[A2k] FIA Statement at WIPO SCCR Special 2

[Petra Buhr]

2nd Special Session of the WIPO Standing Committee
on Copyright and Related rights
Geneva, 18-22 June 2007

Statement by the International Federation of Actors (FIA)


Thank you Madame Vice-Chair for giving us the floor and congratulations
to you and the Chair, in his absence, for your election.

FIA represents more than 100 performers unions, guilds and professional
associations in more than 75 countries around the world.

We continue to believe that the protection of audiovisual performances
should have come first in the list of priorities of this organisation
and that member States should have finalized the unfinished business
before taking up a new challenge. Particularly so, now that their work
is increasingly exploited - without authorization or compensation in the
global digital environment - including by those same organizations that
are seeking THEIR protection to be upgraded here today. However, we
recognize that, as the protection of broadcasting organizations has
become the main focus of discussion, progress must be made to achieve a
meaningful result for broadcasting organizations, though striking a
right and fair balance with the interest of other right holders --
including performers

We believe that the non-paper tabled by the Chair of this Standing
Committee is a step in the right direction, as it continues to focus on
signal protection and breaks free of the previous trend, which was to
grant broadcasting organizations intellectual property rights on the
commercial exploitation of content. However, a few issues in that
document are a matter of concern to my membership, calling for
additional clarity before this matter can be refined by a Diplomatic
Conference.

My Federation questions why the definition of the signal was deleted
from the Non Paper. (i.e. an electronically generated carrier capable of
transmitting programmes). In January, we were pleased to find such
definition in the document tabled for discussion and we thought it
useful to further clarify the object of protection. We believe that the
definition met with a very large support and therefore fail to
understand why it has been discarded.





Under article 3, paragraph four, we believe the text should make clear
that retransmitting third parties cannot claim protection under this
treaty, whether they are involved in simultaneous OR in deferred
retransmission. Under the current formulation, art. 3 combined with art.
2 on definitions would only exclude third parties involved in
simultaneous retransmission.

We also believe that art. 7 should be drafted in the form of a right to
prohibit, at least when it comes to the deferred transmission of the
original content carrying signal, which would in our view give
broadcasting organizations the protection they need and not create a
precedent whereby they are able to seek IP protection on content.

Finally, we urge member States to ensure that art. 2 also includes a
definition of "deferred transmission". This term is in fact new to
international treaty making and it is unclear from which moment a
transmission can be considered to be a "deferred" one and whether such
transmission could possibly also be considered to be a "new" one or some
form of "communication to the public". Clarity should be made to specify
that we are indeed talking about a "rebroadcast", with a language
consistent with previous international treaties.


--
Petra Buhr
Global Policy Fellow
IP Justice

www.ipjustice.org
petra@ipjustice.org

In Germany: + 49 177 876 0 765
In Geneva:  + 41 78 60 45 753