Copyright 21St Year — No

Published monthly Annual subscription: fr.s. 130.— Each monthly issue: fr.s. 13.— Copyright 21st year — No. 4 Monthly Review of the April 1985 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Contents WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION The World Intellectual Property Organization in 1984. Copyright and Neighbor- ing Rights Activities 136 Seminar on Copyright and Neighboring Rights for Central American and Carib- bean States (Mexico City, February 19 to 22, 1985) 142

BERNE UNION Group of Experts on the Copyright Aspects of the Protection of Computer Soft- ware (Geneva, February 25 to March 1, 1985) 146

NATIONAL LEGISLATION CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC. Ordinance No. 85 002 on Copyright (of January 5, 1985) 158

CORRESPONDENCE Letter from the Netherlands (D.W. Feer Verkade) 165

BOOK REVIEWS Les correspondances inédites (André Françon and Claude Goyard) .... 175 Estudios sobre derecho de autor; reforma legal colombiana (Arcadio Plazas) . 176

CALENDAR OF MEETINGS 176

© WIPO 1985 Any reproduction of official notes or reports, articles and translations of laws or agreements, published in this review, is authorized only with the prior consent of WIPO. ISSN 0010-8626 136

World Intellectual Property Organization

The World Intellectual Property Organization in 1984*

Information Concerning Copyright For the purpose of preparing a survey on the practical administration and application of the copyright and neighboring rights laws in Asia and the Pacific, Objective a request for information was addressed to the ap- The objective is to increase and spread know- propriate authorities in 35 countries of the region in ledge about the doctrine, legislation and practical June 1984. By the end of 1984, replies had been administration of copyright and neighboring rights. received from 11 countries.

Activities Copyright Questions of Topical Interest The periodicals Copyright and Le Droit d'auteur continued to be published each month. Objective WIPO continued to keep up to date its collection of the texts of the laws and regulations of all the The objective is to look for solutions to specific countries of the world and of all treaties dealing with questions of a legal nature, and of topical interest, in copyright and neighboring rights, both in their origi- the fields of copyright and neighboring rights. These nal languages and in English and French transla- questions are of topical interest because they are tions. The basic texts were published in the monthly raised by relatively recent changes in the social, periodicals Copyright and Le Droit d'auteur. economic or technological environment in which The Copyright Law Survey, a loose-leaf publica- mankind lives. tion containing summaries of national laws and other provisions on copyright and neighboring rights, was updated by the publication, in April Activities 1984, of a supplement which, apart from bringing former entries up to date, added new summaries for A Discussion Meeting on the Possible Contents seven countries. The total number of countries cov- of Copyright Legislation Concerning Employee ered is 80. Authors was held in Geneva in October 1984, in order to assist WIPO in preparing for a meeting, to be convened jointly with Unesco, on draft model provisions for national laws. The consultants who took part in the discussion meeting, at the invitation * This article is the second part of a report on the main of WIPO, came from China, Costa Rica, the Soviet activities of WIPO in general and in the fields of copyright and neighboring rights. Activities in the field of industrial property Union, Sweden and the United States of America. are covered in a corresponding report in the review Industrial The consultants advised, inter alia, that the work Property. of preparing model provisions for national legisla- The first part dealt with the activities of WIPO as such and tion should concentrate mainly on the rights of per- with development cooperation activities in the fields of copyright and neighboring rights (See Copyright, 1985, pp. 85 et sons employed for the purpose of creating works seq. ). The second part deals with other activities in those protected by copyright (rather than of persons who fields. incidentally create such works within the scope of WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION 137 their employment), and on the situation in indus- multilateral treaty on the protection of expressions tries (such as films, broadcasting, the press), as well of folklore, on a sui generis basis of safeguarding as in the fields of science, where such employment is intellectual property. Several participants stressed common; the principles to be established should, so that the draft text prepared by the Secretariats was a far as possible, be valid also for other circumstances, good starting point to this end. Several participants but special rules can be envisaged for particular considered it premature to establish an international cases; the model provisions should encourage the treaty since there was not sufficient experience conclusion of contracts (collective, standard or in- available as regards the protection of expressions of dividual ) between employers and employed authors folklore at the national level, in particular concern- concerning the exercise of economic rights, and ing the implementation of the Model Provisions for should provide a reasonable minimum level of pro- National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of tection for the employee. Both contractual and sta- Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Pre- tutory arrangements should be flexible enough to judicial Actions, adopted in 1982 by a Committee of provide additional rewards in the case of unex- Governmental Experts. Other participants, how- pected or unusually successful uses of the works, ever, referred to the fact that there was sufficient taking into account such factors as the normal scope evidence as to the need for an international protec- of duties of the employee, the normal scope of activ- tion of expressions of folklore. ities of the employer, the expectations of both par- Some participants suggested starting with inter- ties, technological and economic developments and national recommendations or guidelines. Other par- the actual profitability of a given work; cheap and ticipants said that the elaboration of draft texts of a easily accessible means of resolving disputes should treaty may provide guidelines for national regula- be available. tion of the matter. The view was noted that the In addition, the consultants provided advice on a urgency of the establishment of an international number of points contained in a draft check-list of treaty on the protection of expressions of folklore issues and questions prepared by WIPO. may be different in various regions. Many participants emphasized the importance of strengthening, in the proposed treaty, the links between the expres- A Group of Experts on the International Protec- sions of folklore and the respective communities in tion of Expressions of Folklore by Intellectual Pro- which they originated. perty, jointly convened by WIPO and Unesco, met After a detailed discussion of the draft treaty, in Paris in December 1984. The experts, invited in article by article, the participants noted that the their personal capacity, were nationals of the follow- secretariats would further explore various aspects of ing 12 countries: Australia, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, a treaty for the intellectual property type protection Finland, Ghana, Hungary, India, Mexico, Philip- of expressions of folklore and would prepare a re- pines, Soviet Union, Tunisia, United States of vised text, in the light of the observations made, and America. Delegations from the following 18 States the advice given by the participants, also consider- were present at the meeting: Australia, Belgium, ing possible alternative means of implementing the Brazil, Congo, Egypt, Finland, France, Haiti, Holy protection. The Secretariats would communicate the See, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, report of the meeting to the Executive Committee of Tunisia, Turkey, United States of America. Observ- the Berne Union and to the Intergovernmental ers from two intergovernmental organizations and Committee of the Universal Copyright Conven- 11 international non-governmental organizations tion. also attended the meeting. Under its terms of reference, the Group of Ex- perts was asked to consider the need for a specific A Working Group on Model Provisions for Na- international regulation on the international protec- tional Laws on Publishing Contracts for Literary tion of expressions of folklore by intellectual prop- Works, convened by WIPO and Unesco, met in erty and the contents of an appropriate draft. Geneva in June 1984. The participants were six con- The discussions were based mainly on a docu- sultants, invited in their personal capacity, from ment prepared by the Secretariats containing the Algeria, Brazil, China, France, Germany (Federal draft of an international treaty. They reflected a gen- Republic of) and Poland, together with observers eral recognition of the need for international protec- from three international non-governmental organi- tion of expressions of folklore, in particular with zations. regard to the rapidly increasing uncontrolled use of The meeting examined model provisions for na- such expressions by means of modern technology, tional laws on the rights and obligations of authors beyond the limits of the country of the community and publishers under publishing contracts for liter- in which they originate. A number of participants ary works, with special emphasis on the interests of supported the idea of preparing an international developing countries. The Working Group had be- 138 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 fore it documents containing draft annotated model was recalled that, according to the 1971 Paris Act of provisions and an inventory of national legal provi- the Berne Convention, national legislation may pro- sions governing various aspects of authors' con- vide for limitations of the right of reproduction in tracts. certain special cases, provided that such reproduc- After having engaged in a wide-ranging exchange tion does not conflict with a normal exploitation of of views on the draft model provisions, and having the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the noted that they took due account both of established legitimate interests of the authors, and that, under customs and of the specific position of developing the Universal Copyright Convention, the Contract- countries, the Working Group expressed its agree- ing States have to provide for the adequate and ment on the general structure of the provisions and effective protection of the rights of authors and to then concentrated on certain specific points, either accord a reasonable degree of effective protection to in the text itself or in the comments on it. After an any rights to which exceptions are made. It was examination, provision by provision, of the draft, noted that the cumulative effect of reproduction for the Working Group recommended a revised text, it private purposes of sound and audiovisual record- being understood that the comments on the model ings and broadcasts, as well as reprographic repro- provisions would subsequently be reworked by the duction for private use of printed works, was preju- Secretariats in order that the various observations dicial to the author's legitimate interests, and such made in the course of the discussions might be kinds of reproduction might also conflict with the taken into consideration. normal exploitation of the work; it also conflicted The Working Group noted that the Secretariats with the requirement of guaranteeing a reasonable would submit the revised draft model provisions for degree of effective protection of the right of repro- national laws on contracts for publishing literary duction. Consequently, national legislations should works in book form, along with the completed com- not exempt reproductions for private purposes from ments, to a Group of Experts in 1985 for further copyright liability. consideration. The participants also considered the provisions of the Rome Convention for the Protection of Per- formers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcast- A Group of Experts on Unauthorized Private ing Organizations permitting exceptions to protec- Copying of Recordings, Broadcasts and Printed tion as regards private use. They underlined, how- Matter, convened by WIPO and Unesco, met in ever, that any limitation of the rights of holders of Geneva in June 1984. The experts, invited in their neighboring rights in respect of reproduction for pri- personal capacity, were nationals of Argentina, Aus- vate purposes could be, for practical reasons, per- tria, India, Rwanda, the Soviet Union, Tunisia and missible only under the same conditions as those the United States of America. The States party to applying to the reproduction of protected works. the Berne Convention or to the Universal Copyright The participants agreed that the use of modern Convention had been invited to follow the discus- technology for reproduction of works for private sions; the following 32 States were represented by purposes should not be hindered, and its adverse delegations: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, effects on the interests of authors and beneficiaries Canada, Congo, Czechoslovakia, El Salvador, of neighboring rights should be mitigated by appro- France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, priate means of protection. Appropriate systems for Holy See, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Libya, protection with regard to reproduction for private Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mexico, Netherlands, purposes could be collective administration of the Niger, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, exclusive right of reproduction or various forms of Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United King- non-voluntary licensing, such licensing implying dom, United States of America. Observers from one the obligation to pay proper remuneration. intergovernmental organization and 14 interna- It was found that technological development dur- tional non-governmental organizations also at- ing the past decade would justify reopening discus- tended the meeting. sion at the international level on reprographic re- The Group of Experts had before it a document, production of works protected by copyright. drawn up by the Secretariats with the assistance of a A number of participants underlined that the consultant, on the unauthorized reproduction for exercise of the exclusive right of reproduction for private purposes of sound and audiovisual record- private purposes should be effected by means of col- ings, broadcasts and the printed word. lective agreements between representative organiza- The participants noted that, according to the in- tions of right owners and users. Legislation should ternational copyright conventions, the author had provide that relevant claims of the owners of rights an exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of concerned may only be asserted by their respective his work. The right of reproduction was not limited organizations and such organizations should be in a to reproduction for public or profit-making use. It position to guarantee the users against claims from WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION 139 right owners outside the authorizing organization. A Group of Experts on the Rental of Phonograms Where a system of collective agreements could not and Videograms, jointly convened by WIPO and be introduced, the States might introduce non-vo- Unesco, met in Paris in November 1984. luntary license schemes for certain kinds of reproduction for private purposes, subject to the payment Eight experts participated in their personal ca- of proper remuneration. pacity, from Cameroon, Egypt, India, Japan, Mex- Several participants stressed that the fees to be ico, the Soviet Union, Switzerland and the United collected by the competent organization for the re- States of America. Delegations from the following production of protected works were royalties and 25 States followed the discussions: Argentina, Aus- should be paid, as regards reproduction equipment tralia, Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland, and/or blank material support of recorded produc- France, German Democratic Republic, Germany tions, ultimately by the users and distributed to the (Federal Republic of), Holy See, Hungary, Israel, owners of rights in proportions corresponding to the Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, probable extent of use. The modalities of calculating Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United the fees and the fixation thereof should be a matter Kingdom, United States of America. Observers of negotiation, as far as possible, between the inter- from one intergovernmental organization and 14 in- ested representative organizations, even in case of ternational non-governmental organizations also at- non-voluntary licensing schemes, and legislation or tended the meeting. competent authorities should fix them only in the absence of such an agreement. Any fees fixed by The mandate of the Group of Experts was to legislation or competent authority should corres- examine the copyright problems arising from the pond, as far as possible, to amounts that might have rental of phonograms and videograms, including been agreed upon by the interested parties. draft guiding principles for possible solutions of A great number of participants emphasized that such problems. the introduction of a fiscal tax (instead of copyright fees) on blank tapes and cassettes and/or equipment After an ample exchange of views, in which the for reproduction of works for private purposes was representatives of governments and international contrary to the basic principle under the law of non-governmental organizations fully participated, copyright according to which fees paid for the use of the Group of Experts expressed the view that au- protected productions were due to the respective thors should enjoy, under copyright law, an exclu- owners of the rights in such productions. Other par- sive right to authorize the rental or lending of ticipants felt that this was a question of implemen- phonograms or videograms embodying or constitut- tation, which could make a tax-type system compa- ing their works, and that where phonograms or tible with principles of copyright provided the pro- videograms are not considered to be original works ceeds of the tax are used to remunerate the right of authorship, but where they are recognized as par- owners concerned. ticular subject matters of protection under copyright In conclusion, the participants in the Group of laws or where their producers are protected by a Experts "suggested that the Secretariat of Unesco specific right at least against the unauthorized copy- and the International Bureau of WIPO continue to ing of their phonograms and videograms, the pro- study the impact, on copyright and the so-called ducers of phonograms or videograms should, with- neighboring rights, of recording and reprographic out prejudice to the rights of authors, have a similar reproduction for private purposes of protected exclusive right; they recognized that some excep- works and productions protected by neighboring tions to the said rights may be desirable in certain rights and that they prepare, on an urgent basis, special circumstances, and that the soliciting and annotated principles for the related protection of granting of licenses may, especially where the num- copyright and neighboring rights." (UNESCO/ ber of right holders is great, require legislative meas- WIPO/GE/COP.I/3, paragraph 24.) ures which facilitate the negotiations of licenses and In the opinion of the Director General of WIPO, their implementation, measures preferably resulting the meeting has demonstrated the extreme urgency in the collective administration of the rights ; they of the matter. He recommends that the suggestion of recommended that further studies should identify the Group of Experts be followed and that the various alternatives for modalities and mechanisms Executive Committee of the Berne Union authorize for such negotiations and such administration, that him to prepare a draft of the said annotated princi- such studies should deal separately with phono- ples, with the help of outside consultants and a com- grams and videograms and should deal also with the mittee of experts that would be convened early in uses (copying, performance, etc.) to which rented or 1985. If Unesco is ready to associate itself with such lent copies may be put, and that the Secretariats activities within the said time frame, these activities consider the desirability of extending the studies would be joint between WIPO and Unesco. also to the rights of performing artists. 140 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

A Group of Consultants on the Advisability of Set- Such consultations have started with FIAPF in ting up an International Register of Audiovisual September 1984, on the basis of draft regulations, Works, convened by WIPO in cooperation with the forms and other papers prepared by the Interna- International Federation of Film Producers Asso- tional Bureau according to the advice given by the ciations (FIAPF), met in Geneva in July 1984. The Group of Consultants. purpose of the meeting was to assist in the preparation of a future meeting of a committee of governmental experts to advise on the setting up, at the Cooperation with States and Various Institutions International Bureau of WIPO, of an international in Matters Concerning Copyright register of audiovisual recordings (cinematographic and Neighboring Rights works, recordings of television programs, etc.), it being understood that the use of such register would WIPO continued to cooperate with States, with be voluntary and that the provisions setting up the intergovernmental organizations, and with interna- register would under no circumstances make recor- tional and national non-governmental organiza- dal in the register a condition for protection of copy- tions. right or neighboring rights but would be merely intended as a means facilitating proof of the exis- States tence of the audiovisual recording on the date on which the request for recordal was filed. Ten experts participated in the meeting in their personal capac- Spain. In April 1984, a WIPO official visited ity. They were selected in consultation with FIAPF Madrid at the request of a Committee of the Span- and came from Germany (Federal Republic of), ish Senate considering the revision of the copyright India, Italy, the Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, the law, and provided information to the said Commit- Soviet Union, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and the tee. During the same mission, the WIPO official United States of America. FIAPF participated in the gave a lecture at a seminar organized by the College meeting by six representatives. of Advocates in Barcelona. The participants unanimously held that it was necessary, and therefore highly desirable and urgent, United States of America. In June 1984, a WIPO to establish an international register of audiovisual official, at the invitation of the Library of Congress, works. They held that such a register was highly gave lectures on the Berne and Rome Conventions desirable because of the fact that the exploitation of at a symposium in Washington on international copyright law. many audiovisual works more and more took place not only in the country in which they were made but In September 1984, a WIPO official attended a also in more and more other countries, that is, in meeting of the International Copyright Panel of the different countries with different coyright laws and Advisory Committee on International Intellectual different practices of enforcing those laws, facts Property at the Department of State. which frequently caused great difficulties for the owners of rights in the work to have their rights Intergovernmental Organizations clearly indicated to others and respected by them. The participants also found that for the purposes of Arab States Broadcasting Union (ASBU). Wi- the international licensing of the exploitation of the thin the framework of cooperation between WIPO audiovisual works, and for the purposes of the inter- and ASBU, a Workshop on Copyright and Neighbor- national financing of such exploitation, the existing ing Rights was organized jointly by WIPO and national registers were of limited usefulness. An ASBU at WIPO headquarters in May 1984. Four- international register would greatly increase the se- teen specialist participants came from the following curity of international transactions, be helpful in eight States members of ASBU : Bahrain, Lebanon, identifying right owners, efficiently further the re- Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, pression of piracy, promote awareness of distinct United Arab Emirates. Two officials of the League rights relating to different forms of uses of the of Arab States also participated. The General Secre- audiovisual work, facilitate any collective adminis- tariat of ASBU was represented by three partici- tration of rights and make it much easier for right pants, including the Secretary General. Three ex- owners to refuse unjustified claims. perts from Hungary, Japan and Mexico participated The meeting gave detailed advice on the contents at the invitation of WIPO. of an international register, the legal effect of regis- The purpose and objective of the Workshop was tration, the organization of the registry and the to encourage an exchange of information, experi- future procedure to be followed, including the pre- ence and opinions on copyright and neighboring paration of draft application forms for registration, rights. In his opening address, the Secretary General etc., and consultation with the interested circles. of ASBU referred to the Workshop as being an WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION 141 example of cooperation between the League of Arab the experience in other countries in the field of States and its specialized institutions and WIPO, copyright and neighboring rights and in the suppres- forged during the visit to Tunis in 1983 of the Direc- sion of piracy; and that ASBU and WIPO should tor General of WIPO. Eight papers were presented continue their cooperation in the field of copyright by officials of WIPO and of ASBU, and by the and neighboring rights and exchange reports in this invited experts. After a full discussion, the partici- connection. pants stressed the importance of promulgation of a copyright law at the national level ; of harmonization of such copyright laws at the regional and Commission of the European Communities. In worldwide levels; of the common interests between June 1984, the Commission of the European Com- broadcasting organizations and authors, other copy- munities published a "Green Paper" (a consultative right holders, and their societies; of accession to document for public discussion) in which, after sev- international conventions in the fields of copyright eral references to the Berne Convention, a possible and neighboring rights; of having and enforcing ade- Directive is suggested which "would oblige Member quate remedies and effective sanctions, particularly States of the European Community to amend their penal sanctions, against piracy; and of regular con- relevant [copyright] laws...in such a way that the sultation among responsible officials of broadcast- right of prohibition enjoyed by copyright holding organizations to ensure that the relevant legal ers...in connection with cable transmission by radio systems keep pace with technological develop- and television organizations is repealed...," the in- ments. terests of such holders being "protected by granting Finally, the participants recommended that a right to equitable remuneration,...enforceable ASBU should seek to disseminate the texts of the only through collecting societies" (document papers delivered in the course of the Workshop COM( 84)300 final of June 14, 1984, pp. 330 and through one of its publications; that ASBU and 331 ). WIPO was represented at a consultative meet- WIPO should jointly organize a symposium on the ing of government experts on the said document in question of copyright in the Arab States during the Brussels in November 1984. past and at present, and arrange for the necessary preparation of studies and papers and allocation of funds for this purpose; that ASBU and WIPO Council of Europe. WIPO was represented at a should cooperate in providing increased training op- meeting of the Committee of Legal Experts in the portunities in the field of copyright for personnel Media Field in Strasbourg in September 1984. working in broadcasting, television and the mass media in the Arab States, and should explore the possibility of holding training courses in a country Customs Cooperation Council (CCC). WIPO of the region and in the Arabic language; that WIPO was represented at a meeting of the Enforcement shoud send to the Ministries of Information and to Committee of the CCC in Brussels in June 1984, for broadcasting and television organizations in Arab discussion of an agenda item concerning copyright countries copies of reports and studies concerning and industrial property piracy. 142 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

Seminar on Copyright and Neighboring Rights for Central American and Caribbean States

(Mexico City, February 19 to 22, 1985)

Report and Conclusions

prepared by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and adopted by the participants

Introduction

1. At the kind invitation of the Government of lishing and record industries, university faculty, etc., Mexico and in close cooperation with the Directo- who attended the sessions; the total daily atten- rate General of Copyright of the Ministry of Public dance varied between 75 to 100 persons. Education, the World Intellectual Property Organi- zation (WIPO) organized and convened a Seminar 4. The list of participants is annexed to this re- on Copyright and Neighboring Rights for Central port. American and Caribbean States, which was held in Mexico City from February 19 to 22, 1985. Opening of the Session 2. The purpose of the Seminar was to consider, in the overall context of development, the role of na- 5. The Seminar was opened by His Excellency tional and international copyright, to discuss the Sr. Lie. Jesus Reyes Heroles, Minister for Public general principles in the field of copyright and Education of the Government of Mexico, in the pre- neighboring rights which are of special interest to sence of a large and distinguished gathering consist- the countries of the region ; to disseminate informa- ing of around 350 persons, including the Underse- tion with respect to international conventions in the cretary of State for Culture ; the Resident Represen- field of copyright and neighboring rights; and to tative of the United Nations Development Pro- examine the effect of technological development on gramme (UNDP); the Director General for Interna- the protection of the rights and interests of authors, tional Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Af- performers, record producers and broadcasters. fairs; the Director General of the International Af- fairs Office in the Ministry of Public Education ; the 3. Twenty-eight specialists from 11 countries (Bar- Director General of Radio, Television and Cinema- bados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican tography in the Ministry of Interior; the Director of Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Patents, Trademarks and Transfer of Technology, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama), participated, in addi- Ministry of Commerce; the Assistant Secretary for tion to three guest speakers, one each from Argen- Administration in the Ministry of Public Educa- tina, Jamaica (who was also one of the country par- tion. ticipants) and Switzerland, invited by WIPO in consultation with the Government of Mexico. These 6. The Minister for Public Education briefly ad- invited guest speakers were the Secretary General, dressed the participants and welcomed them after Argentinian Centre of the Interamerican Copyright statements were made by the Director General of Institute; the Director of Legal Reforms, Jamaican the Mexican Copyright Office and by the represen- Ministry of National Security and Justice; and the tative of the Director General of WIPO. Director General, Swiss Society for Authors' Rights in Musical Works (SUISA). There were also observers from three international non-governmental or- Election of Officials ganizations namely the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC); 7. The participants unanimously elected Mr. Hesi- the International Federation of Actors (FIA); and quio Aguilar de la Parra, Director General, Mexican the International Federation of Phonogram and Copyright Office, as Chairman, and Mrs. Mary Videogram Producers (IFPI). In addition, there Nassar Perez (Costa Rica) and Mrs. Shirley Miller were a number of observers drawn from the pub- (Jamaica) as Vice-Chairmen. WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION 143

Substantive Discussions (vi) identified the needs of the region for sup- porting the economies of publishing by effectively 8. In accordance with the program, papers were countering piracy of literary and artistic works; for presented on various aspects of copyright and neigh- promoting national recording industries by effective boring rights: three by the representative of WIPO; measures against piracy of sound and audiovisual nine by Mexican specialists; three by invited guest recordings ; for promoting legislation for the protec- speakers. Two subjects were dealt with by represen- tion of expressions of folklore; and for encouraging tatives of two international non-governmental or- the writing of school and college textbooks by na- ganizations, namely CISAC and IFPI. tional authors; (vii) concluded and urged that, in view of the 9. Much interested discussion followed the presen- problems faced by authors, performing artists, pro- tation of various papers in which most of the parti- ducers of phonograms, and broadcasting organiza- cipating specialists took part. The conclusions tions: drawn from the exchange of information and related discussions, as well as on the basis of proposals made by participating specialists are set out below : Governments should:

(a) enact legislation on copyright and neighbor- Conclusions ing rights where such legislation does not exist, in order to provide an appropriate and up-to-date na- 10. The participants at the Seminar: tional law that would be the most suitable nationally (i) expressed their deep gratitude to the Govern- as well as compatible regionally and internationally; ment of Mexico for having hosted the Seminar and and in countries where such legislation was consi- for its generous hospitality; dered inadequate or obsolete, should amend it so as to bring it up to date; (ii) expressed their great appreciation of WIPO (b) in enacting new legislation or updating exist- for having organized this Seminar which gave rise to ing legislation, reflect the traditional respect of the an interesting and informative exchange of views among officials from developing countries of the people of the countries concerned for creators and region facing similar problems in the field of copy- performing artists, and safeguard the cultural and right and neighboring rights and between them and economic interests of the communities from which folklore originates, duly ensuring that dissemination the observers from international non-governmental organizations; of various expressions of folklore does not lead to any improper exploitation of the cultural heritage of (iii) noted that certain countries have not yet the nation; been able to draft and adopt effective legislative (c) give consideration to enactment of suitable instruments for the protection of copyright and legal provisions, including civil remedies and deter- neighboring rights, while certain others were in the rent penal sanctions against infringements, for the process of doing so and were either revising their protection of authors as well as performing artists, existing copyright laws or drafting new laws on producers of phonograms and broadcasting organi- copyright and neighboring rights, in order to pro- zations; mote creativity and to provide the necessary incen- tive to authors and artists, as well as to safeguard (d) where they do not exist, help in the set- expressions of their folklore; ting-up of appropriate, cost-effective administrative infrastructures, to ensure proper application of (iv) noted also that certain countries do not national laws and international obligations in the have the necessary infrastructures that would enable field of intellectual property; effective implementation of legislative provisions for the protection of copyright and neighboring (e) consider, where they have not yet joined, rights; urgent accession to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and to the (v) considered that the objective of improving relevant international conventions in the field of the protection of copyright and neighboring rights in neighboring rights; developing countries should not solely be to provide effective legal and administrative infrastructures, (f) where they are already members of WIPO, but also to establish a system of such protection that and since it is at no additional cost, notify the Direc- would be integrated with and would effectively con- tor General of WIPO of their intention to serve on tribute to the social, cultural and economic develop- the WIPO Permanent Committee for Development ment strategies of the countries concerned; Cooperation Related to Copyright and Neighboring 144 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

Rights, so as to strengthen the reviewing, monitor- ting up or modernizing institutions and national ing and improving of programs of interest to the administrative infrastructures; countries of the region ; (ii) increase assistance in providing suitable (g) assist in organizing information dissemina- training facilities for personnel required to man the tion campaigns at the national level by the compe- respective national infrastructures; tent authorities and organizations in order to make (iii) consider projects for further strengthening the public at large as well as policy-makers and the its activities in, and assistance to, countries in this law enforcement agencies aware of the nature of region in the field of copyright and neighboring intellectual property rights and their importance in rights; the context of economic, social and cultural development; (iv) consider organizing a series of such subregional seminars and courses for countries in this area, to enable concerned officials to acquire the required information and understanding of various WIPO should: aspects of the law of copyright and neighboring rights, and to discuss and mutually consult on some ( i ) within the framework of its programs for de- of the problems in this field ; velopment cooperation, intensify provision of ad- (v) continue and increase its consultations with vice and assistance to countries in the Central governments of countries in the region and subre- American and Caribbean Region in preparing or gion in order that regional/subregional solutions amending and updating legislation in the field of could increasingly be identified and found in the copyright and neighboring rights, as well as in set- field of copyright and neighboring rights.

List of Participants

I. Experts Guatemala

Barbados Sr. Ruben Dario Mendez Ogaldez Director, Centro Nacional de Libros, Texto y Material Mr. Sherman Moore Didactico "José de Pineda Ibarra", Guatemala Attorney General's Chambers, Hastings Honduras

Belize Sr. Miguel Angel Izaguirre Fiallos Ministerio de Cultura y Miembro Comisiôn Estudio Mr. George Singh Proyecto Ley Propiedad Intelectual, Tegucigalpa Acting Solicitor General, Attorney General Ministry, Belmopan Jamaica

Colombia Mrs. Shirley Miller Director of Legal Reforms, Ministry of National Security Sra. Omayra Merchan Ortiz and Justice, Kingston Asesora de la Direcciôn Nacional del Derecho de Autor, Ministerio de Gobierno, Bogota Panama

Costa Rica Sr. Ricardo Franco Aguilar Asesor en Derecho de Autor, Instituto Nacional de Cul- Sra. Mary Nassar Perez ture, Panama Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, San José Mexico Dominican Republic Sr. Hesiquio Aguilar de la Parra Director General de la Direcciôn General del Derecho de Sr. Raymundo Amaro Autor Director. Oficina Nacional Administracion Personal (ONAP), Presidencia de la Republica, Santo Domingo Sr. Alfonso Galindo Becerra Subdirector Juridico y de Fomento de la Direcciôn Gene- El Salvador ral del Derecho de Autor Sr. Ramon Neme Sastre Sr. Ovidio Gomez Subdirector de Registre e Informaciôn de la Direcciôn Asesor Juridico, Ministerio de Justicia. San Salvador General del Derecho de Autor WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION 145

Sr. Victor Carlos Garcia Moreno II. Guest Lecturers Asesor en Asuntos Internacionales de la Dirección General del Derecho de Autor Argentina Sr. Manuel Guillen Rabasa Jefe del Departamento de Promócion y Difusión Autoral Sr. Miguel Angel Emery de la Dirección General del Derecho de Autor Secretario General, Centro Argentino del Instituto Inter- americano de Derecho de Autor, Buenos Aires Sr. Aldo Casasa Araujo Jefe del Departamento de Dominio Público de la Direc- ción General del Derecho de Autor Jamaica Sr. Carlos Septien Sepulveda Mrs. Shirley Miller Asesor de la Dirección General del Derecho de Autor Director of Legal Reforms, Ministry of National Security Srita. Ines Garza Rios and Justice, Kingston Coordinadora del Seminario Sra. Susana Barroso Montero . Switzerland Coordinadora del Seminario Mr. Ulrich Uchtenhagen Sr. Carlos Pulido Rodriguez Director General, Swiss Society for Authors' Rights in Jefe del Departamento de Reservas de la Dirección Gene- Musical Works (SUISA) ral del Derecho de Autor Sr. José Bustillos Presidente de la Federación Latinoamericana de Produc- tores de Fonogramas Sr. Jaime Guzman Mayer Secretario del Consejo Directivo de la Sociedad de Autores III. Observers y Compositores de Música International Non—Governmental Organizations Sr. José Ma. Fernandez Unsain Presidente de la Sociedad General de Escritores de México International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Com- posers (CISAC): D. de Freitas. International Federation of Sr. Venustiano Reyes Lopez Actors (FIA): R. Rembe. International Federation of Phono- Presidente de la Sociedad Mexicana de Ejecutantes de gram and Videogram Producers (IFPI): E. Thompson. Swiss Música Society for Authors' Rights in Musical Works (SUISA): Sr. Victor Blanco Labra U. Uchtenhagen. Director Juridico de Industria de Video, Televisa S.A. Sr. Luis Fernandez Gonzalez Presidente de la Camara Nacional de la Industria Editorial Mexicana Sr. Gabriel E. Larrea IV. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Presidente del Instituto Mexicano dei Derecho de Autor Sr. Mario Vasquez Escobedo Mr. Shahid Alikhan Radio Educación, Secretaria de Educación ilea Director, Developing Countries Division (Copyright) 146

Berne Union

Group of Experts on the Copyright Aspects of the Protection of Computer Software

(Geneva, February 25 to March 1, 1985)

Report

I. Introduction 5. Observers from six intergovernmental organizations and 26 non-governmental organizations also 1. In pursuance of the decisions adopted by the participated in the meeting. General Conference of Unesco at its twenty-second session (October-November 1983) and by the Gov- 6. The list of participants is appended to this report erning Bodies of WIPO at their fourteenth series of (Annex A). meetings in October 1983, the Secretariat of Unesco and the International Bureau of WIPO (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretariats" ) convened jointly a "Group of Experts on the Copyright Aspects of the II. Opening of the Meeting Protection of Computer Software" (hereinafter referred to as "the Group of Experts" ) which met at 7. The meeting was opened by Dr. Arpad Bogsch, WIPO headquarters, Geneva, from February 25 to Director General of WIPO and, on behalf of the March 1, 1985. Director-General of Unesco, by Mr. Abderrahmane Amri, who welcomed the participants. 2. The mandate of the Group of Experts was to examine the copyright aspects of the protection of computer software at both the national and international levels. III. Election of Officers

3. The experts invited in their personal capacity 8. Mr. André Kerever (France) was unanimously were nationals of the following nine countries: elected Chairman of the meeting, and Messrs. Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany (Federal Repub- Haidar Mahmoud (Jordan) and Vitaly Troussov lic of)- Hungary, India, Japan, the Soviet Union and (Soviet Union) were unanimously elected as the United States of America. Vice-Chairmen.

4. The States Party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, to the Universal Copyright Convention or to the Paris IV. Documentation Convention for the Protection of Industrial Pro- perty were invited to follow the discussions of the 9. The participants had before them a document, Group of Experts. The delegations from the follow- established by Mr. Michael S. Keplinger (United ing 39 States attended the meeting: Argentina, Aus- States of America)) at the request of the Secretar- tralia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, iats, entitled "Legal Protection for Computer Pro- Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, grams : A Survey and Analysis of National Legisla- Germany (Federal Republic of), Greece, Hungary, tion and Case Law" (document UNESCO/ India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, WIPO/GE/CCS/2). Japan. Jordan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Soviet 10. The participants stressed the high quality and Union, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, comprehensiveness of the document and congratu- Tunisia, United Kingdom. United States of Amer- lated Mr. Keplinger and the Secretariats on its pre- ica. paration. BERNE UNION 147

11. Several participants informed the meeting of works. Some said that the creation of computer pro- developments in legislation or case law concerning grams even had aesthetic aspects. During the last the protection of computer programs under the years, relatively few court cases had been decided copyright law of their respective countries since the and, that too, only in a few countries; some cases preparation of the document referred to above. That were still pending; however, whenever judgments information is contained in Annex B to this report. had been delivered, they, by and large, confirmed That document reflects a continuing general ten- the applicability of copyright. dency to consider computer programs as works protected by copyright. 17. A great number of participants developed argu- ments in favor of recognizing copyright protection of computer programs; patentability of computer V. Discussions programs per se had been ruled out under the law of virtually every country; other possible forms of pro- Need for Protection tection under industrial property law did not grant exclusive rights to the creator of such a program ; 12. It was agreed that although the title of the meet- copyright, in its development, had proved to be ing uses the expression computer "software," the flexible enough to extend to works of a technical discussions concerned only computer "programs." nature, such as plans. They added that the protection under existing international copyright conven- 13. The discussions reflected a general recognition tions would promote the production and interna- of the pressing need for adequate protection of com- tional circulation of programs without delay, by puter programs both nationally and internationally. means of extending the protection granted to na- Some participants stressed that such a protection tional creators of computer programs to nationals of should encourage the creation of modern technology other Contracting States; copyright provided for ef- as well as the international trade of computer pro- fective protection not only against reproduction, but grams and should be based on an internationally also against other forms of uses such as telecommu- harmonized approach. Some participants referred to nication (e.g., broadcasting) of the program and the increase of piracy also in the field of data pro- allowed, on the other hand, free use of the methods cessing. or ideas (algorithms) embodied in the program; the Berne Convention excluded the possibility of intro- 14. The participants considered the differences be- ducing compulsory licensing in the case of protected tween the protection of computer programs in gen- programs. One expert said that the protection of eral on the one hand, and of integrated circuits computer programs by copyright also strengthened (semiconductor or microchips), on the other. There the protection of traditional types of works when was a general agreement that questions of the pro- stored in computers. tection of microchips should be dealt with separately. The participants noted that the Director General of WIPO intended to convene a meeting on 18. Delegations from countries where computer the subject in October 1985. programs were protected by copyright said that, in general, copyright provided an effective means of 15. Several participants expressed the view that the protection. international copyright conventions protected computer programs and required no amendment to that effect. Other delegations expressed their doubts as to 19. Several delegations said that in their countries the applicability, with their present content, of those the possibility of adopting sui generis protection was conventions. under consideration.

Applicability of Copyright Law to Computer 20. Several participants said that the copyright law Programs; Sui Generis Protection of Computer of their respective countries applied at present, Programs without any amendment, to the protection of programs. Several other participants stressed the im- 16. A great number of participants stated that com- portance of introducing special rules adapting copy- puter programs were works protected by copyright right protection to particular features of computer provided that they were original productions, con- programs, or, at least, to make it clear, by means of stituting individual, creative expression of the set of legislation, that computer programs were works pro- instructions developed in them; they stated that tected by copyright, since case law might change computer programs may be assimilated to literary without a clear legislative basis. 148 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

21. Some participants raised doubts as regards the Questions of the Originality of Computer Programs applicability of copyright to computer programs. Some said that copyright protection would upset the 23. One delegation said that in its country a deci- .delicate balance of creators' and users' interests as sion of the Supreme Court required a higher degree generally provided for under industrial property of originality as regards scientific works than in the laws. Others said that the problem was a political case of other works; this might also apply to com- issue, where questions of users' and consumers' pro- puter programs. Other participants found that the tection were involved, and that that issue could not requirement of originality should apply to computer be decided at the technical level. Some participants programs in the same way as it applied to other said that copyright protection did not leave room works protected by copyright and that the criterion enough for the regulation of the international circu- of copyright protection should be that the program lation (export-import) of computer programs; that was not copied totally or substantially from another computer programs were of a nature other than the work; copyright protection applied irrespective of traditional kinds of authors' works; that various the quality or purpose of the work; in practice, it types of law other than copyright (e.g., trade secrets, would be difficult to distinguish between different contracts, unfair competition, etc.) should apply in levels of originality. In the view of some partici- combination and should all be considered in devel- pants, not all programs, and in the view of one par- oping a sui generis system of protection, possibly ticipant, about 50 percent of all programs, might not providing also for registration. Automatic copyright comply with the required level of originality. protection would make it more difficult for the beneficiaries to prove the existence of their rights. Some 24. One expert suggested considering the establish- participants considered the term of copyright pro- ment of a treaty providing for the protection of protection too long and proposed that any computer grams not eligible for copyright protection owing to program in demand should become freely accessible the lack of sufficient originality; such a treaty should before it ceased to have commercial value. Some not prejudice copyright protection where it was app- participants were of the view that object codes were licable and should make it a matter for legislation to not suitable for copyright protection since they were provide the means of protection for programs not not intended for human perception and that it was qualifying for copyright protection. Other partici- difficult to state which phase of creating a program pants advised caution in dealing with such a plan called for copyright protection; a program was of since it might undermine the efficacy of copyright dual nature, calling for industrial property protec- protection and raise a number of difficulties in qual- tion as to its contents, and for copyright protection ifying the programs to be protected; references in a as to its source code. They also referred to difficul- treaty to different levels and systems of protection ties resulting from the unclear coverage of copyright in relation to the same kind of works should be protection as regards various uses of the program avoided. and had doubts about its efficacy. In their view, the recognition of copyright protection of computer programs would erode the system of protecting traditional forms of authors' works. Protection Against Various Forms of Use of a Program 22. One delegation said that in its country copyright protection had been extended to computer 25. Several participants found that it was necessary programs under the understanding that this was a to clarify that various uses of a program in a com- short- term solution and it would be seen later on puter amount to reproduction. In this connection, whether it should prevail in its present form, or one delegation drew the attention to the use of small should rather be amended by special rules, possibly portions, for minimal duration, of programs in a in the form of a sui generis type of protection. Some computer. One delegation said that this did not participants said that in their countries no decision amount to reproduction, whereas another delegation had been taken so far as to whether copyright pro- said that even the use of small portions, for minimal tection should be adapted to computer programs or duration, amounted to reproduction. Still another whether a sui generis system of protection should be delegation emphasized that any such use was neces- elaborated. Some participants emphasized that al- sarily preceded by a reproduction of the program, ready available tools of protection were not neces- unquestionably subject to authorization. sarily the best ones, and one expert said that trying to properly adapt the existing system of copyright 26. One participant emphasized the importance of protection to computer programs would delay the contracts for the use of programs by means of which finding of a possibly better sui generis kind of pro- certain guarantees of the control over initial entries tection. in a computer and further uses of the program could BERNE UNION 149 be provided for; it was understood, however, that computer programs. That Article made it a matter contracts had no effect against third parties. for national legislation to provide for a period of protection — not less than 25 years from the mak- 27. One delegation emphasized the importance of ing of the work — as regards works of applied art. the fact that copyright law also provided for the right of adaptation, which meant that where basic 34. One delegation raised the question of making elements of a given program were used for the crea- the copyright protection of computer programs sub- tion of a new one, the adaptation required the ject to reciprocity by applying the so-called "com- authorization of the creator of the given program. parison of terms" rule and considering the term of protection as being zero in a country where com- 28. One delegation said that the questions concern- puter programs were not protected at all. ing "expert systems" should be considered. 35. One delegation emphasized that the protection 29. One delegation said that it was important to given to creators of computer programs should not consider also cases of access to programs stored in a be more than the protection given to other au- central computer memory, enabling the use of the thors. same program by different users.

30. Some participants underlined the importance of considering the usual scope of "fair use" with regard to computer programs and, in particular, the neces- Creation of Programs by More than One Author or sity of making an exception to free reproduction for by One or More Employee Authors private purposes, where such a limitation of copyright existed, as regards copying of computer programs for private use. 36. Some participants referred to difficulties in applying copyright protection to computer programs, owing to the fact that such programs were frequently created by several authors, or by one or Moral Rights more employee authors. Other participants underlined, however, that the problems in question were 31. Some participants said that the protection of common with those arising from other kinds of the moral rights of the author was important and creations made by more than one author or by perfectly applicable in the case of computer pro- employee authors. grams. Others said that it was difficult in practice. Some participants emphasized that the problem was 37. The representative of the ILO pointed out that, similar to that of the protection of the moral rights while her Organization might not have any compe- of employee authors in general. Several participants tence in relation to the protection of computer pro- suggested further study of the question. grams as such, it was on the other hand responsible for dealing, on the tripartite basis of ILO, with the status of those persons who, within the framework of employment relations, were the originators of the Term of Protection programs. She informed the participants that the ILO would in 1986-1987 be convening a tripartite 32. Some participants expressed the opinion that meeting on salaried authors and inventors, who of the general term of copyright protection might be far course included salaried persons who created com- too long for computer programs. Some other partici- puter programs. pants emphasized that only very few programs re- tained their commercial value over several years but there was no harm in protecting those long-lived programs as long as they can be commercially exploited. VI. Adoption of the Report

33. One delegation proposed to consider the appli- 38. This report was unanimously adopted by all cation of Article 7(4) of the Berne Convention to participants on March 1, 1985. 150 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

ANNEX A

List of Participants

I. Experts Sra. Regina Gaspary Torres Sociedad de Usuarios de Computadores y Equipamentos Mr. Koji Abe Integredos (SUCESU), Saö Paulo Professor, Faculty of Law, Okayama University, Member Mr. Paulo Franca of the Copyright Council, Okayama-City Secretary, Permanent Mission of Brazil, Geneva Mr. Miguel Teixeira de Carvalho Subsecretario Industrial, Secretaria Especial de Informa- Bulgaria tica, Brasilia Mr. Mihâly Ficsor Mr. Ozlin Delev Director General, Hungarian Bureau for the Protection of Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Bulgaria, Authors' Rights (ARTISJUS), Budapest Geneva Mr. Guo Shoukang Canada Professor, People's University of China, Beijing Mr. Michael S. Keplinger Mr. Howard Knopf Attorney, Office of Legislation and International Affairs, Policy Analyst, Department of Consumer and Corporate Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Affairs, Ottawa Washington. D.C. Mr. Ross Hornby Mr. Subhash Chandra Mehta Third Secretary, Permanent Mission of Canada, Geneva Principal Scientific Officer, Electronics Commission, De- partment of Electronics, New Delhi Chile Mr. Wilhelm Nordemann Copyright Expert, Professor of Law, Free University, Sr. Jorge Bustos Berlin (West) Ministre Consejero, Représentante Permanente Alterno, Mrs. Natalia Ivanovna Razina Misiôn Permanente de Chile, Ginebra Chief, Legislation Division, Legal Department, The Copy- Sr. Eduardo Ruiz right Agency of the USSR (VAAP), Moscow Primer Secretario, Misiôn Permanente de Chile, Ginebra Sra. Hilda Retondo Directora, Direccion Nacional de Derecho de Autor, Mi- Colombia nisterio de Justicia, Buenos Aires Sr. Jorge Phillips Présidente Ejecutivo, Consejo Nacional de Informatica, II. States Presidencia de la Repûblica, Bogota Sr. Fernando Jordan Argentina Decano, Facultad de Informatica, Universidad Piloto, Mr. Roberto Villambrosa Bogota First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Argentina, Geneva Cuba Australia Sr. Miguel Jimenez Aday Agregado, Asuntos Cientificos y Técnicos, Misiôn Perma- Ms. Lauren Gay Honcope nente de Cuba, Ginebra Acting Principal Legal Officer, Attorney General's Depart- ment, Robert Garran Offices, Barton Denmark Belgium Mr. Johannes Norup-Nielsen Legal Adviser, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Copenhagen Mr. Jean M. Poswick Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Belgium, Geneva Mr. Mogens Koktvedgaard Professor, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Mr. Guy Vandenberghe Professor, Management School, University of Gent; Com- puter/Law Institute, Free University of Amsterdam ; repr. Egypt Ministry of Economic Affairs, Brussels Mrs. Olfat H. Abdel-Rahjm Manager, Publishing Department, The General Egyptian Brazil Book Organization (GEBO), Cairo Sr. Manoel Pereira Dos Santos Mr. Wafik Zaher Kamil Miembro, Consejo Nacional de Derecho de Autor, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Arab Republic of Brasilia Egypt, Geneva BERNE UNION 151

Finland Ireland

Mr. Jukka Liedes Mrs. Anne Coleman-Dunne Special Adviser, Ministry of Education, Helsinki Copyright Division, Patents Office, Department of Indus- try, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Dublin Ms. Satu Lahtinen Governmental Secretary, Ministry of Education, Helsinki Mr. Auvo K. Sarmanto Israel Computer Chief, Ministry of Education, Helsinki Mr. Michael Ophir Deputy Commissioner of Patents, Patent Office, Ministry France of Justice, Jerusalem Mr. Michael M. Shaton M. André Kerever Counsellor (Economic Affairs), Permanent Mission of Conseiller d'Etat, Paris Israel, Geneva M. André-Pierre-Jean Bourdalé-Dufau Sous-Directeur des affaires juridiques et de la propriété Italy intellectuelle, Ministère de la culture, Paris M. André Grissonnanche S.E. M. Gian Luigi Milesi-Ferretti Agence de l'informatique, Paris Ambassadeur, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Rome M. Jean Jonquères M. Giampiero Catalini Conseiller à la Cour de cassation, Paris Dirigeant en chef. Division du droit d'auteur. Présidence du Conseil des ministres, Rome M. Pierre Leclercq Directeur des affaires civiles et du sceau, Ministère de la M. Radu Boros justice, Paris Conseiller juridique, Rome M. Jacques Myard M. Mario Fabiani Direction des affaires juridiques, Ministère des relations Conseiller juridique. Société italienne des auteurs et édi- extérieures, Paris teurs (SIAE), Rome Mlle Benjamine Vidaud Attaché à la Direction, Institut national de la propriété Ivory Coast industrielle, Paris Mr. Kouassi Florent Ekra Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Ivory Coast, Geneva Germany ( Federal Republic of) Japan Mrs. Margret Möller Ministerialrätin, Federal Ministry of Justice, Bonn Mr. Takao Jumonji Dr. Erich Haeusser Director General, Cultural Affairs Department, Agency for President, German Patent Office, Munich Cultural Affairs, Tokyo Mr. Frank Peter Goebel Mr. Yukifusa Oyama Head, Legal Division, German Patent Office, Munich Copyright Adviser, Copyright Division, Cultural Affairs Department, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Tokyo Mr. Hideki Ogawa Greece Deputy Director, Information Processing Promotion Divi- sion, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, To- Mr. Panayotes Michaelides Special Adviser to the Minister, Ministry of Research and kyo Technology, Athens Mr. Akitoshi Inoue Deputy Director, Copyright Division, Cultural Affairs De- partment, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Tokyo Hungary Mr. Hiromi Sato Mr. Mihâly Ficsor Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Japan, Geneva Director General, Hungarian Bureau for the Protection of Mr. Shinjiro Ono Authors' Rights (ARTISJUS), Budapest First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Japan, Geneva Mr. Koichi Sakamoto India First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Japan, Geneva Mr. Kazuro Fujimoto Mr. Skand Ranjan Tayal Former President, Japan Software Industry Association, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of India, Geneva Tokyo

Indonesia Jordan

Ms. Raziaty Tanzil Mr. Haidar Mahmoud Third Secretary, Permanent Mission of Indonesia, Director General, Department of Culture and Arts, Geneva Amman 152 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

Luxembourg Spain

M. Raymond Weydert Sr. Esteban de la Puente Premier Conseiller de Gouvernement, Service central de Subdirector General, Ediciones Sonoras y Audiovisuales, législation. Ministère d'Etat, Luxembourg Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid Sra. Suzanne Jessel Netherlands Directora, Departamento de Estudios y Relaciones Inter- nacionales, Registre de la Propiedad Industrial, Madrid Mrs. Johanna Maria Meyer-Van der AA Sra. Milagros del Corral Beltran Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, The Hague Secretaria General, Asociaciôn de Editores de Madrid, Madrid Mr. E.C. Nooteboom Legal Adviser, Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague Mr. Jan E.M. Galama Sweden Director, Corporate Patents and Trademarks, Philips In- ternational B.V., Eindhoven Mr. Henry Olsson Director, Ministry of Justice, Stockholm Mr. Martin Martin Permanent Member of the Board of Appeal for Electro- Mr. Roland Halvorsen technical Applications, Patent Office, Ryswyk Secretary, Governmental Committee for Revision of the Copyright Act, Ministry of Justice, Stockholm Mr. Bengt Gamstorp Nigeria Head, Corporate Patent Department, Ericsson, Stockholm Mrs. Owodoye Iyabo Odujebe PSO, Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Techno- logy, Lagos Switzerland Mr. Paul Ifeamyi Ojeogwu Senior Analyst ( Legal ), National Office of Industrial Prop- M. Karl Govoni erty, Lagos Chef, Service du droit d'auteur, Office fédéral de la pro- priété intellectuelle, Berne Norway Thailand Mr. Jon Bing Associate Professor, Norwegian Research Centre for Com- Mr. Chaiya Chindawongse puters and Law (NRCCL), University of Oslo, Oslo Minister-Counsellor, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Thailand, Geneva

Paraguay Tunisia H.E. M. Pedro Mir Puig Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Permanent Mis- M. Tahar Ben Slama sion of Paraguay, Geneva Directeur général. Société des auteurs et compositeurs de Tunisie (SODACT), Tunis Peru United Kingdom Sra. Sandra Vegas del Castillo Agregado de Asuntos Culturales y Prensa, Misiôn Perma- Mr. Peter Ferdinando nente de Peru, Ginebra Principal Examiner. Industrial Property and Copyright Department, Patent Office, Department of Trade and In- dustry, London Republic of Korea

Mr. Jae-Uk Chae United States of America Commercial Attaché, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea, Geneva Mr. Michael Kane Kirk Assistant Commissioner for External Affairs, Patent and Mr. Hee Beom Lee Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Washing- Director, Information Industry Division, Ministry of ton, D.C. Trade and Industry, Seoul Mr. Harvey J. Winter Mr. Hee Yol Yu Director, Office of Business Practices, Bureau of Economic Director, Information Industry Division, Ministry of and Business Affairs, Department of State, Washington, Science and Technology, Seoul D.C. Mr. Christopher Meyer Soviet Union Senior Attorney, Policy Planning Advisor, Copyright Of- Mr. Vitaly Troussov fice, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Deputy Director, Patent Examination Department, USSR Miss Francine Schulberg State Committee for Inventions and Discoveries, Trade Analyst, Office of the United States Trade Repre- Moscow sentative, Washington, D.C. BERNE UNION 153

III. Observers ers Associations (FIAPF): A. Brisson. International Federa- tion of Industrial Property Attorneys (FICPI): T. Jennings; H. Bardehle. International Federation of Phonogram and Vi- (a) Intergovernmental Organizations deogram Producers (IFPI): B. von Silva Tarouca-Wagner. International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Pub- United Nations (UN): E. Stauder. International Labour Or- lishers (STM): P.N. Asser. International Literary and Artis- ganisation (ILO): C. Privat. Arab League Educational, Cultu- tic Association (ALAI): A. Troller. International Publishers ral and Scientific Organization (ALECSO): T. Gsouri. Com- Association (IPA): J.-A. Koutchoumow; C. Clark. La- mission of the European Communities (CEC): R.J. Coleman; tin-American Federation of Performers (FLAIE): A. Mille; J. Delmoly; E. Peeters; B. Posner. Council of the European M.J. Pochai. Pacific Industrial Property Association (PIPA): Communities (CEC): K. Mellor. Intergovernmental Bureau G. Hauptman ; S. Ozawa. Union of European Practitioners in for Informatics (IBI): G. Librando. Industrial Property (UEPIP): J. Betten. Union of Industries of the European Community (UNICE): R.J. Hart; G. Kretzschmar; M. Kindermann. (b) Non-Governmental Organizations

Association of Data Processing Service Organizations (AD- IV. Secretariat APSO): R.J. Palenski. Committee of National Institutes of Patent Agents (CNIPA): J.U. Neukom; J. Betten. Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza- tion (UNESCO) (CBEMA): O.R. Smoot. Computer Law AssociationXCLA): S.H. Nycum. Council of European Industry Federations A. Amri (Senior Lawyer, Copyright Division). (CEIF): M. Kindermann. European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA): R. Ernst. European Computing Ser- vices Association (ECSA): P. Walti. European Federation of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Agents of Industry in Industrial Property (FEMIPI) G. Hommery. Information Industry Association (HA) A. Bogsch (Director General); C. Masouyé (Director, Public G. Hauptman. Inter-American Copyright Institute (IIDA) Information and Copyright Department); G. Boytha (Director, M.J. Pereira Dos Santos. International Association for the Copyright Law Division); L. Baeumer (Director, Industrial Protection of Industrial Property (IAPIP): T. Mollet-Vie- Property Division). ville. International Bureau of Societies Administering the Rights of Mechanical Recording and Reproduction (BIEM): D. de Freitas. Internationa Chamber of Commerce (ICC): Consultant J.M.W. Buraas; S. Vidal-Naquet. International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU: D. Cockroft. International Mr. M.S. Keplinger Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers Attorney, Office of Legislation and International Affairs, (CISAC): D. de Freitas. International Copyright Society (IN- Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, TERGU): G. Halla. International Federation of Film Produc- Washington, D.C.

ANNEX B

Legal Protection for Computer Programs: A Survey and Analysis of National Legislation and Case Law

Introduction legislative field, a report is being drawn up by a commission recently created for the purpose. 1. During the discussions of the Group of Experts, a number of participants provided information with respect to legal developments in their countries in order to update Australia the survey contained in document UNESCO/ WIPO/GE/CCS/2. 4. Further studies will be undertaken as part of an enquiry which will look into particular problems and additional 2. The present Annex contains the said information. developments at the international level. Four points will be taken into account by the enquiry even though the final terms of reference are not yet set: Argentina a) international developments; 3. In Argentina, the National Directorate of Copyright b) use of computer programs should be encouraged; has started to register computer programs following a pat- c) certain features of copyright law tailored to the fine tern provided by national doctrine. There has been a court arts may not necessarily be applicable to computer ruling based on the protection principles of the Universal programs; Copyright Convention. The dispute, which is now pending d) the solution adopted must balance the needs of pro- before the courts, could be of considerable interest. In the ducers and users. 154 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

Brazil Denmark

5. Brazil adopts the view that sui generis legislation is 11. The present position is that the copyright law protects appropriate for computer programs. There are no final computer programs, but clarifying amendments to the court decisions; some cases have been settled while some copyright law are planned. are still pending. The Brazilian Copyright Council, the Special Secretariat for Informatics and the National Insti- Finland tute of Industrial Property all favor sui generis legislation. 12. At present there is no case law in Finland, but, in view of the importance attached to this problem, the Govern- 6. A bill to protect computer programs under a sui generis ment intends to modify its copyright law to remove any system was introduced in the last session of the Brazilian doubt that copyright applies to computer programs. Congress and more legislative activity is predicted in the new Congress. France Canada 13. In France, the Supreme Court will shortly be ruling on contradictory decisions handed down by lower courts 7. There have been additional court cases in Canada which concern not only the problem of computer pro- interpreting the application of copyright in the context of grams protection in itself, but also that of screen video preliminary injunction hearings. In two of these cases La games, from the point of view of copyright. Société d'informatique R.O.G., Inc. v. Dynabec, Ltee., Su- perior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal No. 500-05-008597-849, August 14, 1984, and the F & I Germany (Federal Republic of) Retail Systems, Ltd. v. Thermo-Guard Automotive Pro- ducts Canada, Ltd., High Court (i.e. Trial Division) of 14. Further jurisprudential developments were noted in Supreme Court of Ontario, June 26, 1984 (Court the discussions. In particular, it was mentioned that, in the No. 17357-84/L7357-84), the courts granted the plaintiffs Karlsruhe appeals court decision, the court stated that, injunctive relief against further infringements by the de- while programs could be protected by copyright, a special fendants. protection system might be more appropriate.

8. However, in the case of Apple Computer Inc. v. Macin- 15. In a recent decision, a federal supreme court held that tosh Computers, Ltd., No. T-l232-84, January 17, 1985, in the case of technical specifications for soliciting bids on the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto refused a similar the construction of a pipeline, the standard of originality plea for injunctive relief on the ground that there were tri- to qualify the work for copyright protection is to be shown able issues involving program copyright even though the solely in the outward appearance of the work and not in its plaintiffs allegations of copyright in the AUTOSTART scientific content. This principle may put certain programs and APPLESOFT programs were sufficient to constitute a outside copyright. However, as the copyright law in the prima facie case as to the copyrightability of the source Federal Republic of Germany also protects "kleine programs. Moreover, irreparable harm sufficient to grant Münze" or "small change," that is to say, works of lesser an injunction had not been sufficiently proven under the intellectual content as well as more substantial works, the circumstances. federal supreme court may apply this principle to computer programs. It should also be noted that the decision 9. Following the election on September 5, 1984, the proof the Federal Labor Court cited in paragraph 35 of posals in the "White Paper" on copyright released on UNESCO/WIPO/GE/CCS/2 is the decision of a federal May 2, 1984, are no longer official government policy. On supreme court. January 24, 1985, however, the new Government referred 16. A recent case in the Frankfurt Court of Appeals also the White Paper to the Parliamentary Standing Committee held that programs are protected by copyright in the Fed- in Communications and Culture of the House of Com- eral Republic. Four tests to determine if a particular work mons for study and recommendations. The Committee was protected were set forth: has been requested to report by May 25, 1985. The Cana- dian Government is closely studying alternatives to the (a) the work must be more than a simple program ; White Paper proposals on computer programs. These in- (b) the author is free to choose from among different clude the possible option of providing essentially tradi- ways of expressing the program ; tional copyright protection to computer programs as liter- (c) the program is not generally common or ordi- ary works. narily used ; and (d) the work exhibits qualities of selection and arrangement. China 17. In the Federal Republic, legislation is in Parliament in 10. In China, the protection of the patent law is not order to affirm that computer programs are to be consi- denied to computer programs and the situation with res- dered a type of linguistic work to the extent that they qual- pect to copyright and sui generis protection is under study. ify as personal intellectual creations. Programs would not As a practical matter, programs can be protected by con- be subject to the private copying exception of the copy- tracts in China. right law of the Federal Republic of Germany. BERNE UNION 155

Greece Netherlands

18. Greece is considering a non-exclusive, sui generis 24. The question of the protection of computer programs form of protection for computer programs which is to be has recently been studied by a government working group. based on industrial property principles. In August 1984, this working group issued its report on piracy of copyright protected works in which it proposed to mention explicitly, as a clarification, computer programs in Article 10 of the Copyright Act as works suscep- India tible of copyright protection. The Government of the Netherlands will soon make known its official point of 19. In India, the bill mentioned in paragraph 39 of view with regard to the proposals of the working group. UNESCO/WIPO/GE/CCS/2 has passed the Parliament. The amendment has since been issued. Norway

25. In Norway, the current copyright legislation is appli- Ireland cable to the protection of programs. Specific amendments tailored to program protection are in progress. 20. In Ireland, the present copyright law protects all forms and types of computer programs as literary works. No amendment of the law is contemplated. Spain

26. In the forthcoming intellectual property law which is being drawn up at this time, Spain is considering the adop- Israel tion of copyright protection of computer programs. 21. Patent protection was granted by the Commissioner of Patents for a system as a whole which, in part, imple- Sweden mented a computer program. On the specific facts in that case, the system was considered to fulfill the statutory 27. In Sweden, there are no cases in the courts dealing requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. The deci- with program copyright. However, revisions to the copy- sion has not been overruled and is felt, therefore, to reflect right law that would clarify that computer programs are the present position. Where, however, the very basis of the literary works are under active consideration. Under the invention lay in the computer program itself, patent pro- contemplated amendments programs in both source and tection has been denied by the Commissioner of Patents, object forms will be protected. Programs that do not meet which denial was upheld by the District Court. In the the test of originality would fall under the coverage of the absence of a supreme court ruling, the judgment of the special 10-year protection afforded to certain collections court establishes the present position. of information.

22. A case is presently awaiting the judgment of the Dis- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics trict Court on the applicability of the Israel copyright law to computer programs. It is felt, in general, that computer 28. In the USSR, interpretive rulings on the patent laws programs are protected under the present copyright law. A expressly exclude programs from patent protection, and Copyright Law Revision Committee appointed by the the copyright law does not specifically include computer Minister of Justice has yet to consider all aspects as to programs. The USSR is considering the adoption of a sui copyright protection of computer programs. generis system for computer programs protection preferably on the basis of the use of some principles, included in the WIPO model provisions.

Japan United Kingdom 23. It was clarified that the Report on Japanese Legal Pro- tection of Software discussed at paragraphs 48 through 51 29. In the United Kingdom, a private member's bill, the of UNESCO/WIPO/GE/CCS/2 was a survey of existing Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill is sup- legal protection, and, as such, it did not deal with the pos- ported by the Government. The Bill would provide that all sible establishment of new sui generis systems of protec- original programs will be protected by copyright in the tion. A new document setting forth the present status of same manner as literary works, that the preparation of an the proposals of the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the adaptation of the program without the authorization of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry was circu- author would be an infringement, and that the enhanced lated, copy of which is appended to this Annex in its origi- penalties applicable to the illegal manufacture of and trad- nal language (English). On January 13, 1985, for the first ing in infringing audio and video recordings would apply time in a criminal case, the Tokyo District Court found to computer programs embodied in a disc, tape, chip or the criminal law applicable to copyright infringement in any similar device, as would the increased powers to pur- computer programs. sue investigations. 156 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

APPENDIX TO ANNEX B

Present Condition in Japan provision should be made for an exception to the right of reserving the integrity in case of such modifications of With regard to the question of legal protection of com- computer programs as are necessary to meet the purpose puter programs, discussion has been going on among the of using programs or to improve the functions of pro- government agencies concerned and the conclusion is yet grams. to be reached. The Government of Japan considers it necessary to 4. Exception to the right of reproduction, etc. for lawful further coordinate views of the government agencies tak- possessor ing into account the balance between the interests of software developers and users, as well as the need of interna- New provisions should be made for an exception to the tional harmonization. right of reproduction and of adaptation in order to enable the lawful possessor of a copy of a computer program to make another copy or adaptation of that program in such Main points of the Draft Bill prepared by cases as are necessary to provide against destruction, da- the Agency for Cultural Affairs mage or deterioration of that copy. for a partial amendment of the Copyright Law

5. Control over the use of programs produced by an in- On the recommendations given by the Interim Report fringing act of the Subcommittee of the Copyright Council, the Agency for Cultural Affairs intends to amend the present Copy- In order to prevent the use in a computer of illegally right Law along the following lines: reproduced programs, a new provision should be made to the effect that an act of knowingly using in a computer /. Clarification of protection of programs such objects as made by an act infringing copyright in a work of computer program shall be considered to consti- It is clear that computer programs constitute intellec- tute an infringement on copyright. tual works protected under the present Copyright Law, but in order to make this more explicit, "works of computer programs" should be expressly mentioned in the provi- 6. Other points sions for examples of protected works listing literary works, musical works, artistic works, etc., and a computer (1) Period of protection program should be defined in the provisions for definition If computer programs are granted the same period of as "a set of instructions capable of causing a computer protection of the life of the author plus 50 years as that ("computer" means an electric machine having informa- granted to other protected works, this does not involve tion processing capabilities) to perform a particular func- any difficulty. Some programs having a long life span tion." should be protected so long as they maintain utility value and, therefore, unless the international copyright conven- 2. Modification of the provisions for works of legal per- tions are modified, the present period of protection should sons be applied to computer programs as well.

In order to cope effectively with the actual situation of (2) The right of use the production of computer programs by legal persons, the existing provisions should be modified to the effect that If the right of use be generally recognized, this would be the authorship of a work which, on the initiative of an an obstacle to the distribution and utilization of computer employer, is made by his employee in the course of his programs in case where such right is not cleared. There- duties shall be attributed to such employer, unless other- fore, such right should not be created. Last year, the pre- wise stipulated in a contract, work regulation or the like. sent Copyright Law was partially amended to create the Under this modification, the authorship of a computer right of lending which is in force from January 1 this year. program produced by an employee shall be attributed to Therefore, it is possible to exercise the right of reproduc- his employer, not only in case where such program is tion and of lending against illegal uses, and the use of ille- made public under the name of the employer but also in gally reproduced programs can be prevented by the new case where such program is made public anonymously or provision mentioned under paragraph 5 above. where it is not made public. (3) Compulsory licensing system S. Exception to the right to the integrity Compulsory licensing system of a general nature should not be introduced, because it would prejudice the The use of computer programs generally requires a cer- legitimate interest of the producers of programs, it would tain degree of modification, addition or reduction, but this result in declining the desire to develop new programs does not result in any prejudice to the honor or reputation and, moreoever, it is difficult to introduce such system of the producers of computer programs. Therefore, a new under the present copyright conventions. BERNE UNION 157

Explanatory Notes on the Interim Report* right holder's inalienable rights which prohibit modifica- of the Information Industries Committee tion without permission of his work, and which enable the of the Industrial Structure Council copyright holder to have his name appear on his work as (The Ministry of International Trade the author, even after the proprietary rights have been and Industry, Japan ) transferred. It has been determined that in the case of computer programs it is not necessary to allow for these particular 1. The proposal of this Interim Report consists of two rights, and that, further, allowing for these rights would categories of contents: one that is similar to the concept of only confuse business transactions. the present Japanese Copyright Law, and another which is intended to correct the inadequacies of the same Copy- right Law. (4) Procedure for the settlement of disputes

2. The following concepts are similar to those contained The Japanese Constitution requires that trials be con- in the present Copyright Law : ducted publicly. This means that bringing a case to court (a) that non-Japanese as well as Japanese copyright might at times means making "source programs" public. holders should be protected without discrimina- At the same time, a dispute involving computer programs tion; often requires a professional and prompt resolution. For (b) that "ideas" shall not be protected; this reason it has been deemed necessary to establish a (c) that programs that may in effect resemble exist- procedure in which a team of legal and technical profes- ing programs should be protected so long as they sionals may be asked to intervene by way of mediation, were independently developed ; and arbitration or conciliation, when such procedure is favored (d) that the genesis itself of program rights does not by the parties involved. require registration. (5) Duration of rights 3. The following points differ from the concept of the present Copyright Law: What is the proper period of protection for computer programs? Basically, this period should be equal to the (1) Establishment of the right of use length of time that the program developer requires to recover his investment and secure an appropriate amount This is a right of the developer of a new program. of profits on his program. From this standpoint, the period A program has the inherent danger of duplication with- of protection lasting from 50 to 75 years that is provided out due permission. Possession of a computer is usually a for in the copyright laws of some countries is too long. If sufficient means of duplicating an existing program. More- the period of patent right protection had been set at 50 to over, it is exceedingly difficult to prove who has dupli- 75 years, the kind of advancements we have experienced cated a program without permission. This makes it neces- in science and technology might not have been achieved. sary to give the developer of a program the right (here The Universal Copyright Convention provides for a called "the right of use") to request issuance of injunction 10-year protection period for published "applied arts" as to and damage compensation from, anyone who is using an exception to the 25-year protection period for general the developer's program without permission. work. We consider that it is contradictory to propose a lengthy protection period for economic properties such as computer programs. (2) Establishment of the right of rental We feel nevertheless that Japan alone should not set a brief protection period for computer programs, and that Like other countries, Japan has recently experienced a the question of a protection period should be thoroughly rapid increase in the number of people whose business is discussed by the countries involved, so that a shorter pro- to rent computer software. This makes it necessary to esta- tection period may be established through cooperation blish the right of the developer to prohibit a third party and understanding. from renting the developer's programs without his permission. (This right will be here called "the right of rental.") (6) Registration

(3) The decision not to provide for moral rights Registration is needed to clarify which individual is entitled to program rights. However, it is advisable to Japan is a signatory of the Berne Convention. The effect it as a voluntary' system. Specific registration proce- Berne Convention treats so-called moral rights as central dures suited to computer programs will have to be de- to the author's rights. Moral rights are denned as the copy- vised.

This Interim Report was published in December 1983. 158

National Legislation

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Ordinance No. 85 002 on Copyright

(of January 5, 1985)*

CHAPTER I — maps, drawings and graphical and three-dimensional reproductions of an artistic or scientific nature; Subject, Scope and Beneficiaries of Copyright — cinematographic, broadcast and audiovisual Article 1. The author of any original literary, works; — photographic works of an artistic or documen- artistic or scientific work of the mind shall enjoy in tary nature, to which shall be assimilated, for that work, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclu- the purposes of this Ordinance, those ex- sive incorporeal property right which shall be en- pressed by a process analogous to photogra- forceable against all persons. phy; The following, in particular, shall be deemed — derived works such as translations, arrange- works of the mind within the meaning of this Ordi- ments or adaptations of the above-mentioned nance: works; — books, pamphlets and other writings; — works of Central African folklore and works — lectures, addresses, sermons and other works inspired by that folklore. of such nature; — works created for the stage, including both Article 2. Copyright shall comprise attributes of dramatic and dramatico-musical and choreo- an intellectual and moral nature and also attributes graphic and dumb show works, the acting of an economic nature. form of which is set down in writing or in other manner; — musical works, whether or not they are in A. MORAL RIGHTS written form and whether or not they include accompanying words; The moral rights shall comprise the author's right — works of painting and drawing, lithographies, to decide to disclose his work, to respect for his etchings or wood engravings and other -works name, his authorship and his work. of like nature; The name of the author shall be stated, in confor- — sculptures, bas-reliefs and mosaics of all mity with usual practice, on each copy of the work kinds; and each time the work is made available to the — works of architecture, including both plans public, except where the work is included inciden- and models as well as the construction itself; tally or accidentally when reporting current events — tapestries and objects created by artists and by means of sound broadcasting or television. craftsmen, including both sketches or models The author shall have the right to object to any as well as the work itself; whether produced by distortion, mutilation or modification of his work or handicraft or by industrial process ; of any other derogatory action in relation to that work, where such action has been or would be preju- dicial to his honor or his reputation. The author shall further have the right to seek relief in respect of such action. The rights afforded to the author under the pre- Source: Communication from the Centre African authorities. — WIPO translation. ceding paragraphs shall be perpetual, inalienable * Entry into force: January 5, 1985. and imprescriptible. NATIONAL LEGISLATION 159

B. ECONOMIC RIGHTS establishment may be distributed in accordance with the special regulations of that school or esta- The author shall enjoy the exclusive right to blishment. exploit his work in any form whatsoever and to obtain monetary profit therefrom. The work shall Article 5. Original work shall mean a work mean both the work in its original form and in any whose characteristic elements and whose form, or form derived from the original. whose form alone, enable its author to be distin- The author shall have the exclusive right, in par- guished. ticular, to carry out or have carried out any of the Derived work shall mean a work based on preex- following acts: isting elements. (a) reproduce the work in any material form Work of collaboration shall mean a work pro- whatsoever, including cinematographic duced jointly by two or more authors insofar as the films, phonograms or by means of a mag- contribution of each author may be separated from netic process or by the repeated execution that of the other author or authors. of a plan or of a model project; Posthumous work shall mean a work made avail- (b) perform or recite the work in public by any able to the public after the death of the author. means or process whatsoever, including A new work shall be known as "composite" if>a sound or television broadcasting; preexisting work has been incorporated in it without (c) communicate the work broadcast by sound the collaboration of the author of the preexisting radio or television to the public by wire, work. loudspeaker or any other device for trans- A work shall be known as "collective" if it has mitting signs, sounds or images ; been created on the initiative of a natural or legal (d) make a translation, adaptation, arrange- person, who discloses it under his direction and ment or any transformation whatsoever of name, and in which the personal contributions of the work. the various authors who have participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which Article 3. The title of a work shall be protected in they were conceived, without it being possible to the same way as the work itself where it is original attribute to each author a separate right in the work in character. as created. The title may not be used, even if the work is no longer protected, to distinguish a work of the same Article 6. A work of collaboration shall belong kind if such use is liable to create confusion. jointly to the co-authors. The co-authors shall exercise their rights by common accord, failing which Article 4. The author of a work shall be the per- the courts shall decide. Where the contribution of son who has created that work. A work shall be each of the co-authors is of a different kind, each deemed to have been created, irrespective of public shall be entitled, in the absence of agreement to the disclosure, by the mere fact of the author's concept contrary, to exploit separately his personal contribu- being realized, even incompletely. tion without, however, prejudicing the exploitation Authorship shall vest, unless proved otherwise, of the common work. in the person or persons under whose name the A composite work shall belong to the author who work is disclosed. has created it, subject to the rights of the author of Where the work has been created by the author the preexisting work. for a natural person or a legal person, private or A collective work shall belong to the natural or public, under an employment contract or where the legal person who has taken the initiative of its crea- work has been commissioned from the author by a tion and who has disclosed it. third person, authorship shall belong to the author, unless otherwise stipulated in writing in the con- Article 7. The authors of pseudonymous and tract. anonymous works shall enjoy therein the rights af- However, forded by Article 2. (a) Where the work has been produced by staff They shall be represented in the exercise of those of the administration, within the framework of their rights by the original publisher or editor, until such functions, the royalties deriving from disclosure of time as they declare their identity and prove their the work may be distributed in accordance with the authorship. special regulations of the administration employing The declaration referred to in the preceding para- them. graph may be made by will; however, any rights (b) The royalties deriving from disclosure of the that may have been previously acquired by other works of students or trainees at a school or artistic persons shall be maintained. 160 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

The second and third paragraphs above shall not — news of the day published, broadcast by sound apply where the pseudonym adopted by the author radio or television or communicated in pub- leaves no doubt as to his identity. lic.

Article 8. The authors of translations, arrange- Article 11. Where a work has been made lawfully ments, adaptations or transformations of literary, available to the public, the author may not prohi- artistic or scientific works shall enjoy the protection bit: established by this Ordinance, without prejudice to (1) Communications such as performances, the rights of the author of the original work as sound broadcasting, television: defined in Article 2. if they are private, or carried out exclusively The same shall apply in the case of encyclope- within the family circle, and give rise to no form of dias, anthologies or collections of different works revenue; which, by reason of the choice or arrangement of the if they are carried out free of charge for strictly material, constitute intellectual creations. educational or school purposes or during a religious service on premises reserved for that purpose. Article 9. Folklore shall belong ab origine to the national heritage. (2) Reproductions, translations and adaptations Folklore shall mean all the literary and artistic intended for strictly private use on condition that productions created by the national communities, the title of the work and the name of the author be passed on from generation to generation and consti- clearly stated. tuting one of the basic elements of the traditional However, the organizers of the communications cultural heritage. referred to above shall be required to inform the A work inspired by folklore shall mean any work author or his successors in title or the Central Afri- composed of elements taken from the traditional can Copyright Office in advance thereof. cultural heritage. The public performance or the direct or indirect Article 12. The following shall be lawful on con- fixation of folklore with a view to exploitation for dition that the title of the work and the name of its profit shall require prior authorization from the author be mentioned: analyses and short quotations Central African Copyright Office against payment of taken from a work already made available to the a fee. public, on condition that they comply with fair The fees due in connection with the collection for practice, to the extent justified by the scientific, cri- a work of folklore shall be distributed as follows : tical, teaching or information purpose, including quotations and borrowings from newspaper articles ( 1 ) Collection without arrangement or personal and periodicals in the form of press reviews. contribution Such quotations and borrowings may be used in 50% to the person who has made the their original version or in translation. collection 50% to the Central African Copyright Article 13. Save where the right of reproduction Office. has been expressly reserved, political, social, eco- (2) Collection with arrangement or adaptation nomic or religious articles of current affairs, politi- 75% to the author cal speeches, speeches given during judicial cere- 25% to the Central African Copyright monies and also sermons, lectures, addresses and Office. other works of like nature may be reproduced. How- The proceeds of fees shall be administered by the ever, the source shall always be clearly stated. Central African Copyright Office and be devoted to cultural and welfare purposes for the benefit of au- Article 14. The following shall be lawful when thors. reporting on current events by means of photogra- phy, cinematography or sound or television broadcasting, to the extent justified by the information CHAPTER II purpose: reproduction and public communication of literary, artistic or scientific works that may be seen or heard during such events. Permanent Limitation Article 15. Reproduction with a view to cinema- Article 10. The protection afforded by Article 2 tography, sound or television broadcasting or public shall not apply to: communication of works of art and architecture per- — laws, judicial or administrative decisions, or manently located in a public place or included in a to the official translations of such texts; film or broadcast in an accessory manner or that are NATIONAL LEGISLATION 161 merely incidental to the main subject, shall be law- Article 20. The cases laid down in this Chapter ful. shall not prejudice the rights afforded to authors by Article 2. In addition, the author shall be entitled to Article 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of equitable remuneration laid down, failing amicable Article 2, any broadcasting organization may make, agreement, by the competent administrative author- without the authorization of the author or of the ity, whose decision may be referred, in the event of owner of the right of reproduction in the work con- dispute, to the competent court in accordance with cerned, for the purposes of its own broadcasts and Article 41. by means of its own facilities, an ephemeral recording, in one or more copies, of any work which it is authorized to broadcast. All copies of it shall be des- CHAPTER IV troyed within six months of the making or within any longer term agreed to by the author; however, where such recording has an exceptional documen- Transfer of Copyright tary character, one copy of it may be preserved in official archives. Article 21. The authors' rights shall be move- able; they shall be transmitted by succession to the Article 17. Translation or reproduction by public authors' heirs or to his successors in title. They may libraries, non-commercial documentation centers, also be assigned in whole or in part. scientific institutions and teaching establishments, The assignment in whole of future works shall be of the number of copies required for the needs of null and void. However, it shall be lawful to con- their activities, of works of any kind already law- clude contracts to commission three-dimensional or fully made available to the public, shall be lawful on graphical works, comprising a period of exclusivity condition that such translation or reproduction does not exceeding five years and respecting the indepen- not impair the normal exploitation of the work and dence and freedom of expression of the author. does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate in- The transfer of any of the rights referred to in terests of the author. Article 2 shall be recorded in writing. The economic rights of an author without heirs Article 18. Use of works under the provisions of shall fall to the Central African Copyright Office this Chapter shall not give an entitlement to remu- and the proceeds of royalties therefrom shall be neration to the authors or their successors in title. devoted to cultural and welfare purposes, without The provisions of Article 2 shall remain applicable prejudice to the rights of creditors and the imple- in all such cases. mentation of any assignment contracts concluded by the author or his successors in title.

Article 22. Assignment of the right to communicate a work to the public shall not imply assignment CHAPTER III of the right to reproduce it. Assignment of the right to reproduce a work shall Exceptional Limitations not imply assignment of the right to communicate it to the public. Article 19. Subject to and in compliance with the Where a contract comprises total assignment of conditions laid down in the annex, licenses may be either of the rights referred to in this Article, its granted by the competent administrative authority scope shall be limited to the uses laid down in the to any natural or legal person of Central African contract. nationality for the translation of foreign works already lawfully made available to the public and for Article 23. The transfer of the sole copy or of one the publication of the works thus translated in or more copies of a work shall not imply transfer of printed form or in any other similar form of repro- the copyright in the work. duction on the territory of the Central African Re- public. Article 24. Unless otherwise provided, authori- However, such licenses may not be granted for zation to broadcast a work shall cover all free com- the publication of literary or scientific works of munications made by the sound broadcasting or which an edition in the French language is available television organization by its own means and under abroad unless such publication on the territory of its own responsibility. the Central African Republic provides economic In accordance with Article 2, this authorization conditions that are advantageous for the desired dis- shall not extend to any communication of broad- semination. casts made in public places nor to any transmissions 162 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 by wire or by wireless means made by third par- prise, except where otherwise stipulated, assignment ties. to the producer of the author's rights of cinematographic exploitation of the work; such contracts Article 25. The rights of performance, reproduc- shall be in writing. tion, adaptation and translation shall be assignable against payment or free of charge. The author may Article 28. The natural person who assumes the assign his rights in his work in whole or in part. artistic direction and responsibility for the transfor- Assignment must comprise a proportional share for mation of a cinematographic work into pictures and the author in the revenue from sale or exploitation sounds, for the cutting and final editing, shall be of the work. deemed to be the director of the cinematographic However, remuneration may be a lump sum work. where : A cinematographic work shall be deemed to have (1) the basis for calculating the proportional been completed once the first "master print" has share cannot be determined in practice; or been established by common accord between the (2) the cost of surveillance would be out of director and the producer. proportion with the results to be achieved; or Article 29. If one of the persons collaborating in (3) the use made of the work is only of an the cinematographic work refuses to complete his accessory nature in relation to the exploited contribution to that work or is unable to complete it subject matter. due to circumstances beyond his control, he shall not be entitled to object to the use of the part of his Article 26. Notwithstanding any assignment of contribution already in existence for the purpose of the original work, the authors of graphical or completing the work. three-dimensional works and the authors of manus- Unless otherwise agreed, the persons collaborat- cripts shall have an inalienable right to a share in ing in a cinematographic work may dispose freely of the proceeds of sale of such works or of such manus- their personal contribution with a view to exploita- cript by public auction or through a dealer, what- tion in a different field, provided that this does not ever the methods used by the latter to carry out the prejudice the exploitation of the work to which they operation. have contributed. This provision shall not apply to works of architecture or works of applied art. Article 30. The natural person or persons who After the death of the author, this droit de suite have effected the intellectual creation of a cinemato- shall subsist in favor of his heirs during the term of graphic or a television work shall be deemed to be protection laid down in this Ordinance. the authors of such work. This right shall be constituted by a five percent The provisions of Articles 26 and 27 shall apply levy on the proceeds of sale payable to the author or to sound radio and television works. his heirs.

CHAPTER VI CHAPTER V Publishing Contracts Cinematographic and Broadcast Works Article 31. A publishing contract is a contract Article 27. Authors' rights in a cinematographic under which the author of a work or his successors work shall belong ab origine to the intellectual crea- in title assign, under specified conditions, to the tors of the work. publisher the right to manufacture or have manufac- The natural or legal person who takes the intia- tured a sufficient number of copies of the work on tive for making the work and the financial responsi- condition that the latter ensures publication and dis- bility for exploiting it, known as the producer, shall semination thereof. be required, before undertaking production of the Publishing contracts shall be in writing. The form cinematographic work, to conclude contracts with and mode of expression, the terms of execution of all those persons whose works are used in making the publication and the termination clauses shall be such work. specified in the contract. These contracts, except for those concluded with the authors of preexisting works used in making the Article 32. The publishing contract must state work and those concluded with the authors of musi- the minimum number of copies that are to consti- cal compositions with or without words, shall com- tute the first printing. However, this requirement NATIONAL LEGISLATION 163 shall not apply to contracts providing for a mini- grants to an entertainment promoter the right to mum of royalties guaranteed by the publisher. It perform, for the duration of the contract, the exist- must provide for remuneration proportional to the ing or future works constituting the repertoire of proceeds of exploitation, except in the case of lump that Office under the conditions laid down by the sum remuneration in accordance with Article 23 of author or his successors in title. this Ordinance. Article 38. A performance contract shall be in Article 33. The publisher may not transfer the writing; it shall be concluded for a given term or benefits of a publishing contract to a third party, for number of communications to the public. The ex- or without payment, or as a contribution to the clusive rights, the terms of execution and the termi- assets of a partnership, independently of the busi- nation clauses shall be stipulated in the contract. ness, without having first obtained the authorization of the author or of his successors in title. Article 39. The entertainment promoter shall be required to inform the author or his representatives Article 34. Contracts referred to as "at the au- of the exact program of public performances, to fur- thor's expense" shall not constitute publishing con- nish to them a documented statement of receipts tracts within the meaning of Article 29. and to pay to them the amount of the stipulated Under such contracts, the author or his succes- royalties. sors in title shall pay to the publisher an agreed He shall ensure that the public performance takes remuneration against which the latter manufactures place under technical conditions such as to guaran- a number of copies of the work in the form and tee the intellectual and moral rights of the author. according to the modes of expression specified in the contract and ensures its publication and dissemination. CHAPTER VIII

Article 35. Contracts referred to as "at joint ex- Term of Protection pense" shall not constitute publishing contracts within the meaning of Article 29. Article 40. Copyright shall last for the whole life- Under such contracts, the author or his succes- time of the author and for 50 calendar years after sors in title commission a publisher to manufacture, the end of the year of his death, with the exception at his expense and in quantity, copies of the work in of: the form and according to the modes of expression ( 1 ) cinematographic, sound radio and audiovi- specified in the contract and to ensure their publica- sual works for which the term of protection expires tion and dissemination in accordance with the 50 years after the work has been made available to agreement reciprocally contracted to share the pro- the public following the consent of the author, or, fits and losses of exploitation in the agreed propor- failing such an event, within 50 years from the mak- tion. ing of such a work, the term shall expire 50 years after the making; Article 36. The publisher shall be required to (2) photographic works and works of applied art provide to the author appropriate proof to establish for which the term of protection shall expire 20 the accuracy of his accounts, failing which he may years after the work has been made. be obliged to do so by the competent court. In the case of works of joint authorship, only the death of the last surviving joint author shall be taken into account when calculating the term. CHAPTER VII Article 41. Copyright shall expire at the end of a period of 50 years as from the end of the year in Performance Contracts which the work has been lawfully made available to the public in the following cases: Article 37. A performance contract is a contract under which an author or the Central African Copy- ( 1 ) where the copyright belongs ab origine to a right Office affords to a natural or legal person or to legal person, with the exception of the an entertainment promoter the faculty of perform- State's imprescriptible right in works of ing his works or the works comprised in the reper- folklore; toire of that body under conditions that he lays (2) in the case of anonymous or pseudony- down. mous works, for as long as the author of the A "general performance contract" is a contract work remains unknown ; under which the Central African Copyright Office (3) in the case of posthumous works. 164 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

Article 42. On expiry of the terms of protection CHAPTER X referred to Articles 40 and 41, during which authors, their heirs or successors in title, are afforded an Field of Application of this Ordinance exclusive right, exploitation of works of folklore shall be subject to the person exploiting them enter- Article 47. The provisions of this Ordinance ing into a commitment to pay to the Central African shall apply to all works, with the exception of works Copyright Office a fee calculated on the basis of the of folklore, that are not within the public domain at gross proceeds of exploitation. the time of its entry into force. This fee shall be equal to one half the rate of Contracts concluded prior to its entry into force remuneration normally afforded to authors of pro- shall be governed by these provisions as of that tected works. date. The proceeds of the fees collected under this Article shall be devoted to welfare or cultural pur- Article 48. This Ordinance shall apply: poses for the benefit of authors and composers who are registered with the Central African Copyright (a) to the works of Central African nationals; Office. (b) to the works of foreign nationals first published in the Central African Republic; (c) to works of architecture erected on the territory of the Central African Republic and CHAPTER IX to any work of art incorporated in a build- ing situated on that territory. Procedures and Sanctions Works that do not fall within one of the above-mentioned categories shall not enjoy the pro- Article 43. Notwithstanding the right of the in- tection afforded by this Ordinance unless the coun- jured party to take action, as appropriate, before the try of which the original owner of copyright is a penal courts, all disputes arising from application of national or in which he is resident affords equival- this Ordinance shall be heard by the civil courts. ent protection to works of Central African nationals. The Central African Copyright Office shall be However, neither the integrity nor the authorship of entitled to take legal action to defend the economic those works shall be affected. The royalties collected rights of the authors for which it has responsibility. in respect of those works shall be paid into the wel- It shall be required to appear in court when direct fare and cultural fund of the Central African Copy- proceedings are instituted by the right owners be- right Office. longing to that Office. The countries in respect of which the condition The duly constituted professional associations of of reciprocity stipulated in the second paragraph authors shall be empowered to act only to defend shall be deemed to have been met will be jointly the collective interests of their members. determined by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the High Commissioner responsible for Informa- Article 44. Any publication, reproduction, per- tion, Youth, Sport, the Arts and Culture. formance or dissemination by any means whatsoever, or any importation into the territory of the Article 49. The administration of the rights refer- Central African Republic of a work protected by this red to in Article 2 and the defense of the interests Ordinance in violation of the author's rights, shall referred to in that same Article shall be entrusted to constitute an act of infringement as defined and the Central African Copyright Office. sanctioned by the law. Article 50. The terms of the constitution and operation of that Office shall be laid down by de- Article 45. Confiscation of all equipment spe- cree. cially installed with a view to unlawful reproduction and of all infringing copies and articles will be Article 51. This Ordinance, which repeals all ear- ordered. lier contrary provisions and which shall enter into force from the date of its signature, will be registered Article 46. Exploitation of a work of folklore and published in the Official Journal under the without prior authorization shall constitute an of- emergency procedure. It shall be implemented as a fense of the fifth category. law of the State. 165

Correspondence

Letter from the Netherlands

D.W. Feer VERKADE* 166 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 CORRESPONDENCE 167 168 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 CORRESPONDENCE 169 170 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 CORRESPONDENCE 171 172 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 CORRESPONDENCE 173 174 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985 BOOK REVIEWS 175

Book Reviews

Les Correspondances inédites, by André Françon and Claude it also remains, and there lies the problem, the subject of pri- Goyard. One volume of 388 pages, published in 1984 by vate appropriation." Economica, Paris. The subject is a vast one; the range of questions that it poses and of the fields on which it touches is impressive: per- André Françon and Claude Goyard, both Professors at the sonality rights, copyright (and of course moral rights), quota- Paris University of Law, Economics and Social Science, had tions, commercial law, publishing contracts (frequently post- the excellent idea of compiling in one work the various com- humous), possession of the manuscripts, the contents of let- munications presented to an international symposium held in ters missive, the right of secrecy, conservation of originals, Paris in June 1983. The subject of the symposium was not archiving, and so on. It is indeed a very wide field with impli- without interest — unpublished correspondence: the legal, cations that are not only legal but also technical, economic technical and administrative problems of conserving, consult- and administrative. ing and publishing correspondence. The symposium attracted The authors of the reports submitted to the symposium over 150 attorneys, professors of law, lawyers and research treated all these matters with great competence. workers. The conclusions of the symposium were drawn by Although the combination of statutory provisions, case Professor Roland Drago, of the same University, and Presi- law trends and day-to-day practice often leads to compro- dent of the Société de législation comparée. mises that satisfy no one, it nevertheless remains that the The various questions discussed are grouped together in question of unpublished correspondence suffices to demon- four parts dealing, respectively, with legal aspects in French strate the need to give copyright a strong and effective protec- law, publication, legal aspects in comparative law and the case tion. The conflicts of rights that may arise in this context must of the correspondence of the well-known author Frédéric Mis- be resolved, in our view, in such a way that prime importance tral, whose holographic will is reproduced in an annex to- is given to copyright. gether with various interesting documents on this case. This work compiled by Professors Françon and Goyard As remarked by André Kerever, Conseiller d'Etat, in one incontrovertibly represents a precious source of references and of his contributions, "there is no need to emphasize the great a useful working tool for anyone interested in this subject cultural and humanistic value of publishing hitherto unknown which, although it sometimes engenders passions, certainly correspondence since it is such an obvious source of ideas and deserved that such a work be devoted to it. of thinking; in a way, it belongs to the universal heritage, but CM. 176 COPYRIGHT - APRIL 1985

Estudios sobre derecho de autor; reforma legal colombiana, by The Colombian Law is known to be one of the longest (it Arcadio Plazas. One volume of 305 pages, published in comprises 260 articles), covering not only copyright in gen- 1984 by Ternis, Bogota. eral, including provisions on publishing contracts and repre- sentation contracts, but also neighboring rights, not to forget Arcadio Plazas, a Bogota lawyer and one of the most emi- collective administration rights and the usual chapter on civil nent copyright specialists in Latin America, has recently pub- and penal sanctions. lished a book, in December 1984, which contains a number of While giving a detailed analysis of the text of the Law, studies devoted to copyright. The first part of the book com- Arcadio Plazas does not spare his criticism of those points prises a collection of articles on copyright that he has written, which he feels lead to controversy or to problems of applica- to quote the author, "over more than 40 years of professional tion. Indeed, it suffices to refer to the "Letter from Colombia" activity." In the second part, he gives a commentary on the written by the author and published in the April 1983 issue of new Colombian Law on Copyright of January 28, 1982, which this review. is reproduced in an annex to the work. This book represents an eminent contribution to legal writ- No one could be better qualified than Arcadio Plazas to ings in the Spanish language and deserves to be widely distri- give the interested circles the benefit of his reflections on this buted, particularly in the Latin American countries where it important legislative reform carried out in Colombia. He was may serve the authorities as a precious source of references to a member of the committee of lawyers set up to advise the Colombian doctrine in copyright. It permits Arcadio Plazas to minister responsible for preparing the draft law between Sep- demonstrate once again the measure of his vast legal know- tember 1978 and July 1979, and he is surely one of those who ledge, his competence and his experience in the field of intel- best know this legislation. Indeed, he himself mentions that he lectual property. had submitted to the committee no less than 26 notes dealing with various of the provisions. CM.

Calendar of Meetings

WIPO Meetings

(Not all WIPO meetings are listed. Dates are subject to possible changes)

1985

May 6 to 17 (Geneva) — Permanent Committee on Patent Information (PCPI): Working Group on Search Information June 3 to 7 (Geneva) — Nice Union:!!Committee of Experts June 6 to 14 (Geneva) — Permanent Committee oh Patent Information (PCPI): Working Groups on Planning and on Special Questions June 17 to 25 (Paris) — Berne Union: Executive Committee (Extraordinary Session) (sitting together, for the discussion of certain items, with the Intergovernmental Committee of the Universal Copyright Convention) June 26 to 28 (Paris) — Rome Convention: Intergovernmental Committee (Ordinary Session) (convened jointly with ILO and Unesco) July 8 to 12 (Geneva) — Committee of Experts on the Harmonization of Certain Provisions in Laws for the Protection of Inven- tions September 11 to 13 (Geneva) — Permanent Committee on Patent Information (PCPI): Working Group on Patent Information for Developing Countries September 16 to 20 (Geneva) — Permanent Committee on Patent Information (PCPI) September 23 to October 1 (Geneva) — Governing Bodies (WIPO General Assembly, Conference and Coordination Committee; Assemblies of the Paris, Madrid, Hague, Nice, Lisbon, Locarno, IPC, PCT, Budapest, TRT and Berne Unions; Conferences of Representatives of the Paris, Hague, Nice and Berne Unions; Executive Committees of the Paris and Berne Unions; Committee of Directors of the Madrid Union; Council of the Lisbon Union) October 7 to 11 (Geneva) — Permanent Committee on Patent Information (PCPI): Working Group on General Information October 21 to 25 (Geneva) — Nice Union: Committee of Experts CALENDAR OF MEETINGS 177

November 4 to 30 (Plovdiv) — WIPO/Bulgaria: World Exhibition of Young Inventors and International Seminar on Inventiveness for Development Purposes (November 12 to 15) November 18 to 22 (Geneva) — Permanent Committee on Patent Information (PCPI): Working Groups on Special Questions and on Planning November 25 to December 6 ( Geneva ) — Permanent Committee on Patent Information ( PCPI ) : Working Group on Search Infor- mation November 26 to 29 (Geneva) — Committee of Experts on a Treat) for the Protection of Integrated Circuits December 9 to 13 (Geneva) — Committee of Experts on the International Registration of Marks

UPOV Meetings

1985

May 8 to 10 ( Wageningen ) — Technical Working Party on Automation and Computer Programs June 4 to 7 ( Hanover ) — Technical Working Party for Agricultural Crops, and Subgroup June 18 to 21 (Aarslev) — Technical Working Party for Fruit Crops, and Subgroup June 24 to 27 ( Aars and Aarslev ) — Technical Working Party for Ornamental Plants and Forest Trees, and Subgroups July 8 to 12 (Cambridge) — Technical Working Party for Vegetables, and Subgroup October 14 (Geneva) — Consultative Committee October 15 and 16 (Geneva) — Meeting with International Organizations October 17 and 18 (Geneva) — Council November 12 and 13 (Geneva) — Technical Committee November 14 and 15 (Geneva) — Administrative and Legal Committee

Other Meetings in the Field of Copyright and/or Neighboring Rights

Non-Governmental Organizations

1985

May 2 to 4 (Perugia) — International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) — Legal and Legislation Committee May 6 to 9 (Zurich) — International Federation of Musicians (FIM) — Executive Committee June 7 to 12 (Munich) — International Copyright Society (INTERGU) — Congress June 19 and 20 (Geneva) — International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers (IFPI) — Council and General Assembly August 18 to 24 (Chicago) — International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) — Congress September 10 to 14 (Athens) — International Federation of Actors (FIA) — Congress September 16 to 18 (Geneva) — International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP) — Annual Meeting

1986

May 8 and 9 (Heidelberg) — International Publishers Association (IPA) — Reprography Symposium September 8 to 12 (Berne) — International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI) — Congress