The chair opened the last day of SCCR43 noting the sense of excitement in the room and the ‘spicy’ discussions around exceptions and limitations. 

Education and research was the opening topic for discussion on day 4 of SCCR 43 with a Presentation on cross-border issues concerning education and research.

Day 3 of the SCCR was dedicated to the discussion around exceptions and limitations focusing mainly on the preservation toolkit.

Day 2 picked up from where day 1 left off with Member States asking questions of the facilitators of the Second Revised Draft Text for the WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty.

Hot on the heels of the Bologna Children’s Book Fair, a different kind of gathering for IPA - the 43^rd sitting of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) in a fine, but cloudy, Geneva. 

There is no doubt of the importance of the wider publishing sector for society. We contribute not only to the development and preservation of our cultural identity, fostering empathy, understanding and knowledge but as a sector we contribute to the economic development and jobs of millions across the globe. Gathering an accurate picture of what the publishing sector looks like from an international perspective is one of the biggest challenges that the IPA has been working on for the past five years.

There is a lot of chatter about accessibility and born accessible content these days, and for good reason. But what does it mean in practice for IPA's members and individual publishers? The European Accessibility Act (EAA) is due to have a seismic impact on that marketplace which will ripple out to markets around the world, whether we are ready for it or not. In much the same way that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules have impacted internet use around the world, the EAA will impact any publisher wanting to sell digital content in the EU and its supply chain.

The final day of this SCCR began with the Chair recognising a cloud of fatigue in the room and encouraging delegates to press on through the day to finish the week.

Day 4 of this 42^nd meeting of the SCCR picked up exactly where Day 3 left off, with discussions on exceptions and limitations and observer organisations continuing their statements.

Day 3 of SCCR 42 opened with further discussion and analysis of the new text on the broadcasting treaty with the afternoon reserved for discussions on exceptions and limitations.

Following the eventful first day of SCCR 42, day 2 saw a slightly emptier conference hall pick up the SCCR 42 agenda. The broadcasting treaty was the agenda item of the day. Delegates seemed impatient to move on to this discussion after two years of delay and with a new text in front of them. 

A blue sky welcomed back delegates to Geneva for the first face to face WIPO SCCR since 2019. An information session on the impact of COVID on the copyright ecosystem, election of a new officers and approval of observers were the headline discussion points for the day but the Russian invasion of Ukraine cast a shadow over the morning’s proceedings. 

The term of IPA Past President, Dr Michiel Kolman, on the board of the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC) came to an end last month. The ABC is hosted by WIPO and is part of the practical implementation of the Marakesh Treaty. Michiel has been succeeded by Laura Brady of Canadian publisher, House of Anansi. I asked Michiel about his work on the ABC board and to Laura about her background in accessibility and her hopes for the future.

Available in Portuguese, Turkish and Spanish.

For the last four years, as Vice-President and then President of the International Publishers Association, I promoted accessible publishing around the world, talking with key stakeholders of the book industry and addressing multiple audiences about the commitment of the IPA to this important matter. My main goal was to explain what accessible publishing is and what it means, to communicate its significance, and to convince publishers to go accessible by signing the Charter for Accessible Publishing of the Accessible Books Consortium. Being actively involved with the issue has made me passionate about it, and I am thrilled to be able to continue working to increase the number of accessible publications. I would like to thank the Chair of IPA’s Inclusive Publishing and Literacy Committee, past president Michiel Kolman, for his invitation to coordinate our efforts in favour of accessibility.

I have come to believe that accessible publishing is something all publishers should and must embrace.

Publishers should embrace accessible publishing because of its moral significance. Books bring us joy, inspiration, and knowledge, and they make us think, imagine, and create. Books are magical, but sadly over 285 million Visually Impaired People (VIPs) worldwide¹ have access to less than 10% of published works². Imagine never having the opportunity to read everything that shaped you to be the person you are now. As publishers we have the moral obligation of allowing everybody to enter this magical world of books, including any person with a visual impairment.

I know many publishers may not see this as a priority. The threats to the core of our business, especially copyright infringement and threats to the freedom to publish, can already be overwhelming enough to worry about something for purely moral reasons. But that is the thing. Accessible publishing is not about charity. It is about doing the right thing, also in terms of our business models. This is why I also say we must embrace it. Accessible publishing is inherent to modern publishing, and I will show it through four compelling reasons.

The hybrid 40th SCCR maintained the traditional schedule of a normal meeting and so reserved the last session for a quick review of the subjects which are vying for a position on the formal SCCR policy agenda: a miscellany it gathers together as ‘Other Matters’.

Those subjects are 

• Copyright in the digital environment.
• Resale Right
• Rights of theatre directors
• Proposal for a study on public lending right

The proposal for a study on public lending right was on this list for the first time following the request by the delegation of Sierra Leone at SCCR 39 (and since supported by Panama and Malawi). 

The update presentations and reactions from delegates and observers was efficient and eerie, both. In full measure.

And with that, Mr Abdoul Aziz Dieng of Sénégal, thanked all of the participants, the Chair’s summary was read out, and the meeting closed. 

Day 3 of the hybrid SCCR 40 saw the Exceptions and Limitations discussions take centre stage. Given the decision of Member States to limit interactions at this meeting to stock-taking, the main focus was on the 130-page report issued by WIPO following the three Regional Seminars held in 2019 in Singapore, Nairobi and Santo Domingo and the subsequent international conference held in Geneva last October. The IPA participated in all these events, gathering together local publishers and coordinating closely with representatives of other stakeholders, including authors and CMOs.  

This first meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of 2020 is an almost 100% virtual affair, save for a handful of people in the plenary chamber in Geneva, with a dramatically reduced programme of a couple of hours per day, and with a promise of no normative (or law-making) discussions on any of the agenda items. 

SCCR 39 concluded this evening with an agreement found on how to keep the Exceptions and Limitations discussion moving forward and the other agenda items wrapped up and a possible new issue raised in the chamber.

The second day of discussions on the broadcasting treaty were mainly conducted behind closed doors with the plenary chamber finally filling at 17:40 for a presentation of conclusions.

Today’s discussions saw the focus shift from Exceptions and Limitations to the Broadcasting Treaty (and sadly not about all of the value generated by the copyright in an original work that migrates from being a book to a film, for example). The Exceptions and Limitations discussions are not over, by any stretch of the imagination, and they continue to rumble behind closed doors.