world blind union wipo marrakesh treaty for … husveg... · web viewchina colombia kenya mexico...

September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION

WIPO Marrakesh Treaty for

global organisation representing

blind and partially sighted

people worldwide

Implementation Reports

China

Colombia

Kenya

Mexico

Russia

Singapore

South Africa

Thailand

UAE

Uganda

International Coordinators:

September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION

WIPO Marrakesh Treaty for global organisation representing blind and partially sighted people worldwide

REPORT: CHINA

Yingying Zhu Counsel

Dechert LLP28/F, South Tower

Beijing Kerry Centre1 Guanghua Road, Chaoyang District

Beijing 100020 China+ 8610 5829 1311 Direct

+ 8610 5829 1313 [email protected]

dechert.com

World Blind Union – Copyright Legislation and the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty

Report for Mainland China (excluding Hong Kong and Macao)

1. A key provision of the Marrakesh Treaty (the “Treaty”) is that pursuant to Article 4 (1), contracting jurisdictions must have copyright exceptions legislation in place to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats without requiring permission from the copyright holder. Is your country compliant? What, if any, exception already exists at national level? For example, if there is an exception, does it cover all types of accessible formats? Is the exception only available if a work is not commercially available? Please describe how broad or narrow the exception is.

China is not fully compliant. Exception does exist at copyright law and legislation at national level. Such exception is available regardless whether or not a work is commercially available. However, the exception is more narrowly defined than the obligation under the Treaty, in the following aspects:

i. It does not cover all types of accessible formats

The Copyright Law of China (amended in 2010) provides for a specific exception for the creation of braille formats. Article 22 states, under the following circumstances, a work may be used without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this law are not infringed upon: (12) translation of a published work into braille and publication of the work so translated.

Also, Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Communicate Works to the Public over Information Networks of China (amended in 2013, hereinafter, “Regulation on Networks”) provides for a specific exception for provision of works through network. Article 6 states, anyone who provides others’ works through the information network shall not have to obtain permission from, or pay remuneration to, the copyright owner under the following circumstances: (6) when a published written work, without the purpose of seeking a profit, is provided to the blind in a manner that they can perceive it.

The above provisions do not mention other accessible formats, such as audio books, electronic readers, or large print, that may be needed by visually impaired or otherwise print disabled persons, Therefore, China’s copyright law and regulation only provide for the exception for one class of “beneficiary persons” that the Treaty intends to benefit: the blind. As to the other “beneficiary persons”, namely, “person who has a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability which cannot be improved, ...and so is unable to read printed works”, and “person who is otherwise unable to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes due to physical disability”, China’s copyright law and regulation do not explicitly provide for an exception.

ii. It does not explicitly provide for an exception for distribution

China’s copyright law and regulation do not explicitly provide for an exception allowing for distribution of braille or other types of accessible format works by any authorized entity to those who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.

iii.It does not explicitly provide for an exception for import and export

As to import and export of accessible format works to benefit cross-border exchange of such works, China’s copyright law and regulation do not explicitly include an exception.

iv. The exception to anti-circumvention provision is only available to one class of beneficiary person under limited condition

1

3. In order to comply, does your country need to formally legislate to turn international legislation into binding national laws? Alternatively, does your country automatically adopt the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty at the point of ratification? If your country requires further steps to enact legislation, please provide details. Does your country’s legislation require the promulgation of regulations by some governmental body?

China’s current approaches are not uniform as the approaches vary on a statute-by-statute basis. For some international legislation, China needs to formally legislate to turn international legislation into binding national laws and for some others, China applies the method of automatic adoption at the point of ratification. In China, all international legislations are promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.

At present, amendment to the Copyright Law for the third time is underway in China and it would be a good opportunity to advocate for the legislative change for proper implementation of the Treaty.

Both Copyright Law and Regulation on Networks contain provisions prohibiting circumvention of technological protection measures, therefore China is obligated under the Treaty to provide for an exception to the anti-circumvention provision.

Currently, the only exception exists in Regulation on Networks. Article 12 states, under the following circumstances, technological measures can be avoided, but technical devices or components used to avoid technological measures shall not be provided to others, and other rights legally enjoyed by the owners shall not be infringed on: (2) when published written works are provided not for profit to the blind in a manner they can perceive them through the network and the said works can only be obtained through the information network. The proposed draft to the amendment of Copyright Law also includes a similar exception.

First, under the current exception, the beneficiary person is only “the blind”. Secondly, the type of accessible format is limited to “a format perceivable by the blind”. Third, the precondition for the exception is that the works in issue “can only be obtained through the network”. Last, the method of distribution is limited to “provision of the works through the network”. The beneficiary person, the type of accessible format, the precondition and method of distribution allowing for circumvention of a technological protection measure are more narrowly defined than the obligation under the Treaty.

2. If exceptions legislation exists in your jurisdiction, what modifications to that legislation, if any, are required so that it would comply with the provisions of the Treaty, and enable the Treaty to operate effectively in your jurisdiction?

As China’s current exception is more narrowly defined than what is required under the Treaty, it is advisable for the law and regulation be amended and expanded to include:

1) Clear definition for the following basic terms: “beneficiary person”, “works”, “accessible format copy” and “authorized entity”;

2) An exception allowing for creation and domestic distribution by authorized entities of any type of accessible format copies for the exclusive use of beneficiary persons;

3) An exception allowing for import and export by authorized entities of any type of accessible format copies for the exclusive use of beneficiary persons in contracting countries; and

4) An exception to the anti-circumvention provision to ensure that beneficiary persons can enjoy the above exceptions.

2

September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: COLOMBIA

Luis Felipe Castillo-Gibsone CastilloGrau Abogados

P.O. Box 251473 Bogota, D.C., Colombia

Tel.: (57-1) 285 7460 [email protected]

www.castillograu.com

1. A key provision of the Marrakesh Treaty (the “Treaty”) is that pursuant to Article 4 (1), contracting jurisdictions must have copyright exceptions legislation in place to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats without requiring permission from the copyright holder.

· Is your country compliant?

Yes, Colombia has set limitations and exceptions to copyright rules for those who are blind and visually impaired.

· What, if any, exceptions already exists at national level? For example, if there is an exception, does it cover all types of accessible formats?

A new provision was introduced into Colombian copyright law in 2013; 6 months after signing the Marrakesh Treaty. This provision is the Act No. 1680 of November 2013, by means of which the access to information, communications, knowledge and information and communication technologies is ensured for the blind and visually impaired people.

The provision 12 of the Act No. 1680/2013 stated the copyright limitations and exceptions, establishing that:

The literary, artistic, scientific or audiovisual works which have been produced in any format, may be reproduced, distributed, communicated to the public, translated, adapted, modified or transformed into Braille and any other format of communication that is accessible to the blind and visually impaired people, without the authorization of the copyright holders or payment of the copyrights, as long as the production, distribution, public communication, translation, adaptation, modification or transformation, has been done on a non-profit basis and fulfilling the duty of mentioning the name of the author and the title of the used works.

The exception covers Braille and any other format chosen by the blind and visually impaired person.

· Is the exception only available if a work is not commercially available?

Indeed, in the provision 12 of the Act No. 1680/2013 stated that there will not be copyright payment exemption in the reproduction or distribution of works that have been originally printed on special systems for blind and visually impaired people and also, if those works are commercially available.

· Please describe how broad or narrow the exception is.

The mentioned exception is quite broad since it covers various types of works like literary, scientific, artistic and audiovisual works. In addition, the Colombian law covers more than just the rights of reproduction, distribution and public communication.

The conditions for this exception just include the non-profit use of the work and the duty of mentioning the name of the author and the title of the work.


· It would be necessary to include persons with print disability, since the Colombian exception only mentions people who are blind or visually impaired.

6043630.1.EU_ADMINISTRATION

Likewise, it would be mandatory to allow the import and export of works in accessible format without requiring copyright clearance between the parties, and also, to regulate how the authorized entities are going to achieve this exception, ensuring the exclusive use of the works by the beneficiaries.

3. In order to comply, does your country need to formally legislate to turn international legislation into binding national laws? Alternatively, does your country automatically adopt the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty at the point of ratification?

Yes, Colombia needs to formally legislate to turn international legislation into binding national laws.

· If your country requires further steps to enact legislation, please provide details.

In Colombia an international treaty like the Marrakesh Treaty has to complete further steps after its signature, in order to become a binding national law.

First it has to be presented to the Parliament by the Government as a normal national Act Project.

After the presentation, the Parliament has to make the normal process to approve or disapprove the Act; therefore, the treaty must have two debates in each of the two chambers of the Parliament.

Once the Act Project has been approved in all the Parliament chambers, the final Act is sent to the President for his signature.

Finally, it is mandatory to send the approved Act, with the presidential signature, to the Colombian Constitutional Court for the constitutional review. The Constitutional Court must review its approval process and its contents to verify that it has been approved in accordance with the Colombian Constitution.

After the mentioned steps have been completed, the President can ratify the treaty.

· Does your country’s legislation require the promulgation of regulations by some governmental body?

No.


September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: KENYA

David OpijahSenior Associate

BOWMANST +254 20 289 9000 I T +254 70 996 6000

D +254 20 289 9209E [email protected]

COULSON HARNEY LLP 5th Floor, West Wing, ICEA Lion Centre Riverside Park, Chiromo Road, Nairobi PO Box 10643-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

www.bowmanslaw.com


Report Template

Before answering the questions below, please read of all of the supporting materials for the relevant background, and please keep the reports to a maximum of 2 pages in length.

‘Please research copyright legislation to determine your country’s readiness to ratify and/or implement the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty for global organisation representing blind and partially

sighted people worldwide.’

1. A key provision of the Marrakesh Treaty (the “Treaty”) is that pursuant to Article 4 (1), contracting jurisdictions must have copyright exceptions legislation in place to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats without requiring permission from the copyright holder. Is your country compliant? What, if any, exceptions already exists at national level? For example, if there is an exception, does it cover all types of accessible formats? Is the exception only available if a work is not commercially available? Please describe how broad or narrow the exception is.

In relation to the first question, we have not identified under Kenyan law, any exceptions, limitations or modifications to the Kenyan Copyright Act No. 12 of 2001 (the “Copyright Act”) or its Regulations to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats, without requiring permission from the copyright holder in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the Marrakesh Treaty.

In addition, the Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 14 of 2003 (the “Persons with Disabilities Act”) does not contain express provisions that allow individuals to make an accessible format of a book for print-disabled persons.

Having said that, by virtue of Article 2 (6) of the Constitution of Kenya and ratification by Kenya of the Marrakesh Treaty on 02 June 2017, Article 4 (1) of the Marrakesh Treaty would be applicable and enforceable in Kenya as is, beginning 02 September 2017 when the Treaty takes effect. That is because national legislation has not modified the extent of its application. We are not aware of any judicial decisions in Kenya that have discussed the application of Article 4 (1) of the Marrakesh Treaty.2. If exceptions legislation exists in your jurisdiction, what modifications to that legislation, if any, are required so that it would comply with the provisions of the Treaty, and enable the Treaty to operate effectively in your jurisdiction?

There is a need to amend the Copyright Act in order to domesticate the Marrakesh Treaty and make its operation effective in Kenya.

Amendments that would enable the Copyright Act mirror provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty would relate to Section 2 of the Copyright Act to include the relevant definitions in the Marrakesh Treaty. Terms such as “Accessible format”, “Authorised entity” and “Beneficiary person” among others, would need to be defined in the Copyright Act.

Section 26 of the Copyright Act would also need to be amended by enacting a new Section 26A. This is with a view to make express provision for the making and distribution of accessible format copies by beneficiary persons.

The amendment would also need to make provision for the right to import and/or export accessible format copies by beneficiary persons, someone acting on their behalf or authorised entities.

There is also a need for a specific amendment to introduce a new section that expressly provides that technological protection measures may be circumvented to create accessible format copies for the

blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.

As discussed below, the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) informed us that steps have already been taken to set into motion amendments to the Copyright Act.

This is with a view to include the relevant definitions and to expand the scope of exceptions and limitations provided under the Copyright Act in line with the Marrakesh Treaty.


The ratification of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty creates legal relations between Kenya and other State Parties to the Treaty and subsequently binds Kenya at the domestic level on the basis of the principle pacta sunt servanda.

Article 2 (6) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya.

Before the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, Kenya took a dualist approach to the application of international law. Treaty or international convention which Kenya had ratified would only apply nationally if Parliament domesticated the particular treaty or convention by passing the relevant legislation. This is no longer the position.1

Kenya automatically adopted the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty at the point of ratification.

As mentioned above, following discussions with the officials from KECOBO, we note that a Cabinet Memorandum for the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act has been submitted to the Cabinet for review and approval.

Once the Cabinet Memorandum is approved, KECOBO shall issue Drafting Instructions to the office of the Attorney General who will work on the draft legislation in line with the drafting requirements in Kenya.

The amendments shall be effected through the usual parliamentary stages of First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, Third Reading and Presidential Assent prior to commencement.

Section 49 of the Copyright Act empowers the Cabinet Secretary to make regulations and extensions generally to the application of the Act.

As such, it will be appropriate to make regulations to put into effect the amendments to the Copyright Act.

From our discussion with the officials from KECOBO, we note that plans are underway to promulgate regulations that will have comprehensive provisions relating to accessibility of accessible format copies by print disabled persons.

1 Petition 190 of 2011 Beatrice Wanjiku & another v Attorney General & another [2012] eKLR

September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: MEXICO

Robert ArochiAROCHI LINDNER

ABOGADOS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 EST_ 1994 MEXICO I SPAM

Insurgents Sur 1605 - Piso 20 San Jose Insurgentes

Mexico City Ciudad de Mexico

Mexico 03900

Tel: +52 55 5095 2050 Fax: +52 55 5095 2028


Report Template





Mexico is relatively compliant. There is an existing limitation at the national level, incorporated to the Mexican Copyright Law1 on March 17, 2015 as a compromise for subscribing the Marrakesh Treaty,2 under article 148, subsection VIII, quoted below for better reference:

“Chapter II Limitations on Economic RightsArt. 148. Literary and artistic works that have already been disclosed may only be used in the following cases without the consent of the owner of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby and provided also that the source is invariably mentioned and that no alteration is made to the work:[...]VIII. Publication of artistic and literary works, for non profit purposes, for people with disabilities.”

The indicated provision is not an exception but a limitation to the economic rights 3 (limiting protection altogether), as a matter of fact, the first paragraph of article 148 from the MCL is an incorporation of the so called “Three-steps test” from the Berne Convention.

1 Mexican Copyright Law, last reform on January 13, 2016, referred to as “MCL”, Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor, in Spanish.2 It is worth mentioning that Mexico signed the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled on June 25, 2014, then ratified on July 29, 2015, and legally in force since September 30, 2016.3 According to article 24 of the MCL, by virtue of his economic rights, the author shall have the right to exploit his works exclusively or to authorize others to exploit them, in any form within the limits specified by this Law and without prejudice to the ownership of the moral rights referred to in Article 21 thereof.Art. 27. The owners of the economic rights may authorize or prohibit:(I) the reproduction, publication, editing or material fixation of a work, in the form of copies or originals, carried out in whatever medium, whether printed, phonographic, graphic, threedimensional, audiovisual, electronic, photographic or other;(II) the communication of his work to the public in any of the following ways:(a) public presentation, recitation and performance in the case of literary and artistic works;(b) public showing by any means or process in the case of literary and artistic works;(c) public access by telecommunication;(III) the public transmission or the broadcasting of their works by any process, including the transmission or retransmission of the works by:(a) cable;(b) optic fiber;(c) microwaves;(d) satellite;


This provision states that literary and artistic works4 already disclosed may be used without the authorization of the right holder of the economic rights and without remuneration, provided that:

a) The normal exploitation of the work is not affected,b) The source is invariably mentioned,c) There is no alteration of the work, andd) It is a non-profit publication for people with disabilities.

This provision is not specific about the “accessible formats” but is not limited to any format, and does not distinguish whether a work is commercially available or not, therefore, it is applicable even if the work is commercially available.

However, in our opinion this limitation is narrow as each one of the situations above should occur in order to configure this limitation.

Other exceptions of the Mexican Copyright Law:

Art. 40. The owners of authors’ economic rights and neighboring rights may claim compensatory remuneration for any copying or reproduction done without their permission and not covered by any of the limitations provided for in Articles 148 and 151 of this Law.

Art. 151. The use of performances, phonograms, videograms or broadcasts shall not constitute a violation of the rights of the performers, producers of phonograms or videograms or broadcasting organizations where:(I) no direct economic benefit is sought;(II) only shortfragments are usedfor information on current events;(III) the use is made for educational or scientific research purposes;(IV) the cases concerned are those contemplated in Articles 147, 148 and 149 of this Law.

Moreover, it is worth noting that since May 22, 1998, there was a Mexican provision on the national level providing an exception to economic rights, following the Marrakesh Treaty spirit, under article 44 from the Rules of the MCL, quoted below:

“CHAPTER II LIMITATION OF ECONOMIC RIGHTSArticle 44. – The reproduction of complete works or parts of a work, phonogram, videogram, performance or publication shall not constitute an infringement of copyright provided that it is done for nonprofit purposes and for the sole aim of making the work accessible to the blind, the deaf or the mute; the exception provided for in this Article shall include translations or adaptations in special languages intended to communicate the works to such persons.”

(e) any other known or emerging means;(IV) the distribution of the work, including sale or other forms of transfer of the ownership of the physical material in which it is embodied, and also any form of transfer of the use or exploitation thereof; where distribution is effected by means of sale, the right of opposition shall be considered exhausted on the first sale, except in the case expressly provided for in Article 104 of this Law;(V) the importation into the national territory of copies of the work made without their authorization;4 The expression “literary and artistic works” includes the protected works defined by article 2(1) from the BerneConvention.



We believe that the current drafting of article 148, subsection VIII, from the Mexican Copyright Law can be modified in order to effectively comply with the Treaty and enable it to operate in Mexico, considering that:

· It was drafted as a part of the Mexican adoption to the “Three-steps test” of the Bern Convention, when the adoption of the Marrakesh treaty demands a specific provision including the limitation or exception to: a) the right of reproduction, b) the right of distribution, c) the right of making available to the public, and d) the right of public performance to facilitate access to works for beneficiary persons; allowing changes needed to make the work accessible in the alternative format.

· The current drafting is unclear about the “beneficiary persons” as it only states “people with disabilities”.

· The current limitation only addresses to a non-profit publication, leaving behind the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, and the right of public performance.

We also consider that, article 40 from the Rules of the Mexican Copyright Law should also be harmonized with the Marrakesh Treaty, for instance, it may help to provide some guidelines on the application and interpretation of article 148 from the MCL, as it states that:

· The reproduction of the work may be complete or in part· The scope of this limitation extends to work, phonogram, videogram, performance and

publication· This exception includes the translations or adaptations in special languages intended to

communicate the works to such persons

This provision is not only addressed to blind, but also to deaf or mute people, however it does not include other visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability, or otherwise unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading.

As a complement, it is to mention that on July 11, 2016, a jurisprudence thesis approved by the Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico entered into force as a result of the constitutional interpretation of the subsection VIII of the article 148 of the Mexican Copyright Law.5

5 Season: Tenth SeasonRecord: 2012058Instance: Second ChamberType of Thesis: JurisprudenceSource: Gazette of the Federal JudicialWeekly Book 32, July 2016,Volume ISubject (s): ConstitutionalThesis: 2a./J. 83/2016 (10a.) Page: 454

COPYRIGHT. ARTICLE 148, FRACTION VIII, OF THE RELATIVE FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS TO PROPERTY AND AUTHOR, NEITHER IS UNCONVENTIONAL.

The indicated provision states that literary and artistic works already disclosed may be used, provided that their normal exploitation is not affected, without the authorization of the holder of the economic right and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering them, when its publication is for non profit purposes, for people with disabilities. However, even though it does not specify that the works will have to be adapted to accessible formats and with the appropriate technologies to the different types of disability, it does not violate the rights to property and author, since it must be interpreted according to numerals 1o., 4, 14, 27 and 28 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which allows the conclusion that the use of such works must be made under the following assumptions: 1) Provided that


That is, the Marrakesh Treaty has been indirectly studied by the Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico (SCJN), through article 148, subsection VIII, of the Mexican Copyright Law. The SCJN weighed human rights, and determined that there is no violation to the economic rights where there is a limitation legally in force, providing principles of non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, accessibility, participation and full and effective inclusion in society.

The main conclusions driven from the above referred Jurisprudence, are as follows:

“Even though it does not specify that the works will have to be adapted to accessible formats and with the appropriate technologies to the different types of disability, it does not violate the rights to property and author, since it must be interpreted according to numerals 1o., 4, 14, 27 and 28 of the Political Constitution of the United States ofMexico...”

“In addition, this is consistent with the principles of non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, accessibility, participation and full and effective inclusion in society contained in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which reflects the projection that the State must have to ensure that people who have some type of disability that prevents them from appreciating or knowing the artistic or literary work in its original format, have access to it, through the adaptation to accessible formats and consistent with the various existing types of disability.”

The critic to this jurisprudence is that it does not provide any guideline or any reference to the Marrakesh Treaty and its interpretation under the Mexican Law. However, it is worth noting that once a treaty has been ratified by Mexico it has legal binding effects, allowing any judge and any authority to comply with it, under the “conventionality” and pro-personae principles.6

their normal exploitation is not affected, which implies Which will have to adapt to accessible formats and technologies adapted to different types of disability; 2) In these cases, their use may be made without authorization from the owner of the patrimonial right and without remuneration; 3) In all cases, the source must be invariably cited; And 4) Its contents can not be altered. In addition, this is consistent with the principles of non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, accessibility, participation and full and effective inclusion in society contained in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which reflects the projection that the State must have to ensure that people who have some type of disability that prevents them from appreciating or knowing the artistic or literary work in its original format, have access to it, through the adaptation to Formats accessible to and consistent with various types of disability.

6 The “Conventionality principle” (“Principio de Convencionalidad”, in Spanish) states that any interpretation should obey international treaties on Human Rights; the “pro-personae principle” states that any interpretation should be the most beneficial for the person.



Mexico needs to formally legislate to turn international legislation into binding national laws. The Executive Power, represented by the president of Mexico must issue a Decree promulgating the Marrakesh Treaty, which already occurred on September 29, 2015, stating that the Treaty would enter into force on September 30, 2015.


September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: RUSSIA

Makhonin Yuri Senior Associate

Dechert Russia LLCul. Gasheka 7 str. 1

123056 Moscow+7 499 922 11 00 Main+7 499 922 11 11 Fax

[email protected] www.dechert.com


1. A key provision of the Marrakesh Treaty (the “Treaty”) is that pursuant to Article 4 (1), contracting jurisdictions must have copyright exceptions legislation in place to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats without requiring permission from copyright holder. Is your country compliant? What, if any, exceptions already exists at national level? For example, if there is an exception, does it cover all types of accessible formats? Is the exception only available if a work is not commercially available? Please describe how broad or narrow the exception is.

Current Russian legislation contains a number of copyright exceptions specifically targeted at blind and partially sighted persons (the “Exceptions”). Under these Exceptions, specific format copies of lawfully published works for blind and partially sighted persons can be produced and distributed without (a) prior consent of copyright holder and (b) payment of remuneration, if they are made for non-commercial purpose and include author’s name and source of borrowing. Relevant modifications including, for instance, audio description, can also be made without prior consent of the copyright holder or payment of any remuneration if they are made for persons with physical disabilities (paras. 2, 3 of Article 1274 of the Russian Civil Code).

The Exceptions cover all works that are protected under Russian copyright law, including literary, scientific and artistic works, which cannot be perceived by blind and partially sighted persons under normal circumstances. They are not limited to works that are commercially unavailable. However, the Exceptions are limited as follows:

· they apply exclusively to works that have been lawfully published;

This rule seeks to preserve the balance between interests of copyright holders and beneficiaries.

· copies have to be made in specifically protected formats.

The exhaustive list of “specific” formats under Russian copyright law includes printed Braille, digital Braille, protected audio books and raised graphics. This rule is aimed to ensure that only a limited group of persons will benefit from the Exceptions.

Under the existing Exceptions, libraries are able to provide physical copies of works within the territory of Russia. They are also able to provide remote access to digital copies of works via information and telecommunication networks though which beneficiaries would need to have access to specific equipment and software. Currently, there are no rules under Russian law that would expressly allow cross-border exchange of copies of works.


According to Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, if an international treaty or agreement to which Russia is a party contains provisions which are different from those provided by Russian law, the rules of such international treaty or agreement shall prevail. Thus, if the Treaty (when ratified) contains any provisions which are different from those provided by Russian law, the provisions of the Treaty will prevail.

In general, Russian law complies with the provisions of the Treaty. However, there are certain differences between the Treaty and Russian copyright law described below which, if modified, would bring it into full compliance with the Treaty. Such differences are as follows:

· definition of “accessible format”

As noted above, Russian law sets out the exhaustive list of “specific formats” which can be used for the production of the copies of works. This list includes printed Braille, digital Braille, protected audio books and raised graphics. However, pursuant to Article 2 of the Treaty, “accessible format copy” includes any type of copy that provides a beneficiary with access to the works. This definition is sufficiently broad to cover all formats that are now used by various countries and may be invented in the future. Thus, Russian law definition of “accessible format” should be made broader.

· range of persons covered by Exceptions


Currently under Russian law, only blind and partially sighted persons can benefit from the Exceptions. However, under Article 3 of the Treaty, copyright exceptions are applicable not only to blind and partially sighted persons but also to persons who are unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move their eyes in a way that would normally enable a person to read. Thus, the categories of persons covered by the Exceptions should be made broader.

· scope of Exceptions

Russian law has to include an exception to the right of making available to the public in addition to the right to reproduction and the right to distribution. Unlike the Treaty, current Russian law does not explicitly allow nor prohibit making accessible format copies available to the public. It only prohibits making them available in other formats that do not specifically target blind and partially sighted persons.

· provisions on cross-border exchange and import of accessible format copies without prior consent of copyright holder

Provisions on cross-border exchange and import of accessible format copies without prior consent of copyright holder should be introduced into Russian law. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty, a beneficiary, persons acting on his/her behalf and/or a duly authorized entity are entitled to import accessible format copies for the benefit of beneficiaries. However, with regard to beneficiaries and persons acting on his/her behalf, Article 6 of the Treaty does not specify whether such import is limited to import for personal needs or also includes commercial import. If it is not limited to import for personal needs only, then the following two issues should be noted. First, as discussed above, Russian national law provides for the Exceptions. Second, these Exceptions are restricted to reproducing works that “have been lawfully published”. It means that copies of works can be reproduced in accessible format only after they have been published in Russia by a copyright holder or with his/her consent. Otherwise, importation of accessible format copies from another country may be considered illegal. Therefore, Russian law would need to be amended to expressly allow cross-border exchange and import of accessible format copies without prior consent of copyright holder. If Article 6 of the Treaty provides for broader import provisions than import for personal needs, the relevant provisions of Russian law described above would also need to be amended to ensure consistency with the Treaty.

3. In order to comply does your country need to formally legislate to turn international legislation into binding national laws? Alternatively, does your country automatically adopt the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty at the point of ratification? If your country requires further steps to enact legislation, please provide details. Does your country’s legislations require promulgation of regulations by some governmental body?

The Treaty was signed by Russia on June 27, 2013. However, the Treaty is not binding until Russia ratifies it or otherwise provides its official consent. Ratification of an international agreement in Russia requires adoption of a federal law. The Treaty is subject to ratification if (i) its implementation requires amendments into current national laws and (ii) it contains provisions that are different from current national laws. Ratification of a treaty is also mandatory if its subject matter affects personal rights and freedoms (Article 15(1)(a) and (b) of Federal Law No. 101 “On International Agreements”). Taking into account that the Treaty affects personal rights and freedoms, it will require ratification by way of the federal law.

Please note that draft law No. 241817-7 relating to accession of Russia to the Treaty was submitted to the State Duma (the lower chamber of the Federal Assembly) on August 04, 2017. Once adopted by the Federal Assembly, it will be passed to the President of Russia for its signing into law and promulgation. Promulgation is always required for the laws which affect personal rights and freedoms.


September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: SINGAPORE

Jonathan FoongDirector

Advocate & Solicitor

INFINITUS LAW CORPORATION77 Robinson Road I #16-00 Robinson 77 I Singapore 068896

Tel : (+65) 6389 9174Fax : (+65) 6323 6755

Email : [email protected] Web : www.infinituslaw.com.sg

World Blind Union – Copyright Legislation and the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty Report Template (SINGAPORE)

Before answering the questions below, please read of all of the supporting materials for the relevantbackground, and please keep the reports to a maximum of 2 pages in length.

‘Please research copyright legislation to determine your country’s readiness to ratify and/orimplement the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty for global organisation representing blind and partially

sighted people worldwide.’1. A key provision of the Marrakesh Treaty (the “Treaty”) is that pursuant to Article 4 (1), contracting jurisdictions must have copyright exceptions legislation in place to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats without requiring permission from the copyright holder. Is your country compliant? What, if any, exceptions already exists at national level? For example, if there is an exception, does it cover all types of accessible formats? Is the exception only available if a work is not commercially available? Please describe how broad or narrow the exception is.

Singapore’s exception (“the Exception”) is generally compliant with the requirements of the Treaty. Pursuant to s 54 and 115C of the Copyright Act (“CA”), it will not be an infringement to make an accessible format copy of the work for use by a local person with a reading disability for a permitted purpose. This must be done on a non-profit basis, by or on behalf of the body administering an institution assisting persons with reading disabilities or an educational institution (collectively termed as “Institution”).

Does the Exception cover all accessible formats: The Exception appears to cover all types of accessible formats. The definition for “accessible format” in s 7 CAappears to be in line with Article 2(b) of the Treaty.

Is the Exception only available if a work is not commercially available: The Exception is only permitted if a work is not commercially available. Pursuant to s 54(4)(b) CA, the Institution or person acting on behalf of that Institution must be satisfied that, upon reasonable investigation, no new accessible format copy of that work which is in the same format as the copy to be made, has been separately published and can be obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.

How broad is the Exception – Cross-border exchange and importation: The Exception appears rather broad on the basis that it permits the reproduction of the work to be exported overseas. This is in line with Article 5 of the Treaty. Pursuant to s 54(5) CA, the Exception covers the reproduction of the work for exporting them to foreign institutions assisting persons with reading disabilities or a person with a reading disability who is not resident in Singapore, subject to the other requirements as laid out in s 54(6) CA. Similarly, the Exception extends to allow the import of an accessible format copy from a foreigner institution assisting persons with reading disabilities, pursuant to s 54(8) CA, and the subsequent distribution of this imported accessible format copy to a local person with a reading disability for use by him for a permitted purpose, pursuant to s 54(9) CA, subject to the other requirements as laid out in s 54(10) CA. This is in line with Article 6 of the Treaty.

Technological protection measures: Pursuant to s 261C CA, restrictions have been laid down to prevent the circumvention of the technological measures applied to a copy of the work. However, s 216D(1)(a) CA provides the exemption where the circumvention of technological protection measures is permitted to enable the Institution to have access to a work which are not otherwise available to them, for the “sole purpose of determining whether to acquire a copy of the work”.

Singapore’s compliance with the Berne Convention: Singapore is a party to the Berne Convention and would thus be required to comply with the Berne three-step test in carrying out limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights. Nevertheless, it has been repeatedly clarified in the World Blind Union Guide to the Marrakesh Treaty (“Guide”) that the Treaty, particularly through Articles 4(1) & (2) and referenced in Article 11, incorporates and satisfies the three-step test requirements.



Attention is to be directed to three possible areas – 1) the Exception only coming into play when the work is not commercially available, 2) the Institution providing equitable remuneration to the owner, and 3) the circumvention of technological protection measures solely to determine whether to acquire a copy of the work.

Exception only coming into play when the work is not commercially available: Article 4(4) of the Treaty allows, but does not require, contracting parties to confine the exemptions to accessible format copies which “cannot be obtained commercially under reasonable terms for beneficiary persons in the market”. As mentioned, this is indeed imposed by the CA. However, the Guide has clarified that placing such a requirement “increases the challenges for and burdens on print-disabled individuals.” The Guide therefore eschews such measures and recommends extending a country’s exception to all works, including those which are commercially available. However, it must be emphasised for clarity that this modification to the legislation is not strictly required to ratify the Treaty (in fact it is specifically Article 4(4) that provides this leeway) but may be considered to further eliminate any discriminatory barriers against individuals with reading disabilities.

The Institution providing equitable remuneration to the owner: Pursuant to s 54(15) & (16) of the CA, the Institution must pay to the owner equitable remuneration for the making of that copy if he requests for it. This is in line with the Treaty since Article 4(5) provides contracting countries the option to choose whether the exception should be subject to remuneration. However, the Guide again discourages this as it introduces unnecessary complexity that could deter beneficiaries and authorised entities from exercising their rights. Remuneration also creates a financial burden that may make works effectively unavailable for many print-disabled individuals. Thus, our Parliament should consider removing this requirement. In fact, this appears to be the likely decision moving forward as it was published in a Public Consultation Paper on Proposed Changes to Singapore’s Copyright Regime (23 August 2016) in a section concerning print-disabled users and the Treaty that since conversion of the “works is on a negligible scale and is done for a social cause, [it is proposed] that there should not be any demand for compensation or remuneration from the authorised entities”.

Circumvention of technological protection measures solely to determine whether to acquire a copy of the work: Article 7 of the Treaty requires that appropriate measures be taken to provide legal protection and remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures. However, it is silent on whether this is restricted to providing access to an Institution for it to determine whether it should acquire a copy of the work or whether it extends broadly to the Institution reproducing the work for use by the disabled person. Seeing that s 261D(1)(a) CA has narrowed the Exception to the former, a conservative response would therefore be to modify the legislation to allow the Institution to circumvent technological measures to make accessible format copies for general use by the disabled person, instead of the sole purpose of determining whether to acquire a copy of the work.


The Executive’s treaty-making power may be used to bind Singapore on the international plane. This, however, only accords a limited legal effect under Singapore domestic law until incorporated by way of Parliamentary legislation, especially since ratifying the Treaty will likely require Singapore to make amendments to its existing legislation as seen above. This will be subject to the usual law-making process in Singapore where the executive department will first have to seek in-principle approval from the Cabinet to draft the implementing legislation. After approval is obtained, a draft of the Bill will be prepared and referred to the Attorney General’s Chambers. Once this is vetted, a copy of the Memorandum to the Cabinet will be sent to the Ministry of Law for approval before submission to the Cabinet. The bill will then go through three rounds of reading (with a “committee stage” in between the second and third round). After these rounds of checks with the necessary amendments made, the bill is presented to the President for his assent to finally become law.


September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: SOUTH AFRICA

Jennifer EborallSenior Associate°

B0WMANST +27 11 669 9000 I D +27 11 669 9347

E [email protected]

BOWMAN GILFILLAN11 Alice Lane, Sandton, Johannesburg

P 0 Box 785812, Sandton, 2146, South Africawww.bowmanslaw.com

2.1.2 Such general limitations and exceptions are provided for in Section 12 and Section 13 of the

Act. It must be noted that the Act does not provide for user rights, rather it provides for defences and exemptions to copyright infringement.

2.1.3 In particular, Section 12(1) of the Act provides a ‘fair dealing’ defense in respect of, interalia, research and private study, criticism and review of works, and reporting news and current events. In order for conduct to fall within the exemptions created by fair dealing, the work must be used fairly in respect of the stipulated purpose. Section 12(1) can apply to partially sighted persons as it would permit the reproduction of a small portion of the works for research or private study and personal or private use into, for example, a larger font size. However the adaptation, modification, translation or conversion of the works would be prohibited.

2.1.4 Section 13 of the Act permits the reproduction of a work ‘as prescribed by regulation, but insuch a manner that the reproduction is not in conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and is not unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright ’. The section makes provision for additional exemptions to be introduced by way of regulation. The Copyright Regulations3 (“Regulations”) permit, for example, the reproduction of educational material for use in the classroom, by teachers and for libraries. However, there are no provisions in the Act and the Regulations for the adaption, modification, translation or conversion into alternative formats of the work.

2.1.5 The defences provided by Section 12(1) and Section 13 would not necessarily make theworks accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals as envisaged in the Treaty. The adaptation of material into visual format or translations are prohibited and as such may not be translated or adapted into braille or other required formats. The permission of the copyright owner would have to be obtained should material be translated or modified in order to facilitate understanding.

2.1.6 Section 23(2) of the Act prohibits the import into South Africa reproductions of copyrightworks without the authority of the rights holder, which can result in a barrier to learning materials or more accessible formats for blind and visually impaired individuals. It may be that material is more readily available and cheaper in other countries.

2.1.7 In summary, the Act is wholly deficient in providing for the needs for blind and visuallyimpaired individuals, and in particular: (i) it fails to allow for the making of accessible format copies and adaptions of published works without the permission of the copyright owner; and (ii) it fails to allow for the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies of printed works.

2.1.8It must be noted that the South African intellectual property system is acknowledged by allstakeholders to be outdated and insufficient, and is currently undergoing substantive review and amendment.

2.2 If exceptions legislation exists in your jurisdiction, what modifications to that legislation, if any,are required so that it would comply with the provisions of the Treaty, and enable the Treaty to operate effectively in your jurisdiction?

2.2.1 The Copyright Amendment Bill4 (the “Bill”), published on 16 May 2017, contemplates theeffective operation of the Treaty.

2.2.2 Section 19D(1) of the Bill allows any person without seeking the permission of the author, to

make accessible a format copy for the benefit of a person with disability and further supply such a format copy to a person with disability through any means including, by noncommercial lending, or by electronic communication by wire or by wireless means. These objectives can be achieved if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) a person wishing to undertake aforementioned activities must have lawful access to the copyright work or a copy of that work; (ii) the copyright work must be converted into an accessible format

3 1978.4 Copyright Amendment Bill, B-13 of 2017.

- 2 -

copy which may include any means necessary to create such accessible format copy but which does not introduce changes other than those needed to make the work accessible to a person with a disability; and (iii) the activities envisaged hereto must be undertaken on a non-profit basis.

2.2.3A person with disability to whom copyright work is communicated by wire or wireless may as

a result of any of the activities pointed out above, reproduce the copyright work for personal use.

2.2.4 One further interesting exception the Bill under section 19D(3)(A) seeks to make is that aperson with disability or an organisation which serves persons with disabilities may, without the authorisation by the author of the copyright work, export to, or import from another country, any copy of an accessible format copy of a work as long as such an activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis.

2.2.5A final point worth noting is that, the provisions of section 19D of the Bill will only operate if a

person or organisation serving persons with disabilities ensures that the source and the name of the author are always indicated on any accessible format.

2.2.6 This Bill is still at the National Assembly (“NA”) for further deliberations. Should the Billproceed to be enacted as legislation, it will address the needs of blind and visually impaired individuals as envisaged by the Treaty. It should be noted that the Bill has been received with criticism by certain interested parties, including IP professionals, who have argued that the Bill is insufficient and is badly drafted, although the general exceptions for persons with disabilities has been welcomed.5

2.3 In order to comply, does your country need to formally legislate to turn international legislationinto binding national laws? Alternatively, does your country automatically adopt the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty at the point of ratification? If your country requires further steps to enact legislation, please provide details. Does your country’s legislation require the promulgation of regulations by some governmental body?

2.3.1 Does your country need to formally legislate to turn international legislation into bindingnational laws?

2.3.1.1 Section 231 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the “Constitution”)provides as follows:

“Any international agreement becomes law in the Republic when it is enacted into law by national legislation.”

2.3.1.2 Section 231(4) of the Constitution provides that an international agreement must beincorporated into South African legislation before the international agreement can become law in South Africa. According, the provisions of the Treaty would not automatically be adopted at the point of ratification.

2.3.2 If your country requires further steps to enact legislation, please provide details.

2.3.2.1A revised draft of the Bill was introduced into the NA on 16 May 2017 in terms of Section75 of the Constitution. A section 75 Bill can only be introduced in NA. Once a section 75 Bill has been passed, it is sent to the National Council of Provinces (“NCOP”) for concurrence. A Bill is passed when there is a majority vote by delegates present in the NCOP, in favour of the Bill.

2.3.2.2The NCOP then submits the Bill, either in its original form or with amendments, to the NAwith a report.

5 See, for example, http://blogs.sun.ac.za/iplaw/files/2017/06/CIP-Comments-Copyright-Amendment-Bill- 2017.pdf and http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CHIPI-Comment.pdf.

2.3.2.3 The NA is not obliged to take the NCOP’s amendments into considerations and can pass or reject the Bill, with or without accepting any proposed amendments made by the NCOP.

2.3.2.4 If the NCOP passes the Bill without amendments, it goes to the President for his assent and signature, whereupon the Bill becomes law. The Act or amendment will be placed into the Government Gazette and will come into effect on a date determine by the President.

2.3.2.5 Accordingly, the NCOP has a limited role in passing section 75 Bills. The NCOP has an ability to delay the Bill, but cannot prevent the Bill from being passed.

2.3.2.6 As a Section 75 Bill, the next step is for the Bill to be considered by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry. As there has been great public interest in a Bill, the portfolio committee invited interested parties to submit written comments or oral representations by the deadline of 7 July 2017.

3. Conclusion

We hope that our responses are of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or would otherwise like to discuss any further research that you would like us to conduct.

Yours faithfully,

Bowman Gilfillanper: Jennifer Eborall / Jefrey Phahlamohlaka / Courtenay Stock

- 4 -

September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: THAILAND

Alec Wheatley Consultant

Tilleke & Gibbinsbangkok I hanoi I ho chi minh city I Jakarta I phnom penh I vientiane I yangon

Tilleke & Gibbins I Supalai Grand Tower, 26th Floor, 1011 Rama 3 Road, Chongnonsi, Yannawa, Bangkok 10120,Thailand

D: +66 2056 5863 I T: +66 2056 5555 I F: +66 2056 5678 I [email protected] I www.tilleke.com

bangkokhanoiho chi minh cityjakartaphnom penhvientianeyangon

Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. | บรษัิท ติลลิกีแอนด์กิบบนิส์ อินเตอรเ์นชั ่ นแนล จ ำ�กัดSupalai Grand Tower, 26th Floor, 1011 Rama 3 Road, Chongnonsi, Yannawa, Bangkok 10120, Thailand T: +66 2056 5555 F: +66 2056 5678 E: [email protected] www.tilleke.com


Thailand Report


‘Please research copyright legislation to determine your country’s readiness to ratify and/orimplement the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty for global organisation representing blind and

partially sighted people worldwide.’


In 2015, Thailand amended the Copyright Act at Section 32(9) to include an exception to copyright infringement for “reproduction or adaptation for the benefit of disabled persons who are unable to get access to a copyrighted work owing to impairments of vision, hearing, intelligence, or learning, or other impairments prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations . . . .” Copyright Act (No. 3) B.E. 2558 (2015).

The corresponding Ministerial Regulation provides a list of the acceptable forms which reproductions of protected works may take for each type of impairment. In particular, works reproduced for the benefit of visually impaired people may take the form of: Braille books; Audio media; Large print books or magazines; Embossed letters or diagrams; Simulated pictures; Electronic media; and Multimedia.

The Ministerial Regulation limits the entities which may qualify for the exception to infringement to the Government, or any organization which has the main objective of promoting charity, education, religion, social work, or improving the quality of life of disabled people.

The Ministerial Regulation also provides that the reproductions may not be for profit, and must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the owner of the work. Further, reproductions require the permission of the copyright owner, and may only be made after the original work has been published.

Member | Lex Mundi | Multilaw | SCG Legal | Transatlantic Law International Tilleke & Gibbins practices law independently and not in a relationship for the

joint practice of law.


Section 32(9) of the Copyright Act provides an exception to infringement for the reproduction or adaptation of copyright works for the benefit of physically impaired people. A proposed Draft Copyright Amendment which complies with additional requirements of the Treaty is currently under consideration. The Draft Amendment would repeal Section 32(9) and be added to the Copyright Act at Section 32/4.

The draft copyright amendment provides an exception to infringement for the following acts:

(1) Reproduction or adaptation, by a person or entity other than the owner, of a published copyright work, with the consent of the copyright owner; and

(2) Publication, by an entity other than the owner, of a copy of a work under Subsection (1), including a copy of a work obtained from an entity in a foreign country.

It is worth noting that the Draft Amendment still requires the permission of the copyright owner for a reproduction or adaptation to qualify for the exception to infringement. However, the Draft Amendment specifically provides for importation of copyright works from foreign countries.

For the sake of clarity, the Thai Copyright Act defines “Publication” as the distribution of copies of a work to the public, and the right of adaptation includes the right to translate a work into other languages. Thus, the Draft Amendment provides the rights of Reproduction, Adaptation, and Distribution of copyrighted works for the benefit of physically impaired people, provided that the acts are not done for profit, and the entity making the reproduction first obtains permission from the copyright owner.

As with the other exceptions to infringement provided in Section 32 of the Copyright Act, the acts of reproduction, adaptation, and distribution must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the owner of the work.


A government officer at the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security we spoke with believes that Thailand will formally accede to the Marrakesh Treaty in 2018. However, formal legislation is required to enact the provisions of the Treaty. As discussed above, Thailand has already enacted an exception to infringement for the reproduction of copyright works for the benefit of physically impaired people at Section 32(9) of the Copyright Act.

A revised Draft Amendment which complies with some of the additional requirements of the Treaty is currently under consideration by the Office of the Council of State. Once it is approved, it will be sent to the Cabinet and the National Legislative Assembly for comment. Once those steps have been completed, the Draft Amendment will be formally enacted into law, and will replace the current exception to infringement found at Section 32(9) of the Copyright Act as Section 32/4.

2 of 2

Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. | Supalai Grand Tower, 26th Floor, 1011 Rama 3 Road, Chongnonsi, Yannawa, Bangkok 10120, Thailand

www.tilleke.com | T: +66 2056 5555 F: +66 2056 5678 E: [email protected]

September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: UAE

Mohammed AliSenior Associate, Intellectual Property

Al Tamimi & CompanyDubai International Financial Centre

Registered with the DFSA

Building 4, 6th Floor, Sheikh Zayed Road PO Box 9275, Dubai, UAE

T: +971 4 3641 641 F: +971 4 3641 777

www.tamimi.com

Bahrain • Egypt • I raq • Jordan • Kuwait • Oman • Qatar • Saudi Arabia • UAE


UAE Report





Comments: Although the UAE Cabinet has issued Decree No. 233/2016 ratifying the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty, the country has not issued any specific legislations nor amended the existing Copyright law to address the Marrakesh Treaty provision that contracting jurisdictions must have copyright exceptions legislation in place to allow for the production of printed works in accessible formats (to the visually impaired persons) without requiring permission from the copyright holder. There are no exceptions existing in this regard in the UAE Federal Law No. 7 of 2002 related to Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights.


Comments: There is no specific exceptions exist in this regard in the UAE Federal Law No. 7 of 2002 related to Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights.



Comments: The UAE has ratified the Marrakesh Treaty by issuing Federal Decree No. 233/2016. Please note that if the UAE ratified a Treaty i.e. issuing a Federal decree to declare the joining of the country to specific Treaty like Marrakesh Treaty, then the Treaty will immediately be considered as a local law. As per the practice in the UAE, no need to amend any laws and regulations as the ratified Treaty shall be prevail if there is any contradiction between the Treaty provision and local laws and the court would automatically apply the treaty provision should that issue be raised in any case.

In this regards, the hierarchy of the law in the UAE shall be the Constitution, ratified International Treaties and Conventions and then Federal laws.

For the Marrakesh Treaty, it is clear that a Federal Decree No. 233 of 2016 issued by the President which declared that UAE has joined and ratified the Treaty. Further, the second article of the Decree orders the Ministry of Economy to implement the Treaty so the Treaty shall be considered as a UAE Federal law and it shall be applied directly by all concerned, including courts. As a result of the above, if there are any contradictions with Federal law, then the Treaty shall be prevail.


September 2017

WORLD BLIND UNION


REPORT: UGANDA

Juliet J NabaddaJunior Associate I Uganda

BOWMANST +256 41 425 4540 I T +256 31 226 3757

M +256 77 538 1144E [email protected]

AF MPANGA ADVOCATES4th Floor DFCU Tower, Plot 26 Kyadondo Road

Nakasero, Kampala P 0 Box 1520, Kampala, Uganda

www.bowmanslaw.com

world blind union wipo marrakesh treaty for … husveg... · web viewchina colombia kenya mexico...

Documents