Disability, right to culture and copyright: which regulatory option?

References

• Abdel-Latif, A. 2010. “The Emergence of the A2 K Movement: Reminiscences and Reflections of a Developing-Country Delegate.” In Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property, edited by G. Krikorian and A. Kapczynski, 99–121. New York: Zone Books.
   Google Scholar
• Arewa, O. B. 2006. “TRIPS and Traditional Knowledge: Local Communities, Local Knowledge, and Global Intellectual Property Frameworks.” Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 10: 155–180.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A., S. H. E. Harmon, and C. Waelde. 2012. “Do you See What I see? Disability, Technology, Law and the Experience of Culture.” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 43 (8): 925–928.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A., and C. Waelde. 2015. “Human Rights, Persons with Disabilities and Copyright.” In Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property, edited by C. Geiger, 577–604. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• De Schutter, O. ed. 2010. International Human Rights Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, M. 2013. WIPO Opening Remarks by Maryanne Diamond (18 June 2013). Accessed April 15, 2015. http://www.worldblindunion.org/English/news/Pages/WIPO-Opening-Remarks-by-Maryanne-Diamond.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Donders, Y. 2007. “The Legal Framework of the Right to Take Part in Cultural Life.” In Human Rights in Education, Science and Culture: Legal Developments and Challenges, edited by Y. Donders and V. Volodin, 231–272. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dutfield, G. 2001. “TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge.” Case Western Journal of International Law 33: 233–275.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 1994. General Comment n.5: Persons with Disabilities, U.N. Doc. E/1995/22, 9 December 1994.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 2006. General Comment no. 17, The Right of Everyone to Benefit from the Protection of the Moral and Material Interests Resulting from Any Scientific, Literary or Artistic Production of Which He or She is the Author (Article 15, paragraph 1(c) of the Covenant), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/17, 12 January 2006.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 2009a. General Comment no.21, The Right to Take Part in Cultural Life (Article 15, paragraph 1(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21, 20 November 2009.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 2009b. Guidelines on Treaty-Specific Documents to be Submitted by States Parties Under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2008/2, 24 March 2009.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council), Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2009c. Guidelines on Treaty-Specific Documents to be Submitted by States Parties Under Articles 35, Paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, U.N. Doc. CRPD/C/2/3, 18 November 2009.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council). 1987. The Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 43rd session, Annex, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/17, 8 January 1987.
   Google Scholar
• ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council). Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. 2000. Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights, Resolution 2000/7, N Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/7, 17 August 2000.
   Google Scholar
• EU Stakeholders Dialogue Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) On Access to Works by People with Print Disabilities. 2010. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/copyright-infso/2010/20100914_mou_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ferri, D., G. A. Giannoumis, and E. O'Sullivan. 2015. “Fostering Accessible Technology and Sculpting an Inclusive Market through Regulation.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. doi:10.1080/13600869.2015.1055666.
   Google Scholar
• Ficsor, M. 2013. “The Preparation of a WIPO Instruments/Treaty on the Exceptions or Limitations for the Visually Impaired in Light of WIPO/UNESCO Model Provisions on the Same Adopted in the ‘Guided Development’ Period”, Fordham IP Conference, April 2013. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://fordhamipconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Panel-4B_Ficsor.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick, S. 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 Review 37 (1): 139–172.
   Google Scholar
• Garnett, S. 2006. Automated Rights Management Systems and Copyright Limitations and Exceptions, SCRR/14/5, prepared for the 14th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Right, 27 April 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger C., R. Hilty, J. Griffiths, and U. Suthersanen. 2010. “Declaration: A Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step-Test’ in Copyright Law.” Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 1: 119–131.
   Google Scholar
• Gervais, D. 2008. “Intellectual Property and Human Rights: Learning to Live Together.” In Intellectual Property and Human Rights: Enhanced Edition of Copyright and Human Rights, edited by P. L. C. Torremans, 1–23. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, P. 2003. Copyright's Highway. From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, J. 2009. “The ‘Three-Step-Test’ in European Copyright Law: Problems and Solutions.” Intellectual Property Quarterly 9: 489–495.
   Google Scholar
• Guibault, L. 2002. Copyright Limitations and contracts: An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Grosse Ruse-Kahn, H. 2009. “Time for a Paradigm Shift? Exploring Maximum Standards in International Intellectual Property Protection.” Trade, Law and Development 1: 56–102.
   Google Scholar
• Guernsey, K. et al. 2007. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Its Implementation and Relevance for the World Bank. Washington: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Hannum, H. 1996. “The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law.” Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 25: 287–354.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, S. A. 2002. “The Right to Take Part in Cultural Life: Toward Defiing Minimum Core of the Obligations Related to Article 15(1)(a) of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” In Core Obligations: Building a Framework For Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, edited by A. Chapman and S. Russell, 272–304. Antwerp: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Harpur, P. and Suzor, N. 2013. “Copyright Protections and Disability Rights: Turning the Page to a New International Paradigm.” University of New South Wales Law Journal 36 (3): 745–778.
   Google Scholar
• Helfer, L. 2007. “Toward a Human Rights Framework for Intellectual Property.” University of California Davis Law Review 40: 971–1020.
   Google Scholar
• Helfer, L. 2008. “The New Innovation Frontier? Intellectual Property and the European Court of Human Rights.” Harvard International Law Journal 9: 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• Hely, P. 2010. “A Model Copyright Exemption to Serve the Visually Impaired: an Alternative to the Treaty Proposals Before WIPO.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 43: 1369–1411.
   Google Scholar
• Hugenholtz, P. B., and R. L. Okediji. 2009. “Contours of an International Instrument on Limitation and Exceptions.” In The Development Agenda: Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries, edited by N. W. Netanel, 473–497. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaustiala, K. 2007. “Density and Conflict in International Intellectual Property Law.” University of California Davis Law Review 40: 1021–1038.
   Google Scholar
• Kapczynski, A. 2008. “The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property.” Yale Law Journal 117: 804–885. doi: 10.2307/20455812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konate, S. R. 1992. Implementation of Cultural Rights: Analytical Study of Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/1992/WP4, 25 November 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Kur, A. 2008. “Of Oceans, Island, and Inland Water – How Much Room for Exception and Limitations Under the Three-Step-Test.” Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business 8: 287–350.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer-Bisch, P. 1993. “Les Droits Culturels Forment-ils une Categorie Specifique de Droits de l'Homme? Quelques Difficulties Logiques.” In Les Droits Culturels: Une Categorie Sous-Developpee de Droits de l'Homme, edited by P. Meyer-Bisch, 17–46. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires.
   Google Scholar
• Noel, W. N. 1983. Copyright Problems Raised by the Access by Handicapped Persons to Protected Works, Annex II of IGC(1971)/VI/11 of 12 March 1985, prepared for the 24th Session of the Executive Committee of the Berne Union and the Sixth Ordinary Universal Copyright Convention, UNESCO/WIPO/WGH/I/2.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn, G. 2009. “Resisting the ‘Temptation of Elegance’: Can the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Socialise States to Right Behaviour?.” In The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives, edited by O. Mjoll Arnardottir and G. Quinn, 215–256. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rekas, A. 2013. “Access to Books: Human Rights, Copyright and Accessibility.” In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Services for Quality of Life, edited by C. Stephanidis and M. Antona, 382–388. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Reichman, J. H. et al. 2007. “Access to Scientific and Technological Knowledge: UNESCO's Past, Present and Future Roles.” In Normative Action in Education, Science and Culture. Vol 1 of Standard-Setting in UNESCO, edited by A.A. Yusuf, 323–344. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, J. 2010. “Biopiracy: The Struggle for Traditional Knowledge Rights.” American Indian Law Review 34: 77–98.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketson, S. 2003. WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, SCRR/9/7, prepared for the 9th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Right, 5 April 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. 2010. “Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace.” Minnesota Law Review 94: 1308–1374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaver, L., and C. Sganga. 2010. “The Right to Take Part in Cultural Life: on Copyright and Human Rights.” Wisconsin International Law Review 27: 637–662.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, J. 2006. Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired, SCRR/15/7. Prepared for the 15th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Right, 20 February 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Thampapillai, D. 2008. “Digital Copyright and Disability Discrimination: From Braille Books to Bookshare.” Media and Arts Law Review 13: 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. 1982. Resolution on World Program of Action Concerning Disability, U.N. Doc. A/RES/37/52, 3 December 1982.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO/WIPO. 1983. Model Provisions Concerning the Access by Handicapped Persons to the Works Protected by Copyright, IGC(1971)/V/13, 16 December 1983.
   Google Scholar
• WBU (World Blind Union). 2013. Press Release for WIPO Book Treaty (17 June 2013). Accessed April 15, 2015. http://www.worldblindunion.org/English/news/Pages/JUne-17-Press-Release-for-WIPO-Book-Treaty.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Weissbrodt, D., and K. Schoff. 2003. “A Human Rights Approach to Intellectual Property Protection: the Genesis and Application of Sub-Commission Resolution 2000/7.” Michigan Intellectual Property Review 5: 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights). 2009a. Background Paper by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay on a WIPO Treaty for Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled Persons. Annex 1.2, SCCR/19/13 Corr., Dec. 11, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO, SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights). 2009b. Proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, Relating to Limitations and Exceptions: Treaty Proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU), SCCR/18/5, May 25, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO, SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights). 2010a. Draft Consensus Instrument. SCCR/20/10, June 21, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO, SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights). 2010b. Draft WIPO Treaty on Exceptions and Limitations for the Disabled, Educational and Research Institutions, Libraries and Archive Centers. SCCR/20/11, June 21, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO, SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights). 2010c. Draft Joint Recommendation Concerning the Improved Access to Works Protected by Copyright for Persons with a Print Disability. SCCR/20/12, June 21, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO, SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights). 2011. Proposal on an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Persons with Print Disabilities, SCCR/22/15 Rev. 1. June 15, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• WIPO, Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, WIPO Doc. VIP/DC/8 Rev. 8. July 31, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, P. K. 2007. “Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property Interests in a Human Rights Framework.” University of California Davis Law Review 40: 1039–1149.
   Google Scholar