Publicado originalmente en inglés el 6 de abril de 2018. Traducción: Equipo de CC Uruguay.

Un borrador recientemente filtrado del tratado de libre comercio Mercosur-Unión Europea muestra pequeñas mejoras en el capítulo sobre propiedad intelectual. Parece que la extensión innecesaria e injustificada de 20 años de duración del derecho de autor ahora se elimina del acuerdo, y las partes han introducido cierta flexibilidad para que los usuarios eviten las medidas tecnológicas de protección con el fin de ejercer sus derechos. Pero en su mayor parte, las negociaciones continúan favoreciendo un mayor endurecimiento de los derechos de autor a expensas de las protecciones para los derechos de los usuarios y los bienes comunes. Como explicamos a continuación, las medidas para proteger el dominio público continúan diluidas, la disposición que requiere una compensación obligatoria -independientemente de que los creadores la quieran o no- se mantiene y la sección de excepciones y limitaciones al derecho de autor se reduce a un mínimo.

El año pasado, en colaboración con varios capítulos de nuestra red global, Creative Commons publicó un análisis que abarca diversos temas relacionados con el derecho de autor presentados en un borrador del capítulo de propiedad intelectual del tratado de libre comercio Mercosur-UE.

La Unión Europea (UE) y el Mercosur han estado negociando este tratado de libre comercio (TLC) desde el año 2000. El tratado es expansivo y se ocupa de aspectos tan dispares como el comercio de bienes industriales y agrícolas, cambios potenciales a las reglas que rigen a las pequeñas y medianas empresas, compras gubernamentales y disposiciones de propiedad intelectual, incluyendo los derechos de autor y las patentes. En nuestro análisis del año pasado, examinamos cuestiones que afectarían el dominio público, la creatividad y el intercambio de conocimiento, así como los derechos de los usuarios en la era digital.

Las negociaciones del TLC entre el Mercosur y la UE tienen lugar en un entorno en el que se está definiendo de manera creciente la regulación de derecho de autor a través de acuerdos comerciales multilaterales. En nuestro informe, los principales puntos que discutimos fueron los siguientes:

• los plazos de derecho de autor no deben extenderse,
• los derechos de los usuarios deben protegerse expandiendo las limitaciones y excepciones al derecho de autor,
• la remuneración obligatoria interfiere con el licenciamiento Creative Commons,
• las medidas tecnológicas de protección no deben limitar el ejercicio de los derechos de los usuarios.

También recordamos el principio de sentido común según el cual las negociaciones de tratados comerciales deben ser transparentes e involucrar a la ciudadanía, no secretas y decididas a puerta cerrada.

Desde nuestro análisis del año pasado, ha habido dos nuevos borradores filtrados del capítulo sobre propiedad intelectual. Uno fue publicado por Greenpeace en diciembre de 2017 en base a la 28ª ronda de negociaciones. Otro fue publicado la semana pasada por el sitio web bilaterals.org, basado en el texto consolidado tal como quedó al final de la 32ª ronda de negociaciones que finalizó el mes pasado.

Como Jorge Gemetto escribió en el blog de la Asociación Communia, el borrador del capítulo de propiedad intelectual filtrado por Greenpeace reveló un gran desacuerdo entre las partes.

Se advierte fácilmente que, mientras el interés de la Unión Europea es el de aumentar los plazos y áreas de protección de la propiedad intelectual, así como imponer nuevas sanciones penales para las infracciones, los países del Mercosur buscan evitar estándares más altos de propiedad intelectual, incorporar excepciones y limitaciones obligatorias al derecho de autor, y favorecer la identificación y protección del dominio público.

Como lo advierte Gemetto, existe un gran desbalance entre el poder de negociación de cada parte, y la UE claramente tiene la ventaja. Estando la UE ya alineada con el marco restrictivo de propiedad intelectual “TRIPS Plus“, busca exportar a otros lugares estas medidas de incremento de la protección y su aplicación.

Finalmente, llegamos al borrador del capítulo de propiedad intelectual filtrado recientemente que publicó bilaterals.org. Hay algunos cambios importantes desde la versión publicada por Greenpeace.

La mención del dominio público se diluirá y quedará sepultada

La filtración de Greenpeace de diciembre de 2017 encontró que las partes discutían si (y cómo) debía mencionarse el apoyo al dominio público en el Artículo 4 (Principios). La UE propuso el texto: “Las Partes reconocen la importancia de un dominio público robusto, rico y accesible”, mientras que los países del Mercosur abogaron por: “Las Partes tendrán debidamente en cuenta la necesidad de preservar un dominio público robusto, rico y accesible, y cooperarán entre sí para identificar los diferentes materiales que han ingresado en dominio público”.

La versión de la UE ganó. El texto consolidado compartido por bilaterals.org ahora dice: “Las Partes reconocen la importancia de un dominio público robusto, rico y accesible”. Además, una nota en el documento mueve el texto de la sección “Principios” a la sección “Cooperación”.

La remuneración obligatoria permanece

La borrador anterior, publicado por Greenpeace, mostraba que las partes discutían si habría una remuneración obligatoria (Artículo 9.6) para los intérpretes, ejecutantes y productores de música. La UE quería que el texto dijera: “Las Partes otorgarán un derecho para garantizar que el usuario pague una única remuneración equitativa a los artistas intérpretes o ejecutantes y productores de fonogramas, si un fonograma publicado con fines comerciales, o una reproducción de dicho fonograma, se utiliza para la transmisión por medios inalámbricos o para cualquier comunicación al público.” El Mercosur quería que este derecho fuera opcional, sugiriendo que el texto dijera: “Las Partes pueden otorgar…”.

La versión de la UE ganó. El texto consolidado ahora dice “otorgarán”. Este cambio muestra un esquema que se repite en las negociaciones: las disposiciones que tienen que ver con la aplicación de la propiedad intelectual y la protección de los titulares de derechos son obligatorias (“deberán”), mientras que las disposiciones que beneficiarían a los usuarios y al interés público son solo opcionales (“pueden”). Este tipo de disposición interferiría con el funcionamiento de algunas licencias Creative Commons, exigiendo un pago incluso cuando la intención del autor es compartir su trabajo creativo con el mundo de forma gratuita.

La extensión del plazo de derecho de autor fue puesta en suspenso

El borrador filtrado por Greenpeace reveló que las partes continuaban discutiendo sobre el plazo de derecho de autor (Artículo 9.7). La UE quería la vida de autor + 70 años, mientras que el Mercosur quería la vida + 50 años.

El texto consolidado ahora dice “transcurrirá durante la vida del autor y no menos de 50 años o por 70 años cuando así lo disponga la legislación nacional de las Partes…”.

La versión del Mercosur ganó porque el texto indica que se aplicarán los términos nacionales existentes. Esta es una mejora significativa en el sentido de que no obliga a aumentar el plazo a los países que tienen un plazo más corto. Ampliar aún más los plazos de derecho de autor no hace nada por promover la creación de nuevas obras, e incluso exacerba los desafíos relacionados con los plazos extensos, como el problema de las obras huérfanas.

Las excepciones y limitaciones fueron reducidas al mínimo

La filtración de Greenpeace mostró que las partes discutían sobre el alcance de la sección sobre limitaciones y excepciones (Artículo 9.9). El Mercosur quería incluir una lista no exhaustiva de usos aceptables para ser cubiertos bajo limitaciones y excepciones, incluyendo la crítica, la cobertura de noticias, la enseñanza y la investigación.

Sin embargo, el texto consolidado publicado por bilaterals.org no incluye la lista no exhaustiva. En su lugar, esencialmente vuelve a apoyarse en el texto de la regla de los tres pasos (“Cada Parte establecerá excepciones y limitaciones a los derechos exclusivos solo en ciertos casos especiales que no entren en conflicto con la explotación normal de la obra y no perjudiquen injustificadamente los intereses legítimos de los titulares de derechos”).

La protección del derecho de autor y las medidas de aplicación de dicha protección siempre deben equilibrarse con consideraciones de interés público; en otras palabras, los derechos de los autores siempre deben limitarse, reconociendo y defendiendo los derechos de los usuarios en el ecosistema del derecho de autor. El texto consolidado solo proporciona una mínima consideración para los derechos de los usuarios.

Una cierta flexibilidad para ejercer los derechos bajo los esquemas de medidas tecnológicas de protección

Por último, la versión publicada por Greenpeace reveló que la UE estaba proponiendo un nuevo texto en torno a las medidas tecnológicas de protección (TPM, por sus siglas en inglés) (Artículo X.15). En ese borrador anterior, no se incluía ningún texto que autorizara a eludir las medidas tecnológicas para que un usuario pueda ejercer sus derechos bajo una excepción o limitación.

Sin embargo, el texto consolidado ahora incluye el siguiente texto: “Las Partes (UE: cuando sea permisible de conformidad con su legislación nacional) deberán (UE: podrán) garantizar que los titulares de derechos pongan a disposición del beneficiario de una excepción o limitación los medios para beneficiarse de esa excepción o limitación, en la medida necesaria para beneficiarse de esa excepción o limitación”. Por lo tanto, parece que habrá al menos alguna consideración legal para proteger la capacidad de los usuarios de eludir las TPM para ejercer sus derechos bajo una excepción o limitación.

Conclusión

Si bien es positivo que al menos las partes están llegando a la conclusión de renunciar a la extensión innecesaria del plazo de derecho de autor, la mayoría de los cambios en el texto consolidado muestran un persistente endurecimiento de la protección del derecho de autor, que favorece a los titulares de derechos a expensas de los usuarios y de los bienes comunes.

Además, las negociaciones siguen siendo esencialmente secretas y cerradas, con escaso conocimiento público salvo estas útiles filtraciones, y con pocas oportunidades para que la ciudadanía exprese sus preocupaciones. Es preciso reformar las negociaciones para apoyar plenamente un proceso que sea transparente, inclusivo y responsable.

The post Derecho de autor en el tratado de libre comercio Mercosur-Unión Europea: pocas mejoras y muchos retrocesos appeared first on Creative Commons.

Publicado originalmente em inglês em 6 de abril de 2018. Tradução: Ana Luiza Araújo

Uma proposta recém vazada do tratado de livre comércio entre o Mercosul e a União Europeia mostra pequenas melhorias no capítulo sobre propriedade intelectual. Agora parece que a extensão desnecessária e injustificada dos prazos de direito de autor por 20 anos não está mais no tratado, e as partes introduziram alguma flexibilidade para que os usuários contornem as medidas técnicas de proteção com o objetivo de exercer seus direitos. Mas, em sua maior parte, as negociações continuam a favorecer um maior endurecimento do direito de autor às custas das proteções de direitos dos usuários e dos bens comuns. Como explicaremos abaixo, as medidas para apoio do domínio público continuam a ser diluídas, a cláusula que requer a compensação obrigatória — indiferentemente se o criador a deseja ou não — está mantida, e a seção que delimita as exceções e limitações aos direitos autorais foi reduzida ao mínimo.

No ano passado, em colaboração com diversos parceiros de nossa rede global, a Creative Commons publicou uma breve análise de políticas, cobrindo diversos problemas relacionados ao direito de autor em um esboço do capítulo sobre propriedade intelectual do tratado de livre comércio Mercosul-UE.

A União Europeia (UE) e o sub-bloco regional da América Latina, formado por Argentina, Brasil, Paraguai e Uruguai (o Mercosul) vêm negociando um tratado de livre comércio (TLC) desde o ano 2000. O TLC UE-Mercosul é amplo, abarcando o comércio de bens industriais e agrícolas, potenciais mudanças nas regras aplicáveis a pequenas e médias empresas e às compras públicas, e provisões sobre propriedade intelectual como patentes e direito de autor. Nessa análise, nós examinamos as questões que afetariam o domínio público, a criatividade e o compartilhamento, e os direitos de usuário na era digital.

As negociações do TLC Mercosul-UE acontecem em um ambiente no qual as políticas de direito de autor se estabelecem de maneira crescente por meio de acordos de comércio multilaterais. Dentre os principais pontos defendidos em nossa análise, destacamos os seguintes:

• Os prazos de proteção do direito de autor não devem ser estendidos;
• Os direitos dos usuários devem ser protegidos mediante a expansão das limitações e exceções;
• A remuneração obrigatória interfere com o licenciamento em Creative Commons;
• Medidas de proteção tecnológica não devem limitar o exercício dos direitos dos usuários.

Nós também compartilhamos do princípio de senso comum de que negociações para acordos comerciais devem ser transparentes e incluir o público, não secretas e decididas atrás de portas fechadas.

Desde a nossa análise, mais duas versões provisórias do capítulo sobre propriedade intelectual foram vazadas. Uma foi publicada pelo Greenpeace em dezembro de 2017, com base na 28ª rodada de negociações. Outra foi publicada na última semana pelo site  bilaterals.org, com base no texto consolidado ao final da 32ª rodada de negociações que teve fim em março.

Como escreveu Jorge Gemetto no blog da Communia Association, o texto do capítulo sobre propriedade intelectual revelado pelo Greenpeace mostrou um significativo desentendimento entre as partes.

É fácil perceber que, enquanto o interesse da União Europeia é o de aumentar os prazos e áreas de proteção da propriedade intelectual, assim como impor novas penas para as infrações, os países do Mercosul procuram evitar padrões mais altos de propriedade intelectual, incorporar limitações e exceções obrigatórias para o direito de autor, e favorecer a identificação e proteção do domínio público.

Como adverte Gemetto, há uma grande discrepância entre os poderes de negociação de cada parte, com a UE claramente tendo a vantagem. E com a UE já alinhada com o restritivo marco regulatório “TRIPS Plus”, há uma procura por exportar essas medidas mais duras de proteção e aplicação em outros lugares.

Por fim, chegamos ao capítulo mais recente sobre propriedade intelectual publicado pela organização bilaterals.org, no qual temos algumas mudanças notáveis desde a versão do Greenpeace.

A menção ao domínio público será diluída e enterrada

A versão vazada pelo Greenpeace (em dezembro de 2017) revelou a discussão entre as partes sobre se (e como) deveria haver uma menção de apoio ao domínio público no Artigo 4 (Princípios). A UE propôs a linguagem “As Partes reconhecem a importância de um domínio público robusto, rico, e acessível”, enquanto os países do Mercosul defenderam a redação “As Partes levarão devidamente em conta a necessidade de preservar um domínio público robusto, rico e acessível, e devem cooperar mutuamente para identificar os diferentes materiais que ingressaram no domínio público.”

A versão da UE ganhou. O texto consolidado compartilhado pela bilaterals.org agora diz “As Partes reconhecem a importância de um domínio público robusto, rico, e acessível”. Além disso, uma nota no documento muda o texto da seção de “Princípios” para a seção de “Cooperação”.

A remuneração obrigatória fica

A versão anterior publicada pelo Greenpeace mostrava que as partes estavam discutindo se haveria a remuneração obrigatória (Artigo 9.6) para os intérpretes, músicos executantes e produtores musicais. A UE queria que a redação do texto fosse “As Partes conferem um direito para garantir que uma única remuneração equitativa seja paga pelo usuário aos intérpretes, músicos executantes e produtores de fonogramas, se um fonograma for publicado para fins comerciais, ou a reprodução de tal fonograma for utilizada para a difusão por meios sem fio ou para qualquer comunicação ao público.” Os países do Mercosul queriam apenas fazer deste um direto opcional, sugerindo que o texto fosse “As Partes poderão conferir…”

A versão da UE venceu. O texto consolidado diz “conferem”. Essa mudança repete um tema comum visto entre as negociações: cláusulas que se referem à aplicação da propriedade intelectual e à proteção dos detentores de direitos incumbentes são obrigatórias (“devem”), enquanto cláusulas que iriam beneficiar os usuários e o interesse público são apenas opcionais (“podem”). Este tipo de arranjo poderia interferir na operação de algumas licenças de Creative Commons ao exigir um pagamento mesmo quanto a intenção do autor seja o compartilhamento de seu trabalho criativo com o mundo de graça.

A extensão do prazo do direito de autor foi posta em suspensão

O texto provisório revelado pelo Greenpeace mostrava que as partes continuaram a discutir sobre os prazos do direito de autor (Artigo 9.7). A UE queria direitos vitalícios + 70 anos, enquanto os países do Mercosul os mesmo vitalícios + 50 anos.

O texto consolidado agora diz “transcorrerá durante a vida do autor e por não menos do que 50 ou 70 anos quando assim prover a legislação nacional das Partes…”.

A versão do Mercosul venceu porque o texto afirma que se aplicarão os termos nacionais existentes. Essa é uma melhora significativa no sentido de que não exige que os países com prazos mais curtos aumentem-os para o prazo mais longo. Estender ainda mais os prazos do direito de autor não faz nada para promover a criação de novos trabalhos, e até exacerba os desafios relacionados com prazos maiores, como o problema de obras órfãs.

Exceções e limitações reduzidas ao mínimo

A versão do Greenpeace mostrou que as partes estavam discutindo sobre o escopo da seção sobre limitações e exceções (Artigo 9.9). O Mercosul queria incluir uma lista não-exaustiva de usos aceitáveis a serem cobertos sob as limitações e exceções, incluindo críticas, notícias, educação, e pesquisa.

No entanto, o texto consolidado publicado pela bilaterals.org não inclui a lista não-exaustiva. Ao invés disso, ele essencialmente volta a se apoiar no texto da regra dos três passos (“Cada Parte irá estabelecer exceções e limitações para os direitos exclusivos apenas em certos casos especiais que não entrem em conflito com a exploração normal da obra e não prejudiquem de maneira injusta os interesses legítimos dos titulares de direitos”).

Medidas de proteção e aplicação dos direitos de autor devem sempre ser equilibradas com considerações do interesse público; em outras palavras, os direitos dos autores devem sempre ser moderados, reconhecendo-se e defendendo-se os direitos dos usuários no ecossistema dos direitos de autor. O texto consolidado somente provê o mínimo de considerações para os direitos de usuários.

Alguma flexibilidade para o exercício de direitos sob os esquemas de medidas tecnológicas de proteção

Por último, a versão do Greenpeace revelou que a UE estava propondo uma nova linguagem sobre medidas tecnológicas de proteção (Artigo X.15). Neste esboço anterior, não havia a inclusão de um texto que permitisse qualquer circunvenção de medidas tecnológicas para que um usuário possa exercer seus direito sob uma exceção ou limitação.

No entanto, o texto consolidado agora inclui a seguinte linguagem: “As Partes (UE: quando for permitido de acordo com suas leis nacionais) deverão (UE: poderão) garantir que os detentores de direito deixem à disposição do beneficiário de uma exceção ou limitação, na medida necessária para beneficiar-se dessa exceção ou limitação”. Então, parece que haverá pelo menos alguma consideração legal para proteger a capacidade de usuários de contornar as medidas tecnológicas de proteção para exercer seus direitos sob uma exceção ou limitação.

Conclusão

Ao mesmo tempo em que é positivo que ao menos as partes estejam chegando à conclusão de renunciar à desnecessária extensão do prazo dos direitos de autor, a maioria das mudanças na versão consolidada do texto mostra um contínuo endurecimento da proteção do direito autoral, o que favorece os titulares de direitos às custas dos usuários e dos bens comuns.

Além disso, as negociações continuam essencialmente secretas e fechadas, com pouco conhecimento público, salvo por esses úteis vazamentos, e poucas oportunidades para o público expresse suas preocupações. As negociações devem ser reformadas para apoiar plenamente um processo que seja transparente, inclusivo, e responsável.

 

The post Direito autoral no tratado comercial Mercosul-UE: poucas melhoras e muitos retrocessos appeared first on Creative Commons.

A recently-leaked draft of the Mercosur-EU free trade agreement shows minor improvements to the chapter on intellectual property. It appears that the unnecessary and unwarranted 20 year copyright term extension is now dropped from the agreement, and the parties have introduced some flexibility for users to get around technical protection measures in order to leverage their rights. But for the most part, the negotiations continue to favor increased tightening of copyright at the expense of protections for user rights and the commons. As we explain below, measures to support the public domain continue to be watered down, the provision which requires mandatory compensation—whether creators want it or not—is retained, and the section outlining exceptions and limitations to copyright is pulled back to a minimum.

Last year, in collaboration with several partners from our global network, Creative Commons published a brief policy analysis covering several copyright-related issues presented in a draft of the intellectual property chapter of Mercosur-EU free trade agreement.

The European Union (EU) and the Latin American sub-regional bloc consisting of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay (Mercosur) have been negotiating this free trade agreement (FTA) since 2000. It’s expansive, addressing trade in industrial and agricultural goods, potential changes to rules governing small- and medium-sized businesses as well as government procurement, and intellectual property provisions such as copyrights and patents. We examined issues that would affect the public domain, creativity and sharing, and user rights in the digital age.

The Mercosur-EU FTA negotiations take place in an environment where an increasing level of copyright policy is being constructed through multilateral trade agreements. In our policy brief, the main points we argued included the following:

• copyright terms should not be extended
• user rights must be protected by expanding limitations and exceptions
• mandatory remuneration interferes with CC licensing
• technical protection measures must not limit the exercise of user rights

We also echoed the longstanding commonsense principle that trade agreement negotiations must be transparent and involve the public, not secret and decided behind closed doors.

Since our analysis, there has been two subsequent leaked drafts of the chapter on intellectual property. One was published by Greenpeace in December 2017 based on the 28th round of negotiations. Another was published last week by the website bilaterals.org, based on the consolidated text as it stood at the completion of the 32nd round of negotiations which ended last month.

As Jorge Gemetto wrote on the Communia Association blog, the text of the IP chapter leaked by Greenpeace showed significant disagreement between the parties.

It is easy to see that, while the interest of the European Union is to increase the terms and scope of IP protection, as well as to impose new penalties on infringement, Mercosur countries seek to avoid higher IP standards, incorporate mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright, and favor the identification and protection of the public domain.

As Gemetto warns, there’s a big discrepancy in the bargaining power leveraged by each party, with the EU clearly holding the upper hand. And with the EU already aligned with the more restrictive “TRIPS Plus” IP framework, they’re looking to export these increased protection and enforcement measures elsewhere.

Finally, we arrive to the recent leaked intellectual property chapter published by bilaterals.org. There are a few notable changes since the Greenpeace version.

Mention of public domain will be watered down, and buried

The Greenpeace leak (Dec 2017) found the parties arguing whether (and how) there should be a mention of support for the public domain in Article 4 (Principles). The EU sought the language, “The Parties recognise the importance of a robust, rich, and accessible public domain,” while the Mercosur countries (MCS) advocated for, “The Parties shall take due account of the need to preserve a robust, rich, and accessible public domain, and shall cooperate with each other in identifying subject matters that have fallen into the public domain.”

The EU version won. The consolidated text shared by bilaterals.org now reads “The Parties recognise the importance of a robust, rich, and accessible public domain”). In addition, a note on the document moves the text from the “Principles” section to the “Cooperation” section.

Mandatory remuneration stays

The earlier Greenpeace version showed that the parties were arguing whether there will be mandatory remuneration (Article 9.6) for performers and producers of music. The EU wanted the text to read “The Parties shall provide a right in order to ensure that a single equitable remuneration is paid by the user to the performers and producers of phonograms, if a phonogram published for commercial purposes, or a reproduction of such phonogram, is used for broadcasting by wireless means or for any communication to the public.” MCS wanted to only make this right optional, suggesting that the text should read “The Parties may…”

The EU version won. The consolidated text now reads “shall.” This change repeats a common theme seen within the negotiations: provisions that have to do with enforcement and protecting incumbent rights holders are mandatory (“shall”), while provisions that would benefit users and the public interest are only optional (“may”). This type of arrangement would interfere with the operation of some Creative Commons licenses by requiring a payment even when the intention of the author is to share her creative work with the world for free.

Copyright term extension put on hold

The draft leaked by Greenpeace found that the parties continued to argue about copyright term (Article 9.7). EU wanted life + 70 years, while MCS life + 50.

The consolidated text now reads “shall run for the life of the author and not less than 50 years or for 70 years where the domestic legislation of the Parties so provides…”.

The MCS version won because the text states that existing national terms will apply. This is a significant improvement in that it doesn’t require the countries with the shorter term to increase to the longer term. Further extending copyright terms does nothing to promote the creation of new works, and even exacerbates related challenges, such as the orphan works problem.

Exceptions and limitations pulled back to a minimum

The Greenpeace leak showed that the parties were arguing about the scope of the section on limitations and exceptions (Article 9.9). MCS wanted to include non-exhaustive list of acceptable uses to be covered under limitations and exceptions, including for criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

However, the consolidated text published by bilaterals.org does not include the non-exhaustive list. Instead, it mostly goes back to relying on the 3-step test language (“Each Party shall provide for exceptions and limitations to the exclusive rights only in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holders.”).

Copyright protection and enforcement measures should always be balanced with public interest considerations; in other words, the rights of authors should always be tempered by recognizing and upholding the rights of users in the copyright ecosystem. The consolidated text only provides the bare minimum consideration for users rights.

Some flexibility to exercise rights under TPM schemes

Finally, the Greenpeace version found that the EU was proposing new language around technological protection measures, or TPMs (Article X.15). In that earlier draft, there was no inclusion of text that permits any circumvention of technological measures in order for a user to exercise their rights under an exception or limitation.

However, the consolidated text now includes the following language: “The Parties (EU: where permissible in accordance to their domestic law) shall (EU: may) ensure that right holders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefitting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation.” So it appears that there will be at least some legal consideration to protect the ability of users to circumvent TPMs in order to exercise their rights under an exception or limitation.

Conclusion

While it’s positive that at least the parties are coming to the conclusion to forego the gratuitous copyright term extension, most of the changes in the consolidated text show a continued tightening of copyright protections that favor incumbent rights holders at the expense of users and the commons.

Furthermore, the negotiations remain mostly secretive and closed, with little public knowledge save for these helpful leaks, and few opportunities for the public to voice their concerns. The negotiations must be reformed to fully support a process that is transparent, inclusive and accountable.

The post Copyright in Mercosur-EU trade agreement: A little better, but mostly worse appeared first on Creative Commons.

MIT Libraries Director Chris Bourg is one of the most salient voices in the library community for open access, diversity and inclusion, ethics in scholarly publishing, and social justice. As a keynote speaker for this year’s CC Global Summit, she’ll be discussing the nuances of the Open movement as an advocate for the digital commons and director of a major open access initiative.

Chris’s tweets and blog are must-follows – her dog, Jiffy, is an adorable and frequent guest star. In this interview, she discusses tech optimism, storytelling, diversity, and the fallacy of neutrality. Join Chris and more than 400 open advocates at the CC Global Summit in Toronto from April 13-15.

As an open movement, it’s become difficult to live our values as the web’s content Commons have become increasingly enclosed and the halcyon days of internet utopianism seem long over. As a prominent figure in the movement and a crusader for open, how can we do better? What are tangible and intangible steps we can take to move the needle? How can libraries play a role?
I think that generally speaking, I’m an optimist, but not a tech utopian. So I think we keep focusing on the ultimate goal and reasons for promoting an open digital commons. There are compelling stories to be told about the harms of information scarcity and knowledge monopolies, and there are equally compelling stories about ways in which open access to knowledge and culture helps us solve big (and small) challenges across the globe. We have to unearth and tell those stories, and bring more people and communities in to the cause. In some ways, the increasing commercialization of not just scholarship, but of our own personal, social, and behavioral data may be the wake-up call that leads to the next wave of organizing around creating a truly open, non-commercial, digital commons. I think libraries can play a role by acting as the trusted facilitators of information creation, exchange, and preservation that we have always been. A digital commons that combines the values of openness and sharing with the values of privacy and informed choice sounds an awful lot like a library to me – or at least the kind of network of libraries that many of us aspire to create and maintain.

In your position as Director of MIT Libraries, you are an outspoken advocate for open access and knowledge resources. The question of why libraries need to stand up for open access has been answered in a variety of places, but why are the MIT libraries central to this fight?
A big part of what drew me to this job at MIT is the fact that MIT, and the MIT libraries in particular, combine a strong cultural commitment to openness with an equally strong commitment to building the infrastructure needed to openly share knowledge resources. MIT has led before in making the fruits of its research and teaching open to the world; with Harvard in 2008 and 2009 on passing Faculty Open Access Policies, and before by launching Open CourseWare in 2000, with the mission of sharing all of MIT’s course content online, for free. When the MIT Faculty passed the OA policy in 2009, they turned to the libraries to implement the policy. The libraries at MIT have long been seen as a key player in facilitating the dissemination of MIT research to the world, and frankly, we’ve been pretty good at it. Nearly 50% of MIT faculty journal articles written since 2009 are openly available to the world – that’s nearly 27,000 articles, downloaded nearly 9.5 million times.

We are in a great position in the MIT libraries to be able to partner with leading scholars across the Institute, in Engineering, Sciences, Business, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Architecture and Planning, to strategize on what’s next for open access. Through the work of the recently launched Ad hoc Task force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, which I am co-chairing with Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Professor and founding director of Creative Commons, Hal Abelson, we are basically asking what’s next? How can we push the needle further, and how can MIT continue to lead? Creating a more open scholarly record will require changes at the technological, legal/regulatory, political, and social levels; so our task force has experts from all those perspectives represented. We are also reaching out to experts across the globe to inform our recommendations.

We talk a lot in libraryland about whether the open access movement and/or institutional repositories have been successful, but/and I think what MIT has been able to do in getting nearly 50% of the journal articles of our faculty in our open repository is a compelling success story. And that success story is an MIT Libraries story, so I feel some obligation to build on that success and to leverage it for the broader community of libraries and other organizations who share the goal of opening up our cultural and scholarly heritage to a global audience.

In his ALA talk this year, Junot Diaz pulled no punches when it came to the issues of diversity in libraries. “I wish that libraries would finally have a reckoning and know that [staffs that are] 88% white means 5000% percent agony for people of color, no matter how liberal and enlightened you think you are,” he said. You cited this quote in a recent talk as well. In your opinion, how can we do better as a movement for free and open knowledge? As librarians, researchers, scientists, and artists? How can we, in his words, “decolonize libraries,” or in the parlance of this conference, “decolonize open?”
I think we always have to ask who and what is missing, and continue to work to not just be more inclusive, but also to decenter white, western knowledge; and center the knowledge of marginalized communities.

But/and, instead of doing it ourselves we need to look to the people who are doing this work in and with those communities. Two examples I love are the work being done by Anasuya Sengupta and her colleagues at whoseknowledge.org, and P. Sanaith’s work creating and maintaining the People’s Archive of Rural India.

Decolonizing scholarship and decolonizing the web will require radical collaboration across many social, geographical, and political divides; and will have to be based on mutual exchanges of knowledge and skills. All of that requires trust, which is something that takes time to build and is based on relationships and authentic human connection. So if we want to decolonize open, then maybe we need to decolonize our social networks first.

One of the longest running and most frustrating conversations within libraries is whether they are “neutral.” (As you write, you are strongly on the “hell no” side.) Can you speak to the politics of neutrality within open, and particularly as it regards seemingly “neutral” actors like CC licenses and libraries? How does the conversation about “neutrality” relate to issues of diversity and inclusion within the free knowledge movement?
I don’t think of CC licenses or libraries as neutral. They are both predicated on the idea that people ought to have the ability to freely create, share, and access knowledge and cultural materials. That’s actually a pretty radical idea. Even if CC licenses and libraries can be and are used to provide access to a huge range of ideas and viewpoints, that doesn’t make them neutral. One of the arguments I make is that you can’t be neutral if one side argues that certain ideas should not be available in libraries (whether those ideas are contained in books representing LGBTQ families, or in gatherings of neo-Nazis) and another side argues that you have to include all ideas and viewpoints. You can’t satisfy both sides – you can’t keep the LGBTQ book and not keep the LGBTQ book at the same time. I may start calling this the Schrodinger’s Library argument against neutrality.

The fact that libraryland continues to have these debates about neutrality is really frustrating, and is very much related to issues of diversity and inclusion. So many of the library debates about neutrality are theoretical and academic and detached, and I think that reflects the stark lack of diversity in our profession. Too often the argument that it is a moral imperative for libraries to represent all sides of an issue, and to serve all patrons regardless of beliefs, come from a position of privilege and relative safety. For marginalized folks, it can feel like these debates about neutrality are really debates about whether we have to honor and engage with people who deny our very humanity and seek our destruction. Many of us would argue that allowing those who deny the humanity and basic dignity of others to coopt the legitimacy of our libraries and our profession to spread their hatred and intimidation is not in any way a neutral choice.

What is the need for Creative Commons today and why are you coming to keynote the Summit?
What I love about Creative Commons and the CC community is that it is driven by a compelling vision of an open digital commons, and that it provides the tools for people across the globe to choose how they want to participate in that commons. That combination of an abiding belief that openly accessible culture and knowledge are good for society, with a commitment to honoring individual choice is powerful; and it resonates with what I think is needed to advance the perpetual project of decolonizing and opening up the internet.

The post Chris Bourg on the Compelling Vision for an Open Digital Commons appeared first on Creative Commons.

This year was a transformative year for our Global Community. We launched our new network structure and worked globally to light up the Commons. The Summit is our annual time to come together to celebrate, appreciate, amplify, and learn with each other.

For the past two years, Creative Commons has funded attendance for nearly 25% of Global Summit attendees, all of whom are working to advance the cause of open knowledge in their home communities. This cohort of advocates, activists, community members, lawyers, librarians, and more were chosen by an outstanding committee of volunteers and staff.

CC was able to fund travel and expenses for an incredibly diverse group of people this year, awarding nearly $75,000 in funding. Our 97 scholarship winners represent six world regions. The majority of scholarship recipients come from the Global South – 91% of the money awarded went to this region, divided over 72% of recipients. 22% of scholarship recipients are from Latin America, 18% from Asia Pacific, 25% from Africa, 22% from Europe, 8% from the Arab World, and 5% from North America.

As CC Canada Public Lead Kelsey Merkley wrote on Twitter, “Travel is… hugely valuable. The opportunity cost is too great if we miss those voices in the room.” Through programs like our scholarship program, we are able to uplift those voices and affirm our commitment to diversity, accessibility, and usability in a variety of disciplines.

Below, hear how scholarship recipients are looking forward to engaging with their community at the Summit and spreading the values of the Commons around the world. The CC Global Summit will take place in Toronto, CA from April 13-15. Join us!

---

Andrés Delgado, Ecuador
I’m Andrés Delgado, contributor at Creative Commons Ecuador since 2012, and coming to the Summit from its capital city, Quito. The Global Summit is my first international event ever and I am overly excited to meet like-minded people from all over the world. I am looking forward to connect and create collaborative projects with them–seriously–I’ll be directing a workshop called “Mapping and engaging stakeholders and policy implementation for the Commons,” where you can learn how to address a high-ranked politician as well as how to create a coalition or face an opposing one (Saturday 4 PM, SoCo Ballroom C).

---

Jessica Stevens, Australia
I’m Jessie, a PhD Candidate at the Queensland University of Technology and a member of the Australian CC Chapter. I am coming to the Summit from Brisbane, Australia. I’m excited to attend the Global Summit because it’s a great opportunity to meet with people to share ideas, discuss new projects and learn more about what is happening within the CC community. I am involved with CC as my personal beliefs and goals align with those of CC – I believe that access to knowledge, culture and information is fundamental to progress and development! I will be running a session in the Open Bazaar on ‘Open Education, Open Publishing, and the value of access’.

---

Carlos Guerrero, Peru
I’m Carlos Guerrero, Peruvian lawyer enthusiastic about technology and IP, coming to the Summit from Lima. This is my second time in Toronto and I’m really excited to attend the sessions, hang around with friends and share thoughts and drinks. I’m involved with CC because I believe in the philosophy of the openness and the value of the Commons.

---

Sara Fratti, CC Guatemala
I’ve been a CC advocate since 2013 – this community has changed my life. I’m excited to attend this year Summit, to share experiences around the Commons and meet amazing humans that work on the openness. Come say hi at the CC Newbies Breakfast on Saturday at 8am, we are going to have some activities related to what brought us to the Commons, sharing is caring. Also join me at the session I’ll be facilitating:Central America goes CC on Saturday at 4pm.

---

Rebecca Hogue, USA
I’m Rebecca Hogue, an Associate Lecturer at the University of Massachusetts-Boston in the MA in instructional design program. I’m also a co-director of Virtually Connecting. I’m excited to be heading to CC global summit in order to learn additional ways I can integrate CC into my teaching. I’m also looking forward to meeting several Virtually Connecting “regulars” who are also CC Global Summit regulars – many of whom I will meeting face-to-face for the first time in Toronto. I’m not facilitating any formal sessions, but you will find me supporting informal Virtually Connecting (http://virtuallyconnecting.org) hallway conversations during the summit.

---

Shahadu Sadik, Wikimedia Ghana
I volunteer in contributing to Wikipedia and its sister projects and I will be representing Ghana at the 2018 CC global summit in Toronto, Canada.
I’m super excited to attend CC summit because I will be meeting other amazing contributors from the open community. I hope to learn more from other commoners across the globe. I am involved with CC because I believe in openness, diversity and sharing knowledge. I will be volunteering in the future of the commons track during the summit.

---

George Hari Popescu, CC Romania
It will be my 2nd participation at the CC Summit and I will have the opportunity to see some results of the last year’s proposals and campaigns. I will also be happy to meet again in person people whom I met last year and who are involved in interesting projects. I’m from Romania, an Eastern European country, member of the European Union, still struggling with reforms in open education, copyright and innovation.
I am remotely working as Translation Assistant for Creative Commons, supervising the translations of licenses in different languages and communicating with affiliates and teams across the Globe. I believe that all creators on Earth need to have the CC licenses in their own languages, in order to further use and promote them. In the Translation Working Group session, we will be trying to form a diverse team in order to streamline and better implement translation of licenses and supplementary useful content from

---

Franco Giandana, Argentina
I look forward to meeting you all in Toronto soon! My name is Franco Giandana and I will be assisting from Argentina, where I run a non profit Digital Rights organization and work as a digital lawyer, specially close to the creative sector. I am excited to get involved with the Global Community and to be part of the Commons network, and I expect to be having amazing conversations and discovering new perspectives on policy making and support for the creative sector in the Global South!

---

Virginia Rodés, Uruguay
Hello! I am Virginia Rodés and these are my wonderful partners of open adventures from the University of the Republic, Uruguay. I am happy and grateful to be able to participate in the CC Summit 2018 to contribute to disseminate the advances and challenges in open education in my country and in the Latin American region. With awesome colleagues from the region I will participate in the Session “How to involve public institutions with open policies?”, Difficulties and success stories from Latin America Saturday, April 14, 5:30 pm.

---

Leo Arias, Costa Rica
I’m Leo, from Costa Rica. I am member of a JáquerEspeis, where we try to combine many diverse expressions of free software, hardware and culture. I have just seen the schedule for the summit, and without a doubt it will help us on our journey to become a more sustainable collective, and to make our work more relevant to our region. I am looking forward to learn from and work with so many people from all over the world who are leading the open revolution. I will participate in the translations session on Saturday morning.

---

Esther Ekong, Nigeria
I am Esther, a research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, the institutional lead for CC Nigeria. I am one of the Institute’s coordinators for CC Nigeria and I am really excited about the Global Summit. There is still a level of suspicion and distrust among Nigerians about open knowledge caused largely by inadequate information. Being a strong advocate of ‘Openness’, I believe the summit is an opportunity for me to learn more and find out effective ways to help other academics especially in Nigeria, to appreciate ‘Openness’. It will also be an opportunity to meet others from different parts of the world and find out how they have dealt / are dealing with resistance to ‘Openness’. Thank you for the opportunity!

---

Ifeoma Shodeinde, Nigeria
My name is Ifeoma, a Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos. Nigeria. I feel awesome! I look forward to the Global Summit. I have a lot to learn from this global movement for the commons and connecting  with friends.I have written, published and presented papers in local and International forums on Creative Commons and access to knowledge.  I sincerely believe in open access to knowledge especially for those of us in the developing economies. I look forward to meeting every member of this Great Family!

---

Kamel Belhamel, Algeria
I’m Kamel, a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Bejaia in Algeria – North Africa. I’m thrilled to attend the CC Global Summit in Toronto because I’m very interested in collaboration, and also contributing to the African presence in open education. I’d like to see things change and even visible globally, also see a move toward having openness in terms of educational policy. I’ll participate to open Bazaar on Friday, April 13th at 2:00 pm.

---

Antonio Martínez Velázquez, Mexico
I’m Antonio, journalist, editor and digital rights activist from Mexico. For the past eleven years I have been a great Creative Commons enthusiast. Since then I have made sure that the sites I have edited, the texts I have written and the initiatives in which I participate are in CC. This is the first time I will be able to learn directly from the community that has inspired me and made my work possible. See you in Toronto!

---

Eddie Avila, Bolivia
I’m Eddie Avila, Rising Voices Director with Global Voices. I’ll be traveling from Cochabamba, Bolivia to take part in the CC Summit. I’m especially interested in learning more about alternative ways that indigenous communities are expressing and sharing knowledge in the digital age. I’ll also be participating in the Translation Working Group.

---

Achraf Younssi, Morocco
I’m Achraf, Filmmaker from Morocco, and member of madNess Association. I’m coming to the Summit from Casablanca, Morocco. I’ll be presenting at the Global Summit to learn more about the CC network, and sharing knowledge, and to exchange with people from the community, also to see what does other organizations like us are working on in relation with creativity, expose and share the world. We are working on a CC chapter in Morocco, specially about our project CCCC and the advocacy process about copyright and especially CC.

---

Penny Andrews, UK​
I’m Penny, a researcher at the University of Sheffield, and I’m coming to the Summit from Leeds in Yorkshire. I work on issues around policy and governance in Open, alongside my other research and teaching. I’m really looking forward to meeting friends old and new and building on our collaborations. I am involved with Open because it’s an important part of social justice. I’ll be facilitating a session called Infrastructure is Everything, Governance is Everything, Inclusion is Everything! on Friday at 5.30pm and you should check out the Sched to find out how you can contribute in advance.

---

Peter Leth, Denmark
I’m Peter Leth, affiliate for CC Denmark, where I work as an educational advisor, trying to help schools, GLAMs, teachers and of course pupils to know and use Creative Commons. Over the last 10 years I have tried to find out what the best set of tools and activities are when adopting Creative Commons into education. I going to speak about it in the session “How to bring CC into education,” with my collegue Rikke Falkenberg. It is my second summit, and I look forward meeting many of you again. It gives me so much inspiration and optimism. Thank you all.

---

Maryam Chakouk, Morocco
I’m part of madNess, an NGO working for the development and promotion of creative industries in Morocco and Africa. I’m also preparing a PhD in economics and management.
My daily work at madNess with creatives and artists, as well as the difficulties I personally meet as a student researcher, have pushed me to embrace the philosophy of open knowledge. That’s why I joined the global movement for the Commons. Being able to participate in the Global Summit is an opportunity for me to learn more and thus transmit more.

---

Mohamed Rahmo, Morocco
I‘m the President of madNess an NGO that is creating and curating the Creative Commons Moroccan chapter – we are very excited because right now we are doing work about educating and promoting the CC culture and the open culture through several projects. The mean focus now is to introduce people to Creative Commons, then push them to publish content under Creative Commons licenses and also advocate about the copyright policies here. First step is to make the Creative Commons part of the Moroccan copyright law and pass policies that make institutions use the CC.  We are very excited about the summit because we will advocate about our CCCC (Creative Commons Content Creation) project and also network with counterparts from all over the world and find opportunities for collaboration and work together for a more open world.

---

Nicolas Jupillat, Canada
I was lucky to co-lead the official French translation process of the CC 4.0 licenses on behalf of CC Canada, in cooperation with CC France and CC Luxembourg, with the support of community members from all over French-speaking Europe and Africa. I became involved in the project because I firmly believe in the role of the open movement in promoting linguistic and cultural diversity online. After more than two years of online exchanges and two face-to-face meetings in France and Burkina Faso, we came up with translations we could be proud of and made lasting friendships. I am excited to see my friends from the Francophone community again and meet the rest of the broader global community during the summit. I will be facilitating a session with Danièle Bourcier on Effective tools of Communication and Collaboration within the Francophone CC Community.

---

Sam Muirhead, New Zealand
I’m Sam, coming from Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand, and this will be my first ever event with the CC community, I can’t wait! I want to see a much wider range of people collaborating online, and building commons together, particularly in the arts. I’ll be running an open source collaboration workshop called Cut, Copy & Paste: we’ll use an analog version control system (rubber stamps, a photocopier and a typewriter) to create, remix and fork zines. We’ll be sharing stories and ideas about designing for remix and participation!

---

Lucien C.H. Lin, Taiwan
Hi I’m Lucien, the Legal Adviser at Open Culture Foundation. I have been a participant of CC Taiwan since 2007 – for quite a time. The past few years, I have engaged in the Open Data promotion activities in Taiwan, and successful help the authorities to apply a new Open Government Data license with a CC BY 4.0 switching clause. That makes almost all of the materials provided on the official data portals in Taiwan able to be utilized under CC licenses. I look forward very much to meeting more friends at the Global Summit this year, it’s the best occasion that we can share what we do in CC promotion and how we can do that together or learn how to do that in a more collaborative and efficient way. During the summit, I can be found in most of the OpenGLAM sessions, and other legal framework related ones.

---

Saša Krajnc, Slovenia
I’m Saša and I work at the Intellectual property institute in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Our institute offers consulting services in the field of IP, but I am very happy and proud, that we can also engage in activities promoting open education and sharing of creative content and advocate for changes of IP laws, which will benefit the open society. I am looking forward to meeting the members of the CC Community and broadening my views at my first Global Summit in the awesome setting of Toronto!

---

Margorie M. Merel S., Panama
This summit is a great opportunity for all those who wish to research on copyright and contribute to open knowledge.

---

Aisulu Chubarov, Kyrgyz Republic
Thank you for the opportunity to attend the CC Global Summit! I am so excited about it! I have been working over CC licensing issues for several years although there is no formalized CC representation in the Kyrgyz Republic. I am therefore keen to learn more how the CC ecosystem works, how to get involved into the CC network, promote the CC mindset as well as learn about best practices in collecting and promoting open educational content. The schedule of the Summit is so eventful; I wish I could attend all the sessions!

---

Razan Al-Hadid, CC Jordan project lead
I’ll be attending the summit coming all the way from Jordan. I’m so very excited to meet all the folks from all around the globe to pass our experiences and learn from each other. I’ll be presenting the session “Faces of the commons in the Arab World” Friday 13th April at 4:00 pm. Catch you there.

---

Plamena Popova, Bulgaria
I’m Plamena, part of the CC group in Bulgaria since last year. I am particularly excited of the chance to learn more about the CC initiatives in the area of education/Open Education Movement and ways to contribute to these ideas and developments. Looking forward to a great Summit!

---

Sabreen Taha, Palestine
I’m Sabreen, a freelance TV producer and journalist, and I’m from Jerusalem, Palestine. I have used a lot of material from Creative Commons before but never really understood how this community is building and developing itself. I am very excited to attend the Global Summit because it will be a great change for me to meet new people and learn from their experiences and be able to become part of this community and take all the knowledge back to my people at home.

The post We are CC: This year’s CC Global Summit Scholarship Recipients appeared first on Creative Commons.