International Copyright: Marrakesh and the Future of Users’ Rights Exceptions



The 2013 adoption by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (‘Marrakesh’) represents a transformational moment in international copyright law. Marrakesh, a treaty devoted entirely to ensuring uniform rights for a set of users of copyrighted materials, challenges previously held notions that international copyright treaties must deal exclusively with rights holders’ rights. But does Marrakesh mark a historic shift for international copyright? This chapter demonstrates that copyright has always been linked to technological change and the real challenge since the inception of the Berne Convention has not been technological change but changes to the underlying legal structures of business. The rise of corporate business globally precipitated the inclusion of moral rights in copyright and in Berne but this has not heretofore been recognised. The current pressure on business to innovate has created further global pressures on information flow and hence on copyright. What is historic about Marrakesh is its shift to a user perspective. From this perspective, extending international copyright protection to users beyond those to whom Marrakesh applies (for instance, to libraries and archives) is demonstrated to provide benefits in the public interest to all copyright stakeholders: economic rights holders, authors, and users of information.


  1. Burger, Peter. 1988. The Berne convention: Its history and its key role in the future. Journal of Law and Technology 3(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
  2. Canadian Government. 2015. House of commons debates (Hon Peter Van Loan). Canada: Canadian Government.Google Scholar
  3. CBC News. 2015. New bills are conservatives’ ‘framework’ for election, Peter Van Loan says. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  4. Charnier, Daniel. 1895. Law relating to literary copyright and authorship and publication of books. London: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Choate, Pat. 2005. Hot property: the stealing of ideas in an age of globalization. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  6. Crews, Kenneth. 2008a. Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar
  7. Crews, Kenneth. 2008b. Copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar
  8. Crews, Kenneth. 2014. Study on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar
  9. Crossan, Mary, and Marina Apaydin. 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies 47(6): 1154–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Management Studies. 2012. Driving the economy through innovation and entrepreneurship: Emerging agenda for technology management. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Drassinower, Abraham. 2003. A rights-based view of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 16(1): 3–21.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenstein, Elizabeth. 1979. The printing press as an agent of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fitzpatrick, Shae. 2014. Setting its sights on the Marrakesh treaty: The U.S. role in alleviating the book famine for persons with print disabilities. Boston College International and Comparative Law 37(1): 139–172.Google Scholar
  14. Geiger, Christophe, Daniel Gervais, and Martin Senftlben. 2014. The three-step test revisited; How to use the test’s flexibility in national copyright law. American University International Law Review 29(3): 581–626.Google Scholar
  15. Gendreau, Ysolde. 2011. Canada and the three-step test: A step in Which direction. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 15(2): 309–323.Google Scholar
  16. Ginsburg, Jane. 2012. Do treaties imposing mandatory exceptions to copyright violate international copyright norms? Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  17. Government, Canadian. 2015a. Business innovation. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  18. IFLA. 2003. CLM Annual Report. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  19. IFLA. 2009. Statement of principles on copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives by electronic information for libraries. Geneva: WIPO.Google Scholar
  20. IFLA. 2013a. Copyright limitations and exceptions. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  21. IFLA. 2013b. Statement of principles on copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  22. IFLA, International Council on Archives, Electronic Information for Libraries, and Innovarte. 2012. Draft treaty on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives (‘TLIB’): Version 4.3. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  23. Macek, Alan. 2015. Privilege for patent and trademark agents. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  24. MacGillivray, E.J. 1912. The copyright act (1911): Annotated. London: Stevens and Sons.Google Scholar
  25. Owen, Victoria. 2012. Who safeguards the public interest in copyright in Canada? Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 59: 803–842.Google Scholar
  26. Patterson, Lyman Ray. 1968. Copyright in historical perspective. Nashville: Vanderbilt Press.Google Scholar
  27. Reichman, J.H. 1997. Enforcing the enforcement procedures of the TRIPS agreement. Virginia Journal of International Law 37: 335–356.Google Scholar
  28. Rickertson, Sam. 1987. The Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, 1886–1986. London: Queen Mary University.Google Scholar
  29. Rocheska, Slavica, Marjan Angeleski, Dimitar Nikoloski, and Gjorgji Mancheski. 2014. Harnessing Innovation Potential of Crowdsourcing. In 8th International Conference “Challenges of the Knowledge Society. Bucharest.Google Scholar
  30. SCCR. 2013a. SCCR/SS/GE/2/13Google Scholar
  31. SCCR. 2013b. SCCR/26/REF/Conclusions: “Conclusions.” Geneva: WIPOGoogle Scholar
  32. SCCR. 2014a. SCCR/27/9: “Draft Report”Google Scholar
  33. SCCR. 2014b. SCCR/27/REF/Conclusions: “Chair’s Conclusions”Google Scholar
  34. SCCR. 2014c. SCCR/28/REF/Conclusions: “Chair’s Conclusions”Google Scholar
  35. SCCR. 2014d. SCCR/28/3: “Draft Report”Google Scholar
  36. SCCR. 2014e. SCCR/29/”Other Related Documents: Summary by the Chair”Google Scholar
  37. SCCR. 2015a. SCCR/30/”Other Related Documents: Summary by the Chair”Google Scholar
  38. SCCR. 2015b. SCCR/31/REF/Summary by ChairGoogle Scholar
  39. SCCR. 2016. SCCR/32/1 Prov.: “Draft Agenda”Google Scholar
  40. UNESCO. 2012a. The memory of the world in the digital age: Digitization and preservation. Accessed 22 Nov 2012.
  41. Watt, Richard (ed.). 2014. Handbook on the economics of copyright: A guidebook for students and teachers. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  42. Wilkinson, Margaret Ann. 2004. National treatment, national interest and the public domain. University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal 1: 23–48.Google Scholar
  43. Wilkinson, Margaret Ann. 2006. The public interest in moral rights protection. Michigan State Law Review 1: 193–234.Google Scholar
  44. Wilkinson, Margaret Ann. (forthcoming ATRIP Intellectual Property Series). What is the role of new technologies in tensions in intellectual property? In Intellectual property perspectives on the regulation of technologies, ed. Tana Pistorius. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Wilkinson, Margaret Ann, and Natasha Gerolami. 2009. The author as agent of information policy: The relationship between economic and moral rights in copyright. Government Information Quarterly 26: 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. WIPO. 2013a. Protection of broadcasting organizations. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  47. WIPO. 2013b. Diplomatic conference to conclude a treaty to facilitate access to published works by visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities. Accessed 22 Nov 2015.
  48. WIPO. 2016. Contracting parties: Marrakesh VIP treaty. Accessed 20 April 2016.
  49. Xu, D. Yejun, Enrique Ribeiro-Soriano, and J. Gonzalez-Garcia. 2015. Crowdsourcing, innovation and firm performance. Management Decision 53(6): 1158–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations