Download CTI 18 11A CR

Project Completion Report
Please submit through your APEC Secretariat Program Director within 2 months of project completion.
SECTION A: Project profile
Project number & title :
Time period covered
in report:
Committee / WG / Fora:
Project Overseer Name /
Organization / Economy:
CTI 18 2011 A –Workshop on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
July 2011 – October 2012
Date submitted:
30- 10 - 2012
Intellectual Property Experts Group (IPEG)
Marcela Paiva Véliz, General Directorate for International Economic Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chile
SECTION B: Project report and reflection
Briefly answer each of the questions below. Section B should be a maximum of 2-3 pages, inclusive of
the questions and tables provided.
1.
Project description: In 3-4 sentences, describe the project and its main objectives.
The Project sought to discuss within APEC the issue of limitations and exceptions to copyright and related
rights, building on the key findings of the “Report on Copyright L&E in APEC Economies”, presented and
circulated in 2009 and distributed in hard copies in 2010. To achieve this goal, a Workshop on Copyright L&E,
was planned to be held in Santiago, Chile, with speakers that could present the different views and give the
proper setting to exchange ideas, based on the aforementioned Report.
The objective was to create a better understanding of how the issue of limitations and exceptions had been
addressed across the economies, exchange experiences with domestic best practices and provide the
possibility to learn from other economies. This capacity building was deemed to be especially useful for
developing economies in order to improve their skills and knowledge in trade and investment liberalization
and facilitation.
2. Meeting your objectives: Describe how the project went, with reference to the objectives laid out in
your project proposal. Include any major changes to your project as proposed and any problems or
obstacles that you encountered and how you overcame them.
On the whole, the project was a success after overcoming some logistical obstacles that are natural to the
organization of any event that considers the participation of speakers and participants spanning all APEC
economies, International Organizations and non- member economies.
However, a great number of positive comments were received during and after the workshop by both
attendees and speakers which were reflected in the project evaluations.
As stated before, the main objective of the seminar was to create a better understanding of how the issue of
limitations and exceptions has been addressed across the economies. This was believed to be fully achieved
not only in terms of the topics that where addressed during the workshop but also by the expertise and
diversity of the speakers. The latter allowed for participants to receive key insight regarding the issue of
copyright limitations and exceptions not only within the APEC region, but also at a multilateral level.
In terms of attendance, ten APEC economies were represented, of which five were APEC travel eligible
economies. In total attendance reached 83 people, including experts and speakers, most of which were
Chilean delegates. We must also add to the list, the attendance of experts from the World Intellectual Property
Organization as well as the Hungarian Intellectual Property Experts Council.
3. Project evaluation: Describe how you evaluated the project and provide some details on the results of
the evaluation (e.g. participant evaluation, peer review of publication, measurement of indicators,
statistics demonstrating use of outputs etc.).
In terms of project evaluation, and based on the feedback of participant evaluations, in general all sessions of
the agenda were considered useful describing both workshop and speakers as excellent. In terms of the
question whether the workshop had achieved its purpose, the majority of the participants responded with a
“excellent” or “good” ranking within their evaluations. This information allows us to reinforce the fact that the
workshop was a success, opinion that was also expressed both by experts and panellists.
4. Key findings: Describe one or two examples of important findings arising from the project (e.g. results
from surveys or case studies, insights provided by participants or experts, policy recommendations,
roadblocks to progress on an issue etc.).
There was a general consensus that limitations and exceptions are a basic element of a healthy copyright
system. There was also a common view that the international framework establishes the conditions and limits
that exceptions and limitations must comply with, and that within this framework, economies are free to define
the elements that are suitable for their system.
There is a common understanding that we are facing a new reality that needs special attention: copying is an
inevitable feature of Internet technologies and therefore, adequate limitations and exceptions are essential. At
the same time, there is an important concern that artists and creators should not bear the costs of these
limitations and exceptions.
Many experts considered fair use as a flexible and important rule to promote innovation and growth.
Predictability can be improved with adequate legislation and best practices guidelines. Nevertheless, some of
the experts raised questions regarding how this doctrine could be applied in civil law countries. There are also
different views regarding the scope and application of the reverse engineering exception, which seem to be
critical elements for technological innovation.
Technological protection measures (TPMs) was a relevant topic during the Workshop. Different views were
expressed regarding their historical background and specific implementation. There seemed to be a
consensus that the due protection of TPMs is a relevant element for the digital agenda, and the need to
consider adequate measures to ensure that their protection will not hinder the balance between rightholders
and users.
5. Next steps: Describe any follow-up steps or projects that you recommend. Have you already planned
or begun these? What role could APEC play in any follow-up?
Many of the elements described in item 4 need further attention in order to solve new challenges brought
about by the digital era. On the path to developing Innovative Growth in APEC Economies, it will be important
to continue exchanging views regarding Intellectual Property as a balanced system. APEC can play a relevant
role in this process.
We suggest that an update might be made to the Survey finished in 2009. Ideally, there could be an online
database that could be updated regularly. At the same time, other activities focusing on specific elements
could be organized to further exchange views on limitations and exceptions, as well as flexibilities in general.
6. Feedback for the Secretariat: Do you have any suggestions for more effective management of projects
in the future? Any assessment of consultants, experts or participants that you would like to share?
(The Secretariat collates and examines feedback to identify trends for ongoing evaluation of our project
management and/or communications systems.)
Although the Secretariat was very efficient and helpful in terms of logistic arrangements, participants and
speakers assessed that APEC booking and administrative procedures are quite burdensome, even
considering the option of using the system of advanced payments.
In this context, we would suggest the APEC Secretariat to consider a centralized booking system, similar to
those used by the World Trade Organization, United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
This would not only grant certainty to both participants and speakers, but also reduce costs for the
organization in terms of bank charges incurred due to wire transfers.
An additional issue is that of the differences in estimated and actual airfare costs, in the sense that many of
the projects are drafted a year before the project is effectively implemented. Therefore airfare costs might be
very much underestimated, and can sometimes vary in over a 100% from one year to another. This can result
in difficulties for the project to stay within the budget. Hence, we suggest the APEC Secretariat to consider
developing appropriate and clear guidelines for calculating project airfares taking the stated issue in
consideration.
7.
Participant information: Please provide details, where applicable. Insert rows as needed.
Economy
# male
Canada
X
Chile
X
Chinese Taipei
X
1
Malaysia
X
1
Mexico
X
1
Peru
X
1
Singapore
X
1
Thailand
X
Viet Nam
United States
X
# female
Details
1
X
70
X
2
X
1
X
2
X
1
Other:
World Intellectual Property
Organization
Hungary
8.
1
X
Outputs: Please provide details, where applicable. Change headings or insert rows as needed.
# planned
# actual
Details
1
1
1
1
100
0
# of websites created
0
0
Workshop held on the 2nd and 3rd of April,
Santiago, Chile
“Report, Workshop on Copyright Limitations and
Exceptions” has been published on the APEC
Website.
Although the CD containing the Workshop’s
Report has been printed, they will be distributed
during the next IPEG meeting to be held during
the SOM I meetings in Jakarta, between the 24th
of January and the 8th of February.
-
Other:
0
0
-
# of workshops / events
# of publications distributed
# of CDs distributed
SECTION C: Budget
Attach a detailed breakdown of the APEC- provided project budget, including:
 Planned costs (using most recently approved budget figures)
Item Description
Budget
Revised
Paid
Balance
Budget
Speakers Honorarium
4.000,00
0
0
0
Per diem – Speakers/Experts
3.556,00
5.154,75
5.154,75
0
Per diem – Participants
8.890,00
8.180,25
4.803,75
3.376,50
Airfare – Speakers/Experts
21.400,00
31.711,00
29.548,41
2.162,59
Airfare - Participants
31.800,00
31.800,00
14.542,90
17.257,10
Publication
2.000,00
2.000,00
250
1.750,00
Room Rental
7.200,00
0
0
0,00
Stationary
1.800,00
1.800,00
1.296,00
504,00
Component Total
80.646,00
80.646,00
55.595,81
25.050,19
Project Total

Variance notes: An explanation of any budget line under- or over-spent by 20% or more.
Speakers Honorariums: In the end, given that most of the speakers where government officials it was decided
that the project would not pay honorariums to any of the speakers.
Publication: In terms of publications cost, it was decided to opt for the production of a CD because it’s cost
was considerably lower than the production of hard copies.
Room Rental: It was decided that the event be hosted at the offices of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
thus not incurring in room rental costs.
SECTION D: Appendices or additions
Please attach any of the following. This information will help us better understand your project, support
overseers of similar projects and plan for future projects.






List of experts or consultants utilised, with job titles and contact details
List of participants, with job titles and contact details
Event agendas
Links to any relevant websites or online material (e.g. reports, resources created)
Results of participant feedback or other project evaluation (raw and/or analysed)
Any other relevant information or resources that would help us learn more about your project
FOR APEC SECRETARIAT USE ONLY APEC comments: Were APEC project guidelines followed? Could
the project have been managed more effectively or easily by the PO?