Maintaining relevance in a changing world: an interview with WIPO Director General Francis Gurry

Ahead of WIPO's annual meeting of member states from October 1 to 9, 2012, Director General Francis Gurry shared his views with WIPO Magazine about some of the key challenges and opportunities that are likely to influence the future evolution of the international intellectual property (IP) system.

What are the key priorities for the Organization moving forward?

The Organization's priorities lie in four main areas - maintaining relevance, ensuring the viability of WIPO's global IP services, providing effective support to improve the participation of developing countries in the IP system and serving as a major provider and coordinator of global IP infrastructure.

The overarching objective in a rapidly changing world, characterized by major shifts in the use of technology, is to maintain the relevance of WIPO as the global forum for IP issues. We have to maintain our role in economic rule-making. The recent conclusion of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (the “Beijing Treaty”) was an important breakthrough, but we have to ensure that the multilateral system that WIPO oversees continues to deliver on the other issues that are reaching maturity. This is particularly important now when so much is happening in the field of IP within so many different policy-making spheres at national, bilateral, regional and multilateral levels.

We also need to ensure the viability and primacy of WIPO's global IP services by expanding their geographical coverage and the range of services offered. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), with 146 contracting parties, is a truly global system. The next three years will see a marked expansion of the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks. Similarly, over the next five years, membership of the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs is expected to grow.

Significant progress is being made to ensure continuous improvement in our services. The e-PCT platform, for example, which provides secure electronic access to files relating to international applications filed under the PCT, is proving very popular. The Madrid information technology (IT) renovation project is also well under way, and a raft of useful tools and services are coming online.

A major task is to provide effective support to improve the participation of developing countries in the IP system. As countries seek to add value to their national resources and intellectual assets, IP becomes increasingly relevant and our member states' needs evermore sophisticated. The Organization, therefore, needs to ensure it delivers the required levels of service and assistance.

Finally, we need to serve as a major provider and coordinator of global IP infrastructure to improve the efficiency with which the IP system operates, as well as its broad accessibility and use, and where appropriate to advance defined public policy goals. Significant progress has been made in many areas.

What is the significance of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances?

The Beijing Treaty is a good thing for actors, for IP, for WIPO, for China and for multilateralism. It is a win all round. Although member states have concluded three other treaties since 1996, these address areas of procedural law. The Beijing Treaty is the first substantive IP law treaty in 16 years.

It is a further step in the development of the international legal framework for copyright and more broadly to re-kindling confidence in the treaty-making process. The Beijing Treaty brings the rights of audiovisual performers and actors into line with those available to authors under the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996) and to musicians, recording artists and recording organizations under the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996).

The remaining issue to address in completing the 1996 platform is updating the rights of broadcasting organizations. In the July session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), member states signaled their willingness to move forward on this issue, which is very promising. I hope that we can achieve the same alignment of interests (between business, civil society and governments) on this question, as we did in concluding the Beijing Treaty. Civil society and the private sector make an enormous contribution to the treaty-making process. At the end of the day, member states will only move forward on an issue when they detect a level of comfort on the part of the people they represent. If one of the major interest groups is not on board, achieving international agreement can be very difficult.

What is the status of discussions relating to improved access by the visually impaired to published works?

There is growing consensus that an international agreement in this area is a priority. I am hopeful that member states will open the way to moving forward on this question at the forthcoming meetings of WIPO Assemblies.

This is first and foremost a disability issue. It stands on its own merits, and international agreement to facilitate access to published works for the print disabled would reinforce the international recognition given to disability in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

What needs to be done to move the copyright agenda along?

The international legal framework for copyright will continue to evolve in line with the issues that member states identify as ripe for multilateral action. The real breakthrough for copyright, however, is going to be in the area of infrastructure. As a matter of public policy, we have to support the development of an efficient global digital marketplace. We have to provide the legal architecture to satisfy the growing expectations of consumers whose use of increasingly sophisticated technologies enables them to consume creative works via the Internet at will.

I think we can all agree that people want an efficient legal, global, digital marketplace. While there will be a certain amount of experimentation, there are many interesting ideas circulating, such as the development of an International Music Registry, or a Licensing Hub as recommended in the Hargreaves report in the UK.

Is there a role for public-private partnerships?

There is enormous scope for public-private partnerships, both in terms of building IP infrastructure in general, as well as in developing practical solutions to advance certain defined public policy objectives as demonstrated by WIPO Re:Search and TIGAR. There is growing interest in such arrangements within the private sector, and I think this will increase in the future.

Why is activism important within the copyright debate?

Copyright has served society and the economy very well, but the digital environment poses a serious challenge which is not going to disappear. We have to actively find ways to maintain the central mission of copyright - that of ensuring a viable economic existence for creators and creative industries while making creative content broadly available - in the digital environment.

There is growing anti-IP sentiment in some quarters. Is this a cause for concern?

I think it is quite normal, because as the role of knowledge in production becomes increasingly important, the rights in relation to knowledge become more economically and socially significant. As that process unfolds, different sectors of society become aware of what is happening and start expressing their views about these new developments.

This is all taking place against a backdrop of extraordinary technological change. Technology is encroaching on every aspect of our lives, wherever we live, and at some point we will inevitably come up against the IP rights associated with its use. Broad, democratic debate on these issues is, I believe, a perfectly normal and a very healthy thing.

There is also a general democratization of the policy and treaty-making processes. Civil society is demanding greater transparency from its political representatives, including in the field of IP policy-making. WIPO is responding to this by, for example, webcasting the proceedings of its committees. This is a positive development and has been well received.

Winning the hearts and minds of the public is a significant challenge. It requires convincing people that a short-term disadvantage, in terms of paying for the use of someone else's property, is worth the long-term advantages of a sustainable creative culture and innovative economy. We need to create greater public awareness about the role and value of a balanced and robust IP system and the many advantages that can flow from it.

What are the main factors that will shape the future IP agenda?

The IP agenda is already being shaped by the dramatic shift towards Asia in the geography of economic and technological production. The implications of this for IP will be radical and far-reaching. The traditional binary view of the world as developed and developing is no longer tenable as there is much greater diversity in the enjoyment of economic wealth than that view suggests. The increasingly rapid pace of technological change is also a major challenge.

In this context, it will become increasingly important for the international IP community to be selective in identifying those essential framework issues around which international agreement is achievable. In the 19th century, for example, national treatment was an essential framework issue that required attention. We need to identify equivalent rules for today's globalized digital world. The view that every issue has to be dealt with by means of a multilateral legal framework is not realistic or helpful. We would do well also to explore the merits of other complementary means of advancing public policy objectives, including public-private partnerships.

What is your key message to member states going forward?

A strategic approach to IP is extremely important. IP has a fundamental role to play in the economy and in society at large. The IP system balances the rights and interests that exist in relation to innovation and creativity. As these intangible elements of the economy become more valuable, so the IP rights associated with them become more important. If we are to ensure a functional knowledge economy, we have to pay attention to these issues.

What do you most like about your job?

Intellectual property is concerned with change in that it deals with the new, whether in the form of new cultural creations or new innovations. My role offers an extraordinary opportunity to meet a wide range of people that are intimately involved in these change processes. This is a rich and wonderful reward.

 
Progress in improving the efficiency, accessibility and use of the IP system: some key developments