Centre for Internet and Society

004: A License to Share

nehaa — 2014-03-20T05:38:34Z

In this blogpost Devika Agarwal, a 4th year student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, takes a first look at the Creative Commons 4.0 Licence.

With the increasing amount of information being uploaded online every day, it becomes imperative to facilitate the sharing of this information legally. Creative Commons (CC) license is a tool developed especially with the objective of allowing widespread dissemination of information in a manner so as not to infringe the copyright of a person over the work.

A CC license is a valid license. It is ‘non-exclusive’ in nature; this means that the author of a work is free to enter into a different licensing agreement with anybody he wishes despite holding a CC license (the different licensing contracts must also be ‘non-exclusive’ in nature). Simply put, licensees of a CC license will be governed by the terms of the CC license unless they have a different agreement with the license holder.

In India, works licensed under the CC license include digital copies of educational material by NCERT.

With the first version of the license being published in 2002, Creative Commons has witnessed a number of changes to help serve the needs of internet users better. Version 4.0 of the Creative Commons License was released on November 25, 2013.

A more global license

What sets the latest version of the Creative Commons license apart from its precursors is the fact that CC license 4.0 is an ‘international license’. The earlier versions of CC license required the license to be “ported” to the different jurisdictions; ‘porting’ was a process which involved the translation and legal adaptation of CC’s core license suite (also known as ‘generic’ license suite’ ) to conform to the languages and copyright laws of individual jurisdictions). This means that earlier one had to obtain a CC license ported to one’s country; the “ported version of the license” was a modification of the generic CC license, suited to meet the copyright requirements of a particular country.

The CC license 4.0, on the other hand, is an international license, i.e., the 4.0 license is ‘jurisdiction neutral’ in nature and a single version of the license exists for all persons.

Sui generis database rights:

The CC license 4.0 also provides explicitly for protection to sui generis databases in jurisdictions which recognize copyright related to sui generis databases. Sui generis databases were not expressly covered by the earlier versions of the CC license. (India does not extend copyright protection to sui generis databases).

Non-attribution

The one element common to all the CC licenses is ‘attribution’ or acknowledgement of the licensor as the author of the work by “giving appropriate credit and providing a link to the license. Where the earlier licenses provided that a licensor may request a licensee to remove attribution from adaptations of the work (in order to preserve anonymity), the 4.0 license extends the right of ‘non-attribution’ of a licensor to works which have not been adapted.

This right of attribution is recognized under section 57 (1) (a) of The Copyright Act, 1957 in India which states that “even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim authorship of the work.”

30-day period to remedy breach of CC license terms

A significant change in the CC 4.0 version is that unlike the earlier licenses which terminated the CC license in case of failure to comply with the license terms, the 4.0 licenses allow a 30-day period to the licensees to remedy the breach, after which the license shall resume.

The terms incorporated in the 4.0 license are aimed at making the license more compatible with the copyright laws of various jurisdictions and at the same time ensure that information can be shared with more freely, thus preserving the spirit of Access to Knowledge.

(Creative Commons re-launched its India chapter in November last year.)

Similarly, right of ‘non-attribution’ is recognized under section 21 of The Copyright Act, 1957 which provides for relinquishment of copyright by the author. This may be done “by giving notice in the prescribed form to the Registrar of Copyrights or by way of public notice.” A CC license where attribution has been removed at the instance of the licensor will serve as a ‘public notice’.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-license-to-share

Broadcast Treaty: An Overview

nehaa — 2014-03-20T09:55:45Z

In this blog post, CIS intern Varun Baliga, a third year law student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, presents an overview of the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, currently being deliberated by nations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR).

Negotiations on the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”) (draft circulated for discussion at the 26^th SCCR available here- http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf) were initiated for the purpose of protecting such organizations from signal piracy. For a broadcasting organization, their signal is the prime source of revenue. Therefore, state intervention at the international level was required to quell the transnational issue of signal piracy. Moves by a majority of nations indicated that the mood was in favour of drafting a treaty that would codify certain protections for broadcasting organizations in the form of rights. The obvious concerns that arose were the nature and scope of those rights. Overbroad rights often posed significant obstacles to the free flow of information. A number of developing nations were concerned that the latest move was a further entrenchment of the colonization of information and knowledge. It was in the common interest to balance the dire need to combat signal piracy in order to maintain the integrity of the business of broadcasting organizations while at the same time ensuring that it doesn’t come at the cost of the access to the information itself.

From the perspective of the Global South, the focus of the text was Article that protected possible action that states may take in the public interest. The South was interested in elevating the status of the public interest to that of an aspiration that states must seek to live up to. So, public interest must continue to guide even negotiations that seek to protect the interests of multinational corporations. The Broadcast Treaty also protects against the restriction of free flow of technology and access to the same in Article 4. One of the sticking points of negotiations has been the nature and scope of the protection that is to be offered to broadcasting organizations. India, among other countries, has advocated for a strict signal-based approach to the protection. It opines that protection should be offered to the signal alone and not the subject matter that is carried by the signal. Many nations of the developed world look at this as a distinction without a difference. There has also been a strong push from the South to limit protection only to transmission and not cover the retransmission of signals within the aegis of the treaty. Another cleavage of opinion has been on definitional concerns that have plagued the negotiations ever since they commenced. Institutions such as Knowledge Ecology International among others have noted with caution the wide meanings conferred on beneficiaries of protection. Understanding broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations in an all-encompassing way would result in not just the proliferation of rights, thereby harming the sanctity associated with the concept, but would also lead to the manifestation of those rights on contexts that harm free speech and access to information. For example, the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations on the internet could play out in a pernicious fashion, particularly since the internet space has long been one of open and free access.

Many countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa, have questioned the need for the treaty in the first place. Adopting this position doesn’t mean a devaluation of the harms of signal piracy. On the other hand, questions have been raised as to whether the creation of rights is the most effective, or even the right, solution. The harms of this problem-solution mismatch mean that the stakes are high; therefore, subjecting this treaty to critical scrutiny assumes great importance.

India, South Africa and the entire bloc has also argued against the inclusion of webcasts and netcasts in the spectrum of rights being conferred on broadcasting organizations. Broadcasting and webcasting work on completely different investment models and don’t work on the same kind of infrastructure. For that and other speech and access reasons, protection should be given, it was argued, only for traditional transmission of the signal. Consensus was ultimately achieved with the US agreeing that the focus of the treaty should be “true signal piracy, real-time transmission of the signal to the public without authorization".[1]

The Centre for Internet and Society has expressed its reservations about the treaty in no uncertain terms in the past. The underlying philosophy has consistently been a robust signal-based approach to the treaty. A consequence of this would be no term of protection for signals since the rights would exist only for infinitesimal amount of time that the signal does. The absence of a term of protection would also preclude concerns about harm to free flow of information from creeping up. CIS noted that there was a need for greater clarity on the meaning of ‘mere retransmissions’ which would not be granted any rights in the April 2007 Non-Paper circulated for the delegates. When the transmission is over a computer networks, there should be inkling of doubt as to the exclusion of both transmission and retransmission from the ambit of protection. Finally, it has called for a different structure of limitations and exceptions to be conceptualized for the treaty. A simplistic transplantation of the Berne Convention provisions would be ignorant of the particular needs of broadcasting. It is critical that the limitations and exceptions be actualized in a manner that is enabling and empowering for the most vulnerable stakeholders.

[1]. http://keionline.org/node/1701

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview

WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 3 of 3)

nehaa — 2014-04-01T09:48:59Z

From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 3 of 3) summarizes Day 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts.

Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs.

Day 5 – 26th SCCR

The agenda for the final day of the 26th SCCR was set as limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of the GRULAC group of nations, supported the idea of an international convention on this agenda. It was of the opinion that such an instrument would work for the benefit of the economic development and socioeconomic enablement of millions of people in the GRULAC region. Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, emphasized the digitalization of education, research and living across the world and the impact that this has on the right of peoples of all nations to access knowledge. Responding directly to sustained opinion from the developed world of the absence of a need for an international convention, Algeria spoke about the need for balance and uniformity in regulations. This balance between the right to access knowledge and to protect intellectual property is often achieved through the concept of limitations and exceptions. This balance also requires uniformity because conflicting cross-border norms in our digitally borderless world would render the ameliorative effects of limitations and exceptions moot. Further, the Berne Convention has proved to be of minimal help since interpretations have emerged of its dissonance with the tools needed for distance education. Therefore, in order to cover the digital dimension of limitations and exceptions, an international treaty is critical. In the words of the Algerian delegate, “We know that the balance between Intellectual Property rights and public interest are generally translated by exceptions and limitations. Unfortunately in the area of education and scientific research, national legislation does not seek this balance in a uniform and comprehensive manner.”

The delegate also responded to concerns about the text proposed by the African Group. The proposal, he said, was a text-oriented tool to find an apt balance. Further, it was also imbibed with a certain degree of flexibility to allow for its adaption to the needs of development as understood by nations, various kinds of copyright protections and various treaties in literary and artistic property. Furthermore, the African Group wished for this text, if adopted, to move on the principle of consensus and expressed a willingness to incorporate any constructive concerns that delegates may have in order to stay true to the ideal of consensus-based diplomacy.

A number of developing and developed countries supported the need for greater discussion at the international paradigm on the topic of limitations and exceptions, and also the swift adoption of an international instrument in this respect. Kenya and the Islamic Republic of Iran put their weight behind the African Group, emphasizing similar values of digitalization of information and communication, right to access knowledge, public interest and need for an international instrument. Tunisia also supported the notion that an international instrument would lead to the harmonization of standards and benefit the international community. China came out in strong support of further negotiations. Russia noted that it was in support of a single document for limitations and exceptions that covers within its ambit the entire gamut of protections discussed at this forum. Further, it also supported the contention of the Japanese delegation that the international instrument should not include contentious issues such as instance liability.

It is also pertinent to note that Japan, on behalf of Group B, came out against the idea of a treaty based approach to the negotiations, much preferring “constructive work on principles and updating of studies by the Secretariat”. The European Union submitted that the extant international copyright framework was both adequate and ideal for the needs of both the digital and analog world of education, research and needs of persons with other disabilities. The EU proceeds to draw a distinction between the needs of educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities vis-à-vis needs of persons with visual and print impairment. In drawing this distinction, it seeks to achieve principled coherence across its support for the Marrakech Treaty and its opposition to any treaty on limitations and exceptions. It expressed concern that the working document was not an accurate reflection of the views of those countries that were of the opinion that present negotiations should be confined to the sharing of national experiences. Given the diversity in domestic regulations, any international treaty should seek to achieve domestic regulatory harmony and then proceed, assuming that the need argument fails to hold water.

The Indian delegate submitted that the discussions were in furtherance of earlier deliberation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. There was a dire need to understand libraries and education not in a parochial, institutional sense but in a broad and enabling manner to meet the needs of developing and least developed nations. Both the material and transmission should be covered in order for distance learning to be enabled in any meaningful manner. Further, it was also of the opinion that an expansion of ISP liability is needed, citing the IT Act in support of this.

At this point, the developing nations made their voice heard in opposition to the fundamental premise of the ongoing negotiations – that an international treaty is a worthwhile goal to work towards. Poland, on behalf of the CEBS Group, commecnced his statement by taking cognizance of the importance of educational and research institutions and activities in our society and economy. The delegate recognized the existence of the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation. Proceedings from this premise, it was the view of the CEBS Group that the best way to hone this innovation is by establishing a robust and strong system of intellectual property. Further, it went on to draw the link between the critical activities of distance learning, collaborative research with the activities of publishing and other aspects of the creative sector. Copyright policies therefore have to also take into the account the economic and social effects of not enabling access to research. The CEBS Group argued for a balanced copyright approach. It went on to support the idea of each WIPO member incorporating enabling limitations and exceptions within their domestic copyright regimes through a mutual sharing of best practices and national experience using multilateral for a such as this one. It was of the belief that modern copyright systems should provide for efficacious licensing mechanisms that are flexible, supportive and enabling to education, research and teaching activities as well as the needs of persons with other disabilities. Supporting the values emphasized by the developing world does not necessarily require the adoption of a binding international instrument. It concluded that the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of limitations and exceptions should not come at the flexibility that is conventionally afforded to WIPO member states to determine their own educational, research and teaching policies and norms to enable the lived experience of persons with disabilities.

The United States started by submitting their own document – SCCR/23/4 – on objectives and principle for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. The US chose to further the CEBS submission by underscoring the potency of the extant copyright regime – Berne Convention 1886 and WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996. Both have a balance between copyright and education and have the promotion of education, research and teaching as their stated goals. Therefore, notwithstanding the contention that they are anachronistic given the digitalization of information and communication, it is possible to accommodate contemporary needs within existing regimes. The US stated that it was of the opinion that finding common ground on principles and an examination of the diverse national treatment of the issue of limitations and exceptions would render a more productive, positive solution than foisting a treaty or international legal instrument on the domestic regimes of WIPO members. It was of the opinion that this would “permit progress by promoting steps forward on shared goals and principles while enhancing international understanding and maintaining flexibility at the national level. We do not support work towards a treaty.” It also went on to voice concerns about the inclusion of controversial and broad areas of protection within the rubric of the treaty – topics such as public health and ISP liability were causing much consternation to the delegate of the United States. A plethora of reasons were advanced by the US that articulated its layered opposition to this entire process. There was a concern that given fundamental differences of opinion, inclusion of contentious protection would be pernicious to the negotiation itself. It was also of the opinion that a lot of the provisions had only incidental relevance to the central question of education and rights of persons with other disabilities would distract the nations from the purpose of the proposed international instrument. This proliferation of protections would in turn harm the considerable economic, social and political capital invested in the negotiation process.

Senegal affirmed the idea of an international agreement on limitations and exceptions. It believed that the contemporary is far removed from the world in which the Berne Convention and extant international copyright regime was conceptualized. Therefore, Senegal was in favour of a flexible international instrument that responded to digitalization and was proactive rather than reflexive. Sudan also threw its weight behind the African Group proposal and offered a scathing critique of the exclusivist tendencies of the contemporary copyright regime. It called for “efforts to break the current situation faced by certain countries in communication or in building the infrastructure and bridging the digital gap.

Columbia, on the other hand, spoke about the need to understand if there is a lacuna in the present international copyright regime and understand the implications of adding to existing corpus of limitations and exceptions.

At this juncture, the Chair opened the floor for contributions from civil society representatives. Knowledge Ecology International focussed its submissions on three foci – specific exceptions, three-step test and the corporate system. KEI acknowledged the raft of protections for limitations and exceptions within existing copyright structures but articulated the need for specific exceptions. Further, it reasoned out the incompatibility of the Berne three-step test with the needs of contemporary knowledge creation, research and access. Transplanting the Berne Convention to this context would render it moot and have far-reaching pernicious consequences on the international community’s reactions to dire questions of access particularly in the developing and developed world. KEI acknowledged the underlying premise of US/EU/Group B objections to an international instrument by pointing out the difference in national treatment of limitations and exceptions. As a response to this legitimate concern, it suggested that complimentary confidence building measures such as a multi-stakeholder platform work alongside the treaty negotiations so as to ensure that it is an inclusive process that alienates no stakeholder.

IFRRO came out in strong support of the position against an international treaty. It stated that in pursuit of limitations and exceptions, one must not lose sight of the legitimate rights that creators have over their work. Diluting that principle would do harm to the idea of copyright and by extension creative and innovative thought. In support of this contention, studies were cited that showed a causal link between IP protection and income of authors.

The Centre for Internet and Society underscored the value of universal access to education and knowledge. Information and communication technology in the contemporary carry the tantalizing prospect of the realization of this ideal without excessive expenditure. It is also critical for this access question to be all-inclusive, for “formal and informal institutions and for environments and in digital and non-digital formats”. The experience of developing and least developed nations is a feeling of exclusion from the silos of knowledge in the west and it falls upon the international community to disrupt these silos to ensure equitable access to knowledge and, as a consequence, power. Individuals in these countries not only have to spend more on each book but have to spend a higher proportion of household income on it vis-à-vis Western households. The present international copyright framework lacks the ability to facilitate the realization of this ideal for three reasons. First, the myopic and complex compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Convention. Second, the incompatibility of the three step test to contemporary limitations and exceptions. And finally, the need for harmonization of national practices and facilitation of cross-border exchange of information and knowledge.

On being called on by the United States, Ecuador and Egypt, it was decided that the Secretariat would study the possibility of a study on the ambit of copyright and related rights as also limitations and exceptions for persons with disability and from the perspective of learning concerns. It was also decided that the Secretariat would update regional studies on limitations and exceptions for educational, research and teaching institutions.

The next session, SCCR 27, would focus on a discussion on exceptions and limitations with a focus on libraries and archives.

Draft Conclusions

The draft conclusions to this year’s SCCR was put up by the Chair for comments by all members. Belarus and CEBS fully supported the text and praised it for its balanced approach. The United States also supported it but requested an edit to Paragraph 6 Line 4 – a ‘to be defined’ in parenthesis after the words ‘on demand transmissions’. India expressed gratitude that everyone’s views were taken into account in the draft conclusions and asked for two edits. It stated that parts of the discussion on Article 9 were absent from the text. Further, the words beneficiaries in the draft conclusions was included when it had no definition in the document. Finally, it suggested that the word last line in paragraph 5 be changed to might or may. The Chair responded to India’s concerns on paragraph 5 by directing attention to the word ‘if’ in the text. Ecuador and Brazil both supported India’s opinion that the word should be may or might and not should. India submitted that this is not simply an editorial or cosmetic change but one that reflected a substantive issue. Ecuador also stated that countries might in the future want to include internet transmissions and the word should conditions the negotiations, lending it a restrictive air. Brazil also stated that it was crucial for the text to be both balanced and reflective of every stakeholder’s concerns. India stated that this was a demand from two or three groups. The lack of consensus on this point implies that the word should be may and not should. The EU, US, Japan, Switzerland and Poland (on behalf of the CEBS) supported the text in toto- a tacit snub to India’s suggestion. Italy stated that the word ‘if’ in the text provides the kind of flexibility that India is seeking and that altering the word should to may would rob the provision of meaning and be grammatically grotesque. Looking for alternatives, India also requested that the words ‘at least’ be deleted in order for some aspect of its concerns to be taken into account. Belarus characterized the text as entirely factual and accurate portrayal of the negotiations that took place-gave its support to the entire text. The Chair then offered an explanation of the terminology and showed how the wording allowed for both possibilities of inclusion and exclusion of transmission over the internet.

Indian then turned attention to the lack of a definition to the word beneficiaries. The Chair acknowledged India’s concerns and accepted the US suggestion to add the words ‘to be defined’ after both beneficiaries and on demand transmissions. Brazil also suggested traditional broadcasting/cablecasting or broadcasting/cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense as possible ways to word the text. The EU requested the Chair for some language suggestions on how best to resolve this. The proposals (and not issues, after a request from India) on Articles 5,6,7,9 and 12 were added to the annex. After the incorporation of all these concerns and compromises, the Chair approved this section.

Libraries and Archives

On the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, the United States made two suggestions. First, that the word may be removed from paragraph 18 as it detracta from the nature of the deliberation on that point. Second, the inclusion of the phrase “other proposals submitted” in paragraph 21. Brazil stated that it stood for the draft conclusions to be a clear picture of the positions adopted by WIPO members. In this light, it called for the inclusion of the names of member states that wished to discuss national laws in paragraph instead of the nebulous phrase ‘some member states’. He also requested a clarification on the last line of paragraph 16. Trinidad and Taboga indicated that it was adopting a flexible approach; it supported the suggestions by the US and Brazil but were also willing to work with the text.

The European Union wanted the word ‘also’ to be removed from paragraph 14. It also suggested that the final sentence of paragraph 16 be “these studies will serve as information and work resources for the committee”. Ecuador agreed with the US working document. It was of the opinion that the document should better reflect a spirit of compromise. On limitations and exceptions for museums, given the study reflected in the plenary for persons with other disabilities – there was a discrepancy between the discussions and the text. One was with the understanding that it was subject to the availability of resources while the other implied that it was mandatory in nature. The EU wanted licensing to be included in the text. The US thanked Ecuador for working out a compromise on the language and accepted it. Algeria expressed its desire to stick to the language proposed by the Chair on paragraph 13.

The Brazilian delegate called for flexibility on paragraph 14 in light of the proposal by the EU delegation on the point of discussion on national laws. The United States responded that it didn’t quite follow the position being adopted by the Brazilian delegate on paragraph 14 and much preferred a return to the text originally adopted by the Chair. Egypt pointed out the possible confusion that could emerge between paragraph 16 and 21, and in light of this expressed a willingness to engage in a full scale discussion on proposals from Canada and the EU. The EU responded directly to paragraph 14 in particular. It spoke out against the idea of listing the WIPO members that asked for a discussion on national laws as this would be against WIPO practice both in other parts of the same document as well as in other deliberations. EU stated that it saw no need to list out WIPO members and stood firmly against it. Brazil responded with a modicum of alarm at the opposition to the simple proposal to introduce the elements of precision in a document that is meant to be factual. It is far better for readers to understand the precise picture rather than having a general understanding of issues. Italy, Belarus and Greece threw their collective weight behind the EU opposition to this. All stated that this would be highly inappropriate and would amount to the singling out of the EU and other nations that took a stance, something that they didn’t see a need for. The US proposed a compromise where instead of naming the member states, ‘some member states’ would be used. Brazil said that this term was not just nebulous but could give the wrong impression to future delegates of the precise number of states that wished for discussion on national laws. Ecuador played the role of the voice of reason and stated that the progress of negotiations shouldn’t be hampered because of such a cosmetic set of differences. There was no need for the level of precision that was exemplified by the naming of WIPO members. Instead, it stated that it advocated for a general references to nations that asked for a discussion on national laws. This general reference was supported by Algeria and finally adopted by the Chair as a compromise between the opposing factions. On paragraph 16, the Chair called for the part on limitations and exceptions on museums to be deleted with the understanding that there would be an update by Professor Kenneth Cruz that would include all aspects of this issue. On paragraph 14, the Chair was in favour of the compromise suggested by the United States. It stated that in using the word ‘some’ no particular number or indication thereof was intended and that caveat was always there; instead what was only meant through the word ‘some’ was that the number of was more than one. Asked for Brazil to show some flexibility in this situation. Egypt raised the important issue of not conflating the fundamental disagreement on the nature of the proposed instrument and the desire to have discussions on national laws. It stated that in case both were being included, they be mentioned in separate paragraphs because a conflation would lead to misplaced conclusions being drawn.

Deliberations on paragraph 16 ensued and the Chair clarified that on paragraph 16, the first and third sentence were being retained while the second was done away with. Ecuador asked for thereto be no confusion between studies on limitations and exceptions and those on museums. Its objection does not extend to the latter. The Chair suggested that all references to museums be deleted. Algeria wanted the words on preparation not being delayed to be retained and applied to all studies being proposed. US agreed with the Chair’s proposal but added that perhaps a separate study on limitations and exceptions on museums be included. Algeria insisted that this principle be applicable to all studies and not just studies on museums. The Chair stated that a separate study on limitations and exceptions for museums be included with the understanding that this would not delay general discussions on limitations and exceptions. The last sentence was also retained. With this, deliberations on this topic were closed.

Limitations and Exceptions For Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other Disabilities

The European Union delegate stated that it was in support of the inclusion of the point on licensing as an appropriate point in the text. Sharing Algeria’s concern, it also called for the deletion of the word ‘understood’ in paragraph 23. Algeria had earlier raised a problem with the use of the word ‘understood’, preferring the phrase ‘agreed on’. The EU also called for the text to be accurate reflection of the negotiations. Brazil responded to the concerns of the EU delegate by stating that he would not be in support of a suggestion that this document not be the basis for future work on this topic. Ecuador supported Brazil’s point on this being a text-based negotiations and that this should be the basis for future deliberations. Brazil also expressed a bewilderment at the EU insistence of the inclusion of the point on licensing. It asked for its relevance in an agreement on educational institutions; a clarification was sought from the EU. The EU responded that it was of the opinion that we’re dealing with related subjects that deserve equal treatment. In this context, since licensing was included in the previous agreement, it must also be reflected in these conclusions.

Egypt supported the Chair’s language in paragraph 23. Further, it went on to attempt a compromise by suggesting that this text be not the basis for future text-based work but a basis. This would lend the issue a degree of much-needed flexibility. The US, on the side, supported the EU on including licensing schemes. The EU responded favourably to the compromise suggested by Egypt and said that a text where the word the is replaced by a is one that is agreeable to the EU.

The Chair outlined the three issues as

The word ‘the’ in Item 27
The inclusion of the point on licensing and the tussle between the EU (arguing for inclusion, supported by the US) and Brazil (against the inclusion).
The point of this being the basis for future text-based negotiations and the compromise suggested by Egypt and accepted by the EU.

A compromise was worked out on licensing where the words “but other delegations do not see it that way” be included as a rider. Differences on points 1 and 3 were also ironed out as the Egyptian compromise was accepted. On this point, the third section was approved and deliberations came to an end.

Other Matters

It was announced that the reports of the Stakeholders’ Platform – SCCR/26/5 and SCCR/26/7 – be put up on the web page. Finally, suggestions were wielded and discussed for future meetings of the SCCR.

It was agreed that SCCR 27 would be dedicated to the protection of broadcasting organizations (two-and-half days), limitations and exceptions (two days) and conclusions and discussions on future work (half a day).

Additional Links

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3

CIS Statement at 27th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-05-01T14:27:48Z

The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on April 29, 2014.

This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on the Scope of the Treaty and the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. The statement makes references to a specific Working Document available here. CIS statement is quoted in Knowledge Ecology International on April 29, 2014 and in the Intellectual Property Watch on May 1, 2014.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:

First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.

Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal. Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach, which we believe is the mandate binding on this Committee.

That is all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

In response to CIS' statement, the Chair had this to say:

Thank you, CIS,. That was a very clear statement and gave us a very clear explanation of the situation. We will indeed take due account of that in the course of this afternoon's further discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

Transcripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 27

nehaa — 2014-05-25T04:50:59Z

We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014.

Note: This is an unedited transcript of the discussions at SCCR 27. We are hosting the text for archival purposes:

Day 1: April 28, 2014:

Day 2: April 29, 2014:

Day 3: April 30, 2014

Day 4: May 1, 2014

Day 5: May 2, 2014

Click for WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts

CIS Statement (on Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works out of Commerce) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-05-02T11:21:05Z

This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works Out of Commerce", which is topic 7 of Working Document SCCR 26/3.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair.

Mister Chair, we will be addressing this topic on two levels:

First, the need for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives for orphan, retracted and withdrawn works and works out of commerce.

Second, the need for these limitations and exceptions to be a part of an international legal instrument.

On the first level, Mr. Chair- we are of the opinion that this limitation and exception is necessary for libraries and archives to be able to perform their key functions- the preservation and dissemination of knowledge.

This exception speaks to a very complex environment- One where the owner of a work cannot be located despite an exhaustive search and therefore digitazation cannot take place because to do so would be copyright infringment; one where the volumes of works that we’re speaking of are anywhere between 10 and 70 percent of the collections of some libraries (these figures are based on reports released by various libraries, library associations and others, that are available online); one, where rights information of works is lacking; and an environment where works have been withdrawn for a variety of reasons. The outcome which commonly arises as a result of all of these is that works are not available to the public, in turn affecting access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, which is one of the basic purposes of copyright. Any interpretation or understanding of copyright ought to be one that aids in the achievement of this purpose, as opposed to deviating from it.

On the second level, Mr. Chair- we believe that there is a need for an international legal instrument to govern these limitations and exceptions.

We have heard the statements made to this Committee by various Hon’ble delegations today and at earlier sessions of this Committee. What emerges, as KEI said earlier, is that there is a lack of uniformity in national legislations and approaches in addressing this issue. What also emerges is that the current copyright framework in some developing and least developed countries does not adequately address these issues. Therefore, Mr. Chair, as we have stated at earlier Sessions of this Committee- to be able to harmonize these limitations and exceptions, to ensure that these limitations and exceptions have a cross border effect, and hopefully to have discussions that we have here are influence national law making and state practice (also, as KEI said earlier), we believe that an international legal instrument that deals with among others the exception we are discussing in Topic 7, is very important.

That’s all we have to say at the moment, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

CIS Statement (on Technological Measures of Protection) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-05-02T11:18:23Z

This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Technological Measures of Protection", which is topic 9 of Working Document SCCR 26/3.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

We believe that in an environment where much of the preservation and dissemination of knowledge by libraries and archives is in the digital format, having a limitation and exception provision as regards this particular provision of TPMs in this international instrument is integral; and we echo the Canadian Library Association and The Charted Institute of Library and Information Professionals among others on the need for such an exception.

TPMs have the potential to override any fair use or fair dealing exceptions in copyright; and would render much of the discussion that we have been having over the past two days and at earlier sessions of this Committee, redundant, were where such an exception not to be talked about along with other exceptions that we are discussing for libraries and archives. TPMs may prevent end users from using works in ways that are allowed under fair use or fair dealing provisions- permitted exceptions in copyright law. If for instance, TPMs were in place on master copies of files that were obtained by libraries and archives, these institutions would not be allowed to carry out basic preservation activities such as file format migration which in turn would limit the life span of the master files in question and also render access to these files difficult (if that's the word that I could use); which in turn defeats the very purpose of preservation and access to knowledge by libraries and archives.

Therefore Mr. Chair, we think that the suggestion echoed — that the suggestion made by KEI earlier, that Article 7 of the Marrakech Treaty that deals with TPMs would be a logical — could be a logical step forward, and we think that there is merit in that statement, and we would like to align ourselves with that statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

France, Greece, India and the European Union Sign the Marrakesh Treaty

nehaa — 2014-05-02T23:23:25Z

On April 30, 2014, on Day 3 of the 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, a Signing Ceremony was conducted for member states wishing to sign the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to books and other reading material for the print disabled.

Read the WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty

Opening the proceedings, the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry called the Marrakesh Treaty “one of the greatest achievements of this Committee in the past year.” The Hon’ble Ambassador of France in his speech following that of the Director General emphasised the importance that his government placed on this treaty. Mrs. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development signed the Marrakesh Treaty for the Government of India. In her address at the Signing Ceremony, Mrs. Ish placed emphasis on India’s 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, stating that these provisions were “in complete harmony” with the Marrakesh Treaty and that India was “well poised” to implement the same. Mrs.Ish also stated that India would be ratifying the treaty “very soon.” Most importantly perhaps, Mrs. Ish reminded the Committee that appropriate mechanisms to implement this treaty would have to be put in place; and that implementing it in its true spirit would require cooperation from all member states. The Ambassador of Greece, speaking on behalf of Greece and the European Union said that they wanted the Marrakesh Treaty to serve its original purpose of benefitting persons with print disabilities.

The European Blind Union (EBU) and the Secretary General of (and speaking on behalf of) the International Publishers’ Association (IPA) also made statements at the Signing Ceremony. EBU was of the opinion that while the signature was a “major, symbolic leap forward”, the next crucial step was to ensure its speedy ratification so that it might become effective. IPA echoed previous speakers on the point that ratification and implementation were but first steps, and that access would only be achieved as a result of “collaboration between rights organizations and rights holders.”

It will be interesting to see how these member states follow up on their signatures to the Marrakesh Treaty. The treaty will only be effective 3 months after at least 20 nations have ratified it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/france-greece-india-eu-sign-marrakesh-treaty

Signing and Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled

nehaa — 2014-05-06T08:32:58Z

The Centre for Internet and Society sent the following letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development on March 14, 2014.

14 March 2014
Shri Ashok Thakur
Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development
Government of India
New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Subject: Signing and Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled

I write to you on behalf of The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India (“CIS”). CIS is actively involved in work on accessibility[1] and access to knowledge[2]
The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (“Marrakesh Treaty”) was signed on June 28, 2013 at Marrakesh, Morocco. Reportedly, the Marrakesh Treaty was signed by over fifty countries on the final day of the Diplomatic Conference held to finalize this treaty, in late June, last year.
We are given to understand that reportedly[3] the Union Cabinet had in its meeting held at the end of last year cleared the Marrakesh Treaty for both, signature and ratification.
We write this letter to enquire about the status of India’s signing of the Marrakesh Treaty.
We strongly believe that the signing and ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty would be in India’s best interests, and in consonance with the amendments made to India’s copyright law in 2012, as reflected in India’s Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Marrakesh Treaty.[4]
In light of this we request you to take the necessary steps for the signature and ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty as a consolidation of India’s long standing commitment to providing access to books and printed material to the blind, visually impaired and persons with other print disabilities.
We would be deeply obliged to provide you with any assistance necessary.

[1]. See http://cis-india.org/accessibility (last accessed 14 March, 2014).

[2]. See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 14 March, 2014).

[3]. Email correspondence from Dr. Sam Taraporevala, available here- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/daisyforumofindia/tksq9kAdD0Q (last accessed 13 March, 2014). and here- http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/marrakesh_lists.keionline.org/2013-November/000240.html (last accessed 13 March, 2014).; Email correspondence from Shamnad Basheer, available here- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/spicyip/DupESMX2lkg (last accessed 13 March, 2014). See also http://spicyip.com/2013/12/marrakesh-blind-treaty-okayed-for-signature-and-ratification.html (last accessed 13 March, 2014).

[4]. See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/india-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind (last accessed 13 March, 2014).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/signing-and-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-to-facilitate-access-to-published-works-for-persons-blind-visually-impaired-print-disabled

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property (Part A): India's National Programme on Intellectual Property Management

nehaa — 2014-06-10T07:34:34Z

This blog post discusses India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management, including the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.

On the 21^st of February, 2014, the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India organized a Stakeholders Consultation at New Delhi (“the Consultation”). I attended this meeting on behalf of CIS. The discussion was centred around devising a strategy for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management under our 12^th Five Year Plan (2012 to 2017). On the agenda were two key issues:

Evaluating and rethinking the role of IPR Chairs established by the MHRD
Establishing a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights

Pawan Agarwal, Advisor, Higher Education, Planning Commission, Government of India made a detailed presentation on both of these issues. The key parts of his presentation and the ensuing discussions have been reproduced below.

Presentation and Ensuing Discussions

The diagrams in this section correspond to those in Pawan. Agarwal’s presentation.

Ecosystem

In Figure 1, the proposed structure of the national intellectual property system has been outlined. Those government departments and ministries that would have a role to play have been identified, as well as the functions expected to be performed.

In the discussion that followed it was observed that traditional knowledge should also be included within this ecosystem. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) could coordinate and seek inputs from the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.


Figure 1

Education: Programs and Courses

Figure 2 details the proposed structure of IPR education, including courses, financial aid and the nature of the program. Members attending the Consultation were of the opinion that having ten centres for doctoral education was an ambitious target. They were also of the opinion that there was need to integrate IPR education with more courses, for instance, MBA and MSc.


Figure 2

Education: Various Elements

Figure 3 deals with other elements of the IP education universe- curriculum development (envisaged as a joint effort), faculty development (of selected faculty) and funding. Various suggestions emerged on the role of the IP Chairs. This has been examined in greater detail subsequently in this blog post. A key suggestion was made regarding the establishment of more law schools in the IITs, along the lines of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law at the Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Kharagpur.


Figure 3

Research and Policy Support

Figure 4 lays out the details of the research and policy support to be provided by the Government towards developing this IPR ecosystem. The Government seeks to achieve this through the existing institutions of the IP Chairs, by way of awarding fellowships and research grants. Once again, concerns and questions were raised regarding the role of MHRD IP Chairs, which will be discussed subsequently in this blog post.


Figure 4

Training & Capacity building

Training and capacity building has been visualised on two levels- basic awareness building about intellectual property rights in institutions of higher education and on the advanced level, dealing with specialised courses on trademark/patent drafting or technology licensing, among others.


Figure 5

Creation/ Protection and Management

For the creation, protection and management of intellectual property, a two pronged approach has been envisaged- the establishment of cells for the management of intellectual property in institutions of higher education and an increased focus on patents, including the creation of incentives for patenting for researchers. Figure 6 lays out the scheme.


Figure 6

National/ Regional Centres/ Chairs

This program on intellectual property outlines a proposal for the establishment of one national centre, five regional centres and twenty chairs, with a distinct role outlined for each. Details are available in Figure 7.


Figure 7

Governance

The National Program on intellectual Property Management lays out a three tiered governance structure, headed by the National Steering Committee on IPR, assisted by the Advisory and Project Approval Committees, with five Regional Committees constituting the final tier. This has been represented in Figure 8.


Figure 8

Funding Arrangements


Figure 9

The discussion that occurred after Pawan Agarwal’s presentation was centred around the issues of intellectual property education, revisiting the role of the MHRD IPR Chair Professor and on the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.

Intellectual Property Education

On a broader level, the Consultation dealt with the subject of intellectual property education, which the proposed plan envisaged on a generic basic level as well as a more advanced technical level. Narendra Sabharwal, former Deputy Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) was had a three pronged opinion on intellectual property education- first, that intellectual property education had to be mainstreamed, and that this mainstreaming should be a part of the vision and strategy of any national plan on intellectual property; second, that intellectual property education should be used to synergise and encourage the creation of more IP assets and third that the proposed national institute should play an advisory role in the intellectual property education framework.

Evaluating and Rethinking the Role of IPR Chairs Established by the MHRD

Background

The MHRD has, under the Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (“the Scheme”), established twenty IPR Chairs in various universities and other institutions of higher learning across the country. According to the MHRD IPR Chairs website, six of these Chairs have been set up in Universities (University of Delhi, University of Madras, Tezpur University, CUSAT- Kochi, JNU- Delhi and the Delhi School of Economics); five in National Law Universities (NLSIU- Bangalore, NALSAR- Hyderabad, NLU- Jodhpur, NLIU- Bhopal and WBNUJS- Kolkata); six in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT- Delhi, IIT- Madras, IIT- Kanpur, IIT- Kharagpur, IIT- Bombay and IIT- Roorkee) and three in the Indian Institutes of Management (IIM- Bangalore, IIM- Kolkata and IIM- Ahmedabad).

With the purpose of creating awareness among the “general public intelligentsia etc. on IPR Copyright and WTO Studies”[1] , the Scheme has been implemented with the objectives of encouraging the study of intellectual property rights in universities and other institutions of higher learning and developing and encouraging study in specialized courses of IPR; creating awareness about IPRs; organizing activities such as seminars and workshops for IPR awareness; creating knowledge resources, developing policy inputs and negotiating strategies and course awareness- all on WTO matters and evolving strategies of Regional Cooperation and Regional Trading Agreements. Expenditure under the Scheme may be incurred by the MHRD (directly or indirectly) for a wide array of purposes including inter alia, the institution of “Chairs” for IPR Studies for higher education and “also on WTO Studies” (sic.).

At the Consultation

There was a general consensus on the need to restructure the existing ‘MHRD Chair’ institutions and questions were raised regarding their longevity and the sustainability. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD, Government of India, spoke of the need to strengthen the existing IPR Chairs and bring about changes in the funding scheme. She also sought inputs on what form and structure the institutions should adopt.

Faculty members of various educational institutions present at the meeting were of the opinion that there was an urgent need to set norms clarifying the role of Chairs. Out of the various suggestions put forth, some of them were as under:

Specify the number of hours (if any) that a Chair was expected to teach. This proved to be a contentious issue at the meeting, with various members of the faculty raising questions on how one was to balance teaching requirements with research and policy feedback obligations.
Envisage the role of the Chair as that of a mentor who would not teach except for the occasional guest lecture, but would guide younger faculty in teaching. The Chairs would then instead produce at least three research outputs in a year based on topic inputs from the National Institute/Centre for Intellectual Property Rights. These research outputs would then act as policy inputs to the government.
The Chair would liaison with industry, academia and policy makers to identify issues of policy concern and research interest.
The institution of the MHRD Chair should be delinked from the university set up. Chairs should be appointed directly by the MHRD through a transparent and accountable process, distinct from the present state of affairs where the Vice Chancellors of universities were allowed to exercise discretion in appointments.

Establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights

Context
The present circumstances that might necessitate the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual property Rights were highlighted at the Consultation by D.V. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. He said that there was a need for a nodal agency for World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) matters. He also said that there was a need for a body to focus on government policy and provide policy inputs to the DIPP and other departments and ministries working on intellectual property law and policy issues. At the moment, he said, there were no formal mechanisms in place though which the DIPP sought policy input, and instead relied on basic inputs from paid external consultants.

At the Consultation

The discussion at the Consultation pertained to the form and functions of this proposed institution. D.V. Prasad emphasised that this institution ought not to become an academic exercise or a university and that the focus should remain policy inputs to the government. This view was echoed by Shilpi Jha of the Confederation of Indian Industries. V.C .Vivekanandan, MHRD Chair Professor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, was also in agreement with D.V. Prasad and Shilpi Jha, and said that the proposed institution ought to be a ‘stand alone model’. Narendra Sabharwal envisaged this institution as a think-tank that would research on legal and policy issues and international relations on emerging areas of technology. This would be distinct from university research undertaken by MHRD Chairs, although some of the university research ought to feed into the think-tank. N.S. Gopalakrishnan, former MHRD Chair Professor at CUSAT, Kochi was of the opinion that this proposed institution ought not to be within the aegis of the University Grants Commission. Further, he said that it was critical to develop capacity for policy research within the country, but until that time, it was critical to attract people from both within as well as outside India to undertake policy research. Sunita Tripathy, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School was also of the opinion that there was a need to build capacity for policy research in India.

Concluding Observations

From the conversation at the Consultation it seems evident that there is a need to revisit the institution of the MHRD Chair Professor, but what remains moot is the form that it should take. The viability of the proposed national institute would also have to be studied in further detail, against similar models in other countries.

This is an exercise that we shall continue to undertake in subsequent blog posts as a part of this series of mapping institutions of intellectual property.

[1].See Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach, available at http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf (last accessed 03 June, 2014) at page 1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property: Part B — India's National Program on Intellectual Property Management

nehaa — 2014-06-26T15:27:18Z

As a second part in the series on Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property this blog post deals with the documents introduced at the Stakeholders’ Consultation for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property.

Many thanks to CIS interns Jessamine Matthew, Tanvi Mani and Upasana Chauhan for their support on this.

On the 21st of February, 2014, the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India organized a Stakeholders Consultation at New Delhi (“the Consultation”) to discuss India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management. (Click here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a to read our post about this, the first in this series on mapping institutions of intellectual property). I attended this Consultation on behalf of CIS. Discussions were informed by three documents introduced at this meeting, the important parts of which have been summarized below:

Report of the Evaluation Committee on Continuation of the Scheme of Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) (“the Scheme”) in the XII Five Year Plan Period 2012-2017 (PDF, 21378 Kb)

Introduction

The Evaluation Committee involved in the preparation of this report comprised of Prof. Sudhir K. Jain, Shri T.C. James and Shri J.R. Agarwal. The rationale behind such scrutiny was to yield recommendations with regard to whether the Scheme should be continued or not. And if the answer was found to be in affirmative, to analyze the scope for improvement, phasing of expenditure and setting of targets for each component of the Scheme.

Essentially the report seeks to analyze the overall impact of the Scheme in the discipline of IP rights with respect to education and awareness. It examines the trajectory of progress of the MHRD-IP Chairs and assesses ways to monitor them more efficiently. In addition to that it also analyzes the procedure adopted to release grants to the Chairs and to recognized universities and explores the possibility of widening the scope of the Scheme.

Genesis of the Scheme

The Scheme was formulated to encourage study of IP rights and research, and create awareness about copyright and IP matters. It also aimed to develop specialized courses, train enforcement personnel, organize seminars and workshops on IPR matters, develop inputs, awareness on WTO matters and evolve strategies of regional cooperation.

Under the Scheme, the purposes for which expenditure is to be incurred by the Ministry are clearly chalked out. The details of the same are given in the Report of the Committee. It also lays down the eligibility of Institutions/ Organizations that are to be selected under the Scheme.

MHRD-IPR Chairs

Around 20 MHRD-IPR Chairs have been set up across various universities, IITs and National Law Universities for growth and development of IPR education, research and training. The staff –pattern followed for MHRD-IPR chair is one Chair Professor, two Research associates, one Steno-cum- Documentation assistant and one group-D employee. Such appointments are supposed to be made in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the UGC. Apart from the recurring expenditure towards salaries of the above-mentioned staff, the Chairs have also been given a non-recurring provision for library, equipments and ancillary items. However, such grants are to be given upon fulfilment of certain conditions imposed under the Scheme.

The working of MHRD-IPR Chairs is overlooked by two committees-namely, the ‘Coordinating Committee’ and ‘Review Committee’. The Coordinating Committee is responsible for discussing proposed activities and resolving pending disputes while the Review Committee review their progress periodically.

Observations on Performance of IPR Chairs

Inability to find a suitable Professor level person to occupy the IPR Chair.
Absence of qualification- criteria for the IPR Chair in the Scheme.
Less focus on research component, development of human resource and teaching.
Few IPR-Chairs have appointed full staff which is complementary to their working.
Flow of fund to IPR-Chairs is interrupted dur to lack of proper documentation.
Uncertainty about the continuation of IPR Chairs which has a detrimental effect on their performance.
Active participation in seminars and workshops organized by universities, institutes and colleges on IPR awareness.

Plan Allocation and Expenditure

There exists variations with respect to allocation and actual expenditure of funds due to various reasons.

New Initiatives to be taken during XII Plan

New IPR-Chairs should be established to encourage research in the field of IPR and create a pool of trained human resources.
IPR Centres/ Cells should be set up and they should be linked to the IPR-Chairs.
Internal Monitoring and Information Systems should exist for effective implementation of the Scheme.
National Seminars/ Conference should be held annually.
World Intellectually Property Day should be celebrated annually with various themes as decided by WIPO.
Awareness about copyright and IPR should be spread through print and electronic media.
Copyright Office should be strengthened and modernized to bring it at par with offices in the USA, UK.

Specific Recommendations

The Committee recommended that the post of IPR-Chairs needs to be incentivized and given full functional autonomy. Moreover, the support provided by Government to the Chairs should be long-term.
The appointment of academic and administrative staff needs to be revised periodically.
Only publicly funded universities and institutes of higher learning should be beneficiaries to this Scheme.
The proposed activities and achievements of the IPR Chairs should be made public.
IPR Chairs should provide assistance to the Central Government by way of research and providing solutions to policy problems and issues.
Some flexibility should be allowed with respect to documentation for uninterrupted flow of accounts.
Provision for replacement/ purchase of equipments.
It should be made mandatory for IPR-Chairs to appoint full staff and conduct lon term training programmes in advanced areas of IPR at the national level.
The work of the IPR Chairs needs to be chalked out explicitly by the Scheme.
Having a scheme for converting the well-functioning Chairs into Specialized IPR Centres with the participation of MHRD.
Raising awareness on IPR issues and problems by holding workshops and seminars. Moreover, universities and colleges should ensure adequate participation in such seminars/ workshops.
School-curriculum should include Chapters on IPR.
Modernization of the Copyright Office should be considered to be a priority to ensure easy access and to make copyright registration easier.

Note on the establishment of an Inter-University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights

Background

The Inter-University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (“the Centre”) will be established under UGC/ Ministry of HRD, Government of India. Broadly, the mission of this independent autonomous Policy Research Centre is to provide research and policy inputs in the arena of IPR. The targeted audience for these inputs will be the State and Central Governments. In addition to that, it also seeks to serve as a connecting bridge for dialogue between developing countries on IPR. To actualize the mission, it will work on inter-disciplinary research and disseminate information on various socio-legal and other aspects of IPR. It will also promote, integrate and develop models and mechanisms associated with IPR.

Functions

In order to make IPR resources more accessible, the Centre will establish a repository of such resources by entering into collaboration with other organizations and institutions. It will also provide assistance to stakeholders by ways of and not limited to organization of seminars, awareness programmes. As a means to encourage inter-disciplinary research which is quintessential for this Centre, it would offer visiting fellowships and forge links with national and international research institutions. As a nodal centre with respect to interfacing government on IP matters, it will also have the added responsibility of reviewing performance of MHRD-IP chairs.

Broad Deliverables and Outcomes of the Centre

The Deliverables of this Centre world would include Policy Research Inputs, Research Publications, Research Monographs, Treaty Analysis, Sensitization Programmes and National and International Conferences. On the other hand, the outcomes would include Research on thrust areas, Knowledge Management in IPRs, IPR Online Resources and discussions.

Linkages

The Centre seeks to link MHRD-IP Chairs, Industry Associations, Civil Society Advocacy Groups and Public Institutes with IPR research capacity.

Organizational Structure and Funding

The organizational structure of the Centre would include the Governing Council, Governing Board and the Research Advisory Council. Each Council/ Board will comprise of Chairman, Ex-Officio Members and Nominated Members. The individuals who are responsible for the nomination of members to these structures are the President, Chairman of the GB and Chairman of the Centre respectively. It has laid down the specification of such composition in its note on establishment.

For the purpose of funding, the Centre would depend on UGC for its building infrastructure, salary and non-salary components. In addition to that it will also aim to create its own corpus by means of consultancy and other grant-in-aids. Towards capital expenditure, the required allocation would be Rs. 65 crores. While the revenue expenditure is estimated at Rs. 25 crores annually. A detailed break-down of the expenditure also been laid down by the Centre in its note.

Discussion Paper for the Establishment of a National Institute for Intellectual Property Rights

Introduction

The National Institute for Intellectual Property Rights (“the Institute’) will be established as an autonomous policy research institute under the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. It envisages a specialization in policy research and development cooperation in the field of IP rights. Further, it aims to provide multi-stakeholder collaborations in the fields of IPRs. It will provide policy inputs to the government of India for formulating legislations and international agreements. The Institute will serve as a common platform for dialogue among developing countries on IPR issues. Moreover, it will act as a ‘Hub and ‘spoke’ model to connect and coordinate with the MHRD IPR Chairs/ other institutions working in the field of IPRs.

Vision: To be an institute of excellence in policy research and advocacy of IPR.

Mission: To provide effective research and policy inputs in the field of IPR.

Objectives

The Institute would serve as a think-tank to provide policy inputs on IPR at a regional, national and international level. It would work on interdisciplinary research involving multi-stakeholders and focus on IPR trade related issues and their impact on socio-economic aspects at regional, national and international levels. Further, it would disseminate information regarding the social, legal, ethical and economic aspects of IPR. It would endeavour to promote, integrate and develop ‘Academia-Industry’ knowledge structures. Models and mechanisms associated with IPR. Further, it would coordinate the activities of ‘MHRD-IPR’ chairs on behalf of the Ministry of HRD. Lastly, it would engage in capacity building and provide inputs on IPR policy makers including the judiciary.

Functions

In order to realize the objectives elucidated, the Institute would perform the following functions. It would undertake inter-disciplinary research and provide necessary inputs to the State and Central governments to formulate the required policy in IPR. It would further establish a repository of IPR resources in collaboration with various academic institutions, organizations, chairs and stakeholders engaged in IPRs. It would also offer visiting fellowships to encourage multi-disciplinary research. It would organize and participate in seminars, conferences and awareness programs. It would also undertake consultancy and conduct training in IPR to assist various stakeholders. Additionally, it would forge links with national and international IP research institutions/ organizations and act as a nodal institute to interface various Ministries/Departments of the Government on IP related matters. In furtherance of its adjudicative functions it would also undertake a review on the performance of MHRD-IPR chairs on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Lastly, it would offer a Ph.D program in IPR in association with reputed Universities/ Institutions in India and abroad.

The Institute will mainly focus on: (I) Research, (ii) Policy and Advocacy, (iii) International Collaboration and (iv) Developmental Agenda

The Broad Deliverables and outcomes of the Institute include:

Deliverables : (i) Policy Research Inputs (ii) Research Publications (iii) Research Monographs (iv) Treaty Analysis (v) Sensitization Programs (vi) National and International Conclaves/Conferences/Roundtables

Outcomes: (i) Research on thrust areas: Preparation of occasional briefs/ annual briefs and discussion papers/ books/journals. (ii) Knowledge and Management of IPRs: Documenting and mapping the competencies on various segments of IP (iii) IPR Online resources: Online documents relating to IPR policy inputs (iv) National/ International Conferences/ Public Debate and Distinguished Lectures: To provide a common platform for deliberation on contemporary IPR practices, issues and critical analysis.

Linkages and Network

The Institute will establish linkages and network with:

MHRD-IPR Chairs
Industry Associations (National and International)
Civil Society Advocacy Groups
Public Institutes with IPR research capacity

Organizational Structure

The organizational structure of the Institute would include the following sub committees:

Steering Committee: Ex-Officio Members: The Secretary, DHE,MHRD would be the president of the Committee. The members would include the Secretary of The DIPP,MOC, The Secretaries of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and The Department of Science and Technology, The Joint Secretaries of the (BP&CR),MHRD and the DIPP. MOC, GOI, The Director of (BP&CR),MHRD, The Vice Chancellor, Delhi University (Host Institution) and the Director of the NIIPR. The Members nominated by the President are the Two Members from the governing board, the two vice- chancellors of Universities having MHRD Chairs, the two directors of IITs/IIMs having MHRD IP Chairs and the two experts from the regulatory/ research councils.
Governing Board: The Chairman of the governing board shall be appointed by the president of the Steering Committee as per the procedure given in Rule 33.
Ex-Officio Members: These members include the Joint Secretary (BP&CR),MHRD, Joint Secretary (DIPP),GOI, The Director (BP&CR),MHRD and The Director, NIIPR who will be the member Secretary.The members nominated by the Chairman of the GB includes the Two Faculty Members of the Institute, The Two MHRD IPR Chair professors and Three National and International Experts in the field of IPR.
The Research Advisory Council: The Director of the Institute is the Chairman of the Research Advisory Council. The Ex-Officio Members include the Deans and Two Professors of the Institute. The members nominated by the Chairman include two IP experts and one representative each from The Ministry of Culture, Arts, Agriculture, Information technology, Environment and Forests, Science and Technology and External Affairs, Two representatives from Civil Society Advocacy Groups and the Administrative Officer of the Institute would be a Non Member Secretary.

Funding

The Institute will be established by UGC funding for its building, infrastructure salary and non-salary components. The institute will also strive to create its own corpus by way of consultancy and other grant-in aids from relevant National/ International Organizations to compliment the UGC funding. Required allocation is estimated at Rs 65 crore towards capital expenditure relating to acquisition of land, building (Academic Block, Conference Halls, Guest House, Administrative Block, Faculty Quarters, Equipment, IT infrastructure etc) The revenue expenditure is estimated at Rs. 25 crore annually, towards meeting the operating activities of the proposed Institute.

The report also contains particulars with respect to staff requirements. It also contains estimates with respect to Non-recurring Capital Expenditure and Recurring Expenditure per annum.

Lastly, attached along with the report is the Memorandum of Association for the National Institute for Intellectual Property Rights.

The memorandum contains the objectives, functions, members of the Steering Committee and the Rules of the Institute.

The Rules include the functions and powers of the Governing Board. The Board is to carry out the objectives of the Institute. It will be subject to the limitations of the Department of Higher Education, MHRD (the Department will also have the power to inspect the Institute at any time). The Governing Board will have the power to:

Manage the affairs of the Institute, consider annual and supplementary budgets,
Create and abolish emoluments structures of various posts,
Appoint staff to these posts,
Enter into agreements with the Central or State Governments or public or private organisations or individuals for grants, donations etc,
Appoint Committees or Sub-Committees,
Delegate any administrative or financial powers to the Director,
Prepare budget estimate and sanction expenditure,
Prepare for the recruitment of offices, faculty and establishment of the Insitute, terms and conditions of scholarships, fellowships, etc.

It also contains details regarding meetings and the powers and functions of the chairman.There are guidelines for the appointment of the Director and Staff Employees.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-b

National IPR Policy Series : The Development of the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-01-22T00:48:33Z

This is the first blog post in a series of posts on India's National IPR Policy. In this post, CIS intern, Varnika Chawla traces the evolution of the National IPR Policy.

Significant changes have been implemented in the Intellectual Property regime of India since India's accession to TRIPS in 1995. This post details the timeline of the development of Intellectual Property law in India, highlighting the discourse around the formulation of a National IPR Policy. The author has also looked at the formulation of IP Strategies in different nations across the world, summarized in the infographic, observing that the trend for the same is very recent and has only emerged over the last decade.

"Intellectual Property Right is a private right recognized within the territory of a country and assigned to an individual or individuals for a specified period of time in return for making public, the results of their creativity and innovation." India has a well-established and comprehensive legislative, judicial and administrative framework for intellectual property. The decade of 2010-2020 was declared as the Decade of Innovation, with an objective of expanding the space for dialogue for inclusive growth. With the emergence of globalization, the Indian society has become more knowledge-intensive giving rise to rapid development in the field of information technology and consequently intellectual property, thereby increasing the role of the legislature as well as the judiciary to protect and promote intellectual property rights.

India gained membership of the World Trade Organization in 1995. This membership initiated a new round of revisions resulting in the upheaval of the Indian intellectual property system. All IP legislations were hereby required to comply with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement by 2000, with the exception of the Patents Act, which had an extended time limit to be compliant till 2005.

The Indian system of intellectual property rights is designed in a manner to ensure the protection of intellectual property while maintaining a balance between rights and obligations. There are several legislations which deal with the protection of intellectual property in India. These include thePatents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, theGeographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000, the Competition Act, 2002 as well as theBiological Diversity Act, 2002. India is also thefirst country to ratify theMarrakesh Treaty, 2013 for access to copyright works for visually impaired persons. India also recently acceded to the Madrid Protocol in 2013.

National IP Strategy and the Role of WIPO

A National IP strategy has been defined by WIPO as "a vehicle for creating better functional linkages between the national economic objectives, development priorities and resources, and the IP system of the country concerned."[1] It is therefore a set of policy measures undertaken by governments in order to facilitate the proper use of IP as a strategic tool, for economic, social, cultural and technological development.[2] WIPO also gave the framework of the planning process each country should implement, in its efforts to adopt an IP strategy. As per this, the process is divided into four main stages:

Government initiative
Establishment of a National IP Strategy Formulation Committee
Presentation of draft strategy before stakeholders
Government approval of National IP Strategy,[3]

WIPO can assist in the formulation of a National IP Strategy by advising the governments as well as providing technical expertise during the planning process and providing support and assistance as and when required.[4]

India's National IPR Strategy

Realizing the significance of having a strong and well-balanced IP system in the emerging economy of India, several initiatives have been undertaken by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion at the policy level to create an environment conducive for the development of intellectual property and technology. Accordingly, a draft for the National IPR Strategy, outlining a set of measures and guidelines to encourage and facilitate the effective creation, protection, management and commercialization of IP for accelerating economic, social, cultural and technological development and for enhancing enterprise competitiveness prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council on IPR was released by DIPP on September 26, 2012, inviting views from various stakeholders. It was felt that the National IP Strategy needs to be developed in a manner such that it is integrated with the overall national plan for development in order for better cooperation with IP components of specific and targeted national strategies in areas such as trade and investment, education, food and agriculture, science and technology etc.

Subsequently, a revised draft for the National IPR Strategy in India was released on July 21, 2014, detailing a vision statement, objectives and means to achieve the same.

The DIPP constituted an IPR Think Tank , as notified on November 13, 2014, in order to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy and to advise DIPP on IPR-related issues. Finally, a First Draft of the National IPR Policy was submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014 , inviting comments and suggestions from all stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015.

National IP Strategies: Around the World

WIPO Member States adopted 45 recommendations at the 2007 General Assembly, made by the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda. This also included Member States setting up "appropriate national strategies in the field of intellectual property." These recommendations were identified for immediate and effective implementation, resulting in countries beginning to adopt the same, with the objective of promoting and enforcing IP rights. The info-graphic below highlights the formulation of IP Strategies in Member States around the world.

China announced its "National Intellectual Property Strategic Principles" in June, 2008. Japan established its "Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters" in 2003, and its Intellectual Property Strategic Program in 2004, while USA legislated the " Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act" in 2008. Furthermore, the Presidential Advisory Council on Education, Science and Technology in Korea announced the " Strategy for Intellectual Property System Constructing Plan" on June 27, 2006, consisting of three aspects: Creation and Application, Law and Regulation, and Infrastructure. The European Union has adopted a " Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries", aimed at evaluating the recent major changes that have taken place in the international IP arena, preparing to meet the challenges in an effective manner. Finland adopted " The Government's Resolution on the Strategy Concerning Intellectual Property Rights " on March 26, 2009. Therefore, it is observed that the trend of National IP Strategies has only started recently, in the last decade.

Therefore we see the emerging need of an all-encompassing IP Policy arising in nations around the world, aimed at promoting a holistic environment conducive to the development of Intellectual Property.

[1] WIPO's Contribution to the Elaboration and Implementation of Strategies and National Plans for the Development of IP and Innovation , WTO Strategic Planning Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, June 13, 2014.

[2] Id .

[3] Id .

[4] Id.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-development-of-the-national-ipr-policy

RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure

nehaa — 2015-02-02T13:28:30Z

In an earlier blog post titled "MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures", we discussed the lack of information regarding the expenditure by various MHRD Chairs in the country. We sent out RTI requests to find out more. This blog post discusses the responses that we have received so far. (Many thanks to CIS intern Varnika Chawla for her assistance)

See the earlier post on MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures

A wide variation in the allocation of funds among different Universities was observed. Further, it was noted that no information was available on any platform, regarding the actual utilization of these funds, and therefore, CIS had filed a Right to Information request for the same with the concerned authorities.

A four-pronged Right to Information query (dated 17.11.2014) was filed by CIS with various Universities, seeking the following:

A report on the implementation of the IPERPO Scheme and the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the Scheme at different Universities across India, for the year 2013-14;
Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme at different Universities, for the year 2013-14;
Documents relating to the receipt of utilization certificates and audited expenditures statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme for the year 2013-14;
Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO Scheme for 2013-14 established across different Universities.

Accordingly, CIS received the following information from Universities:

Name of University	Implementation of IPERPO Scheme	Release of Grants	Utilization Certificates & Exp. Stmts.	Finance & Budget Matters
WBNUJS, Kolkata	Information not yet available	-	-	-
DU, Delhi School of Economics, Tezpur University	Information not yet available	-	-	-
Jawaharlal Nehru University	Information not yet available	-	-	-
IIM, Ahmedabad	No MHRD IPR Chair	-	-	-
IIM, Bangalore	Established a Chair	Rs. 23,50,000	Rs. 23,50,000	Submitted
IIT Delhi	No MHRD IPR Chair	No money has been received	-	-
NLU, Jodhpur	Established a Chair	Rs. 36,00,000	Rs. 18,86,566	Submitted
University of Madras	No MHRD IPR Chair	No money has been received	-	-
Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad	Established a Chair	Rs. 40,00,000	Rs. 37, 88,349	Submitted
NLSIU, Bangalore	Established a Chair	Rs. 45,00,000	Rs. 45,31,927	-
CUSAT, Kerala	Information not yet available	-	-	-
IIT, Bombay	No IPR Chair for 2013-14	Rs. 35,00,000	Rs. 15,66,179	Submitted

The RTI Requests were returned by NUJS Kolkata as well as IIT, Kanpur, in a response dated 28.11.2014.

IIM Ahmedabad in its response (dated 9.12.2014), informed of the fact that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme at the institution.

Details of the activities undertaken by the MHRD IPR Chair, as well as their finance and budget allocation were received from IIM, Bangalore (dated 16.12.2014). It was disclosed that the focus of the IPR Chair is on research on the economic and management dimensions of IPR with special reference to the corporate, SME and agricultural sectors. Since 2011-12, the Chair has focused on creative content management and protection with reference to cinema, electronic media and classical performing arts. Several activities were undertaken by the Chair, including finalization of a Research Monograph; inclusion of IPR Economics into the Core Course in Microeconomics for the Post Graduate Programme in Software Enterprise Management; a National Workshop on “Macro Policy Environment, IPR’s and Competition Policy” was organized; and 2 Research Assistants were appointed under the Chair. Against a request for Rs. 26,10,000, a grant of Rs. 23,50,000 was received, utilized for the payment of the Chair’s salary (Rs. 19,20,000), RA honorarium (Rs. 5,40,000) and Round Table Expenses.

IIT, Delhi, in its response (dated 16.12.2014) informed that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme at the University. Further, no grant money has been received by the University under the Scheme.

NLU, Jodhpur submitted a detailed reply (dated 16.12.2014). A number of IPR research and learning initiatives have been undertaken under the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme, including IPR Awareness Programmes, formulation and conduction of various undergraduate and postgraduate IPR Courses, research and suggestions on IPR Law Reforms and IPR Policies etc. NLU Jodhpur conducted a training session for researchers and teachers of IPR, a workshop for students on IP Litigation, a conference on “The Impact of IPR on Access to Medicine”, Training, Sensitization and Outreach Programmes as well as lectures and paper presentations. Funding received from the grant was utilized towards payment of the coordinator’s salary (Rs. 5,78,800) RA honorarium (Rs. 6,00,000), Ph.D. fellows’ honorarium (Rs. 3,38,000), travel grants (Rs. 2,00,000) and miscellaneous expenditure. A total of Rs. 17,00,000 was spent on sensitization and outreach programmes, workshops, conferences as well as the IP Depository.

The University of Madras in its response (dated 29.12.2014) submitted that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme and no grants were sanctioned to the University.

The requisite documents detailing expenditure incurred (Rs. 37,88,349) as well as the financial budget were made available by NALSAR University of Law (dated 22.12.2014). Expenditure was incurred towards the payment of the Chair Professor’s salary (Rs. 17,50,093), payments to the staff (Rs.7,11,544), the IPR Journal (Rs. 40,000), Travel (Rs.6,45,864), books (Rs. 2,67,740) and other miscellaneous expenditure. A link to an online report, was also made available. However, this is a dead link.

The website established for MHRD IPR Chairs itself is not functioning.

No information has been made available by Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Delhi School of Economics and Tezpur University as well as CUSAT, Kerala as of now. Further, IIT, Kharagpur in its reply (dated 17.12.2014), sought exemption from providing the required information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

IIT Bombay, in its reply (dated 15.01.2015) submitted that having established a MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO Scheme, activities such as research, training, academic courses (Introductory Foundation Course at U.G., P.G. Level, Elective Course at P.G. Level), conducting workshops, conferences and outreach programmes and maintaining an IP Depository have been undertaken. Details about budgetary allocation were also made available. From a grant of Rs. 35,00,000, a total amount of Rs. 15,66,179 has been utilized. However, there was no IPR Chair for the year 2013-14. Out of a cumulative grant of Rs. 1,95,00,000 received till March 31, 2014, the institution has spent a total of Rs. 1,62,60,265 on IPR Activities, workshops, honorariums, salaries, conferences etc. from 2007.

Lastly, as per the information received from NLSIU, Bangalore (dated 14.01.2015), an MHRD IPR Chair has been established at the University. Several activities have been organized at NLSIU, including a Workshop on IPR in S.J.R. College of Law, the release of an IP Newsletter publication “March of the IP Law”, a conference on the Advantages of Madrid Protocol, a conference on Patents, Innovation and Trade Secrets for MSMEs in IT/ITES Sectors in Karnataka, research activities such as the Fact-Screening-and-Transforming-Processor Project, the release of a website http://iprlawindia.org which is currently under construction, conducting awareness and outreach programmes etc. The MHRD IPR Chair at NLSIU was awarded a grant of Rs.45,00,000 which was largely spent on the payment of the Chair’s salary (Rs. 24,17,378), RA honorarium (Rs. 5,88,415), workshops and conferences (Rs.1,27,805), creation of a depository of IP books (Rs. 1,00,105), publication of newsletters (Rs.1,00,000) and staff payments.

It is therefore observed that firstly, there was a variation in replies to the RTI queries filed under the same format, with some Universities providing information, some blatantly refusing to do so (IIT Kharagpur), and some delaying the process for what appear to be minor procedural irregularities.

Four Universities have still not sent the requisite information, whereas no MHRD IPR Chair has been established in four of them. Only four replied with some information.

Moreover, for the year 2013-14, MHRD allocated a grant of Rs. 1,79,50,000 among 5 Universities, disproportionately (ranging from Rs.23 lakhs-Rs. 45 lakhs per University). Out of this grant, the Universities have incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 1,41,23,021, largely for the payment of salaries of the IPR Chair (Rs. 66,66,271), honorariums for Research Assistants (24,50,183), and conducting workshops, conferences and travel for the same.

The various responses received to the RTI queries filed reveal a great variation in not just the allocation of funds by the Ministry, but also on the utilization of these funds (if at all), as well as in the range of activities conducted by the Chairs.

We're still tracking this. Watch this space for more, including copies of our RTIs and the responses as well as details from other Universities who are yet to get back to us.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-responses-mhrd-ip-chairs-details-of-funding-and-expenditure

National IPR Policy Series : RTI Requests to DIPP seeking Details on the IPR Think Tank and the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-04-12T12:48:00Z

In an earlier blog post titled " National IPR Policy Series : The Development of the National IPR Policy", we discussed the formation of an IPR Think Tank to draft the first National IPR Policy. Since many details about the constitution and working of this Think Tank were unavailable, we decided to send out RTI requests to find out more.

According to the press release by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) which can be found here, an IPR Think Tank was constituted in order to draft the National Intellectual Property Policy. The Think Tank, chaired by retired Justice Prabha Sridevan, submitted a confidential first draft of the National IPR policy to the DIPP on 19th December, 2014. This document was made publicly available by the DIPP and all stakeholders were requested to provide comments and suggestions to the first draft of the National IPR Policy.

Though the IPR Think Tank has expediently released their first draft of the National IPR policy, there is a lack of information available on the constitution of this IPR Think Tank. There is no data on how the members of this Think Tank were shortlisted and selected or how the Chairperson and Convener of the Think Tank were elected. Further, the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank before and after publishing the first draft of the policy have not been made publicly available.

In an attempt to obtain more data on the process of the constitution of the Think Tank and it’s working, CIS filed three RTI requests to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion date February 2, 2015. A copy of the RTI requests is included below:

RTI Request 1: Information on Constitution of IPR Think Tank

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Subject: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

Information Sought:

Please provide the following information:

Please indicate in detail the process followed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion for the constitution for an IPR Think Tank to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy under Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014.
If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, etc. in which the constitution of the aforementioned IPR Think Tank was decided.
If there were multiple meetings held for the same, please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders etc. for all such meetings held.
If a directive or directives were received by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from any other government body to constitute such a think tank, please provide a copy of such a directive received by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from any Government authority, to constitute such a Think Tank.
Please indicate in detail the process of shortlisting the members of the IPR Think Tank by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion or any other body that was responsible for the same.

In case the information is held by or related to another public authority, the application or such part of it as may be appropriate may be transferred to that other public authority under intimation to the undersigned as per Section 6(3) of RTI Act.

Proof of payment of application fee:

An Indian Postal Order for the amount of Rs.10 dated 2/2/2015 favouring the Public Information Officer, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion is enclosed as proof of payment of application fee.

I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. I request you to ensure that the information is furnished before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Details of Applicant:

Ms. Nehaa Chaudhari
Centre for Internet and Society
G-15, Hauz Khas
New Delhi – 110016

Date: 2/2/2015

RTI Request 2: Working of IPR Think Tank while drafting National IPR policy

To,
Ms. Chandni Raina
Central Public Information Officer
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (IPR I, II, III, IV, V and VI Sections)
Room No.260
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Subject: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

Information Sought:

Please provide the following information:

Please indicate in detail the process followed by the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion via Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 while framing the first draft of the National IPR Policy dated December 19, 2014.
If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, suggestions etc. related to the drafting of such National IPR Policy by the IPR Think Tank chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan.
If there were multiple meetings held for the same, please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders suggestions etc. for all such meetings held.
Please provide all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank from stakeholders after the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion issued Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 asking for suggestions and comments on or before November 30, 2014.

Proof of payment of application fee:

I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. I request you to ensure that the information is furnished before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Details of Applicant:

Ms. Nehaa Chaudhari
Centre for Internet and Society
G-15, Hauz Khas
New Delhi – 110016

Date: 2/2/2015

RTI Request 3: Request for suggestions and feedback received by DIPP on the first draft of the National IPR Policy

To,
Ms. Chandni Raina
Central Public Information Officer
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (IPR I, II, III, IV, V and VI Sections)
Room No.260
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Subject: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

Please provide the following information:

Please indicate all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank by different stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015 on its first draft of the National Intellectual Property Policy submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014.

Proof of payment of application fee:

I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. I request you to ensure that the information is furnished before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Details of Applicant:

Ms. Nehaa Chaudhari
Centre for Internet and Society
G-15, Hauz Khas
New Delhi – 110016

Date: 2/2/2015

(Many thanks to CIS intern Protyush Choudhury for his assistance with this.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-requests-dipp-details-on-constitution-and-working-of-ipr-think-tank

Intellectual Property Rights — Open Access for Researchers

nehaa — 2015-03-24T01:22:20Z

In the year 2013, Nehaa Chaudhari had worked on a module on Intellectual Property Rights for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)'s Open Access Curriculum (Curriculum for Researchers) as part of a project for the Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia. UNESCO published the module this year. Nehaa Chaudhari and Varun Baliga were among the Module preparation team. Nehaa Chaudhari was the writer for Units 1, 2 and 3: Understanding Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright and Alternative to a Strict Copyright Regime.

This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en).

Module Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are set of rights associated with creations of the human mind. An output of the human mind may be attributed with intellectual property rights. These are like any other property, and the law allows the owner to use the same to economically profit from the intellectual work. Broadly IPR covers laws related to copyrights, patents and trademarks. While laws for these are different in different countries, they follow the international legal instruments. The establishment of the Wold Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has established the significance of IPR for the economic growth of nations in the knowledge economy.

This module has three units, and while the Unit 1 covers the basics of IPR, Unit 2 expands in detail the components of copyright and explains the origins and conventions associated with it. Unit 3 discusses the emergence of liberal licensing of copyrighted work to share human creation in the commons. In the last unit, we discuss the Creative Commons approach to licensing of creative works within the structures of the copyright regime that permits the authors to exercise their rights to share in the way they intend to. Creative Commons provides six different types of licenses, of which the Creative Commons Attribution license is the most widely used in research journals part of the Open Access framework.

At the end of this module, you are expected to be able to:

Understand intellectual property rights and related issues
Explain copyright, authors’ rights, licensing and retention of rights; and
Use the Creative Commons licensing system

Acknowledgements

Nehaa would like to thank Varun Baliga and Anirudh Sridhar for their research and writing support in Unit 1, and Samantha Cassar for Unit 2.

Click to download the PDF containing the Modules. Also read UNESCO’s Open Access (OA) Curriculum is now online

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/unesco-nehaa-chaudhari-march-19-2015-communication-and-information-resources-news-and-in-focus-articles-unesco-open-access-curriculum-is-now-online