes with pleasure the inclusion of recommendations
benefiting blind and partially sighted people in the draft model copyright law
developed by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). In
particular, it welcomes WIPO’s attempts in its text to facilitate the transfer
of modified, accessible material between jurisdictions.
This General Assembly urges all members to work for:
1. The extension of appropriate copyright exceptions to all national
jurisdictions;
2. The inclusion in new and existing exceptions of import and export rights;
3. The consequent development of agreements between countries on the exchange
of accessible material.
The Assembly also welcomes the increasing collaboration between WBU, the
Libraries for the Blind Section of the International Federation of Library
Associations (IFLA) and the Daisy Consortium.
It therefore:
4. Instructs WBU Executive to continue to foster close working relationships
on this and other related issues with the Daisy Consortium and the Libraries
for the Blind Section of IFLA;
5. Recommends the WBU executive to reconstitute the add hoc WBUSTIFLASTDAISY
liaison committee with its current terms of reference for the period 2004-2008
with a membership knowledgeable of the issues.
This General Assembly also acknowledges that progress on copyright alone will
not fully close the gap between the amount of material published and the
proportion available in accessible formats.
It therefore calls on the table officers to:
6. Maintain continuing dialogue with the International Publishers Association
and other rights holder bodies;
7. Actively support the development of "trusted intermediary" arrangements
between publishers and agencies serving blind people to facilitate the wider
and prompt availability of published books, newspapers and magazines in
formats accessible to blind and partially sighted people.
Back to Contents
Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society
(Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and Council)
Commentary on Final Text
by David Mann
Chair, EBU Copyright Working Group
1. The European Copyright Directive has now been adopted and was published in the Official Journal on 22nd June, 2001. This enables the European Union to ratify the copyright treaties adopted in 1996 by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Member states have 18 months from the date of publication to implement the mandatory parts of the directive in their national legislation. Many aspects of the directive still leave ample scope for national diversity.
2.
Click here for the full English language version of the text .
3. Although the European Blind Union did not obtain mandatory exceptions for blind and partially sighted people, we do have a strong recital (no. 43) stressing the importance of accessible formats, backing up the provisions of Article 5.3.b. We do have provision for mandatory exceptions for "transient" copies,
which should include those produced as part of the process of creating braille, large print or digital audio files (Recital 33 and article 5.1.). Article 6.4. states in its first sub-paragraph that, in the absence of voluntary agreements, member states must take steps to ensure that the beneficiaries of certain exceptions, including any for disabled people, are given the means of circumventing technological protection measures. This is extremely important, since many rights management schemes are not compatible with screen reading technology. The fourth sub-paragraph of Article 6.4. seeks to limit the scope of this provision, and Recital 53, in turn, limits the extent of 6.4 sub-paragraph 4. Thus we have some confusion and plenty of scope for interpretation. However, the intention of the eventual compromise was that only "pay-on-demand" or "pay as you view" video subscription services would be exempt from the provisions of Article 6.4 sub-paragraph 1.
4. All in all, I believe we have a text which is much "better" from our perspective than it might have been. EBU, both alone and in partnership, was a significant element in the balance of arguments that led to this result.
5. We now move to the stage of national implementation, with which the EBU Copyright Working Group would be happy to assist and advise. Even though exceptions for disabled people are not obligatory, this would be an excellent opportunity to introduce them. Moreover, please remember that the article on "transient" copies (Article 5.1.) is mandatory, and we will want to ensure that national interpretation explicitly covers our needs. Furthermore, if exceptions are already in place for blind and partially sighted people in national legislation, or are being introduced now, the requirement to provide a means of circumventing technological protection measures are also mandatory.
6. I give below extracts from the Directive that are of particular relevance to us. The exact wording of these texts can be very significant, and I would recommend that you go direct to the Official Journal if you require the precise text in other languages, rather than relying on any other translation of the English given here.
David Mann
Chair, EBU Copyright Working Group
Exceptions for Disabled People
Recital 43
It is in any case important for the Member States to adopt all necessary measures to facilitate access to works by persons suffering from a disability which constitutes an obstacle to the use of the works themselves, and to pay particular attention to accessible formats.
Article 5.3.
Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases :
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability ;
Article 5.4.
Where the Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, they may provide similarly for an exception or limitation to the right of distribution as referred to in Article 4 to the extent justified by the purpose of the authorised act of reproduction.
Article 5.5.
The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
Exceptions for "temporary" acts of reproduction
Recital 33
The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception should include acts which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently, provided that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. A use should be considered lawful where it is authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law.
Article 5.1.
Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable :
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
(b) a lawful use
of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.
Technological Protection Measures
Article 6.4. (first sub-paragraph)
Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.
Article 6.4. (fourth sub-paragraph)
The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
Recital 53
The protection of technological measures should ensure a secure environment for the provision of inter-active on-demand services in such a way that members of the public may access works or other subject-matter from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. Where such services are governed by contractual arrangements, the first and second sub-paragraphs of Article 6(4) should not apply. Non-interactive forms of on-line use should remain subject to those previsions.
Back to Contents
STATEMENT ENDORSED BY THE BOARD OF EBU, FEBRUARY 2002
At its meeting in Denmark on 12th May 2001, the EBU Copyright Working Group agreed to recommend to the Liaison Commission and to the Board that EBU adopt the following set of criteria as a means of judging proposals for legislation in relation to copyright and visually impaired people. These criteria are to be seen as complementary to the position paper adopted by the Board in 1998.
"We seek legislation which :
a) asserts visually impaired people's right to equitable access to all published information ;
b) enshrines rights, and does not merely create vehicles for permission or licensing ;
c) is not tied to particular formats or particular technologies ;
d) is future proof ;
e) focuses on the individual end-user, not the format ;
f) takes account of the fact that alternative formats may be legitimately produced by a wide range of organisations and by individuals ;
g) acknowledges that access may be sought at or from home, school, workplace, library or any other context.
h) acknowledges that the creation of alternative format versions from lawfully acquired originals on a non-profit basis, with controlled distribution amongst visually impaired people, does not constitute an infringement of copyright and thus requires no permission."
Back to Contents
under review
Back to Contents