Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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?