Breaking news

WHO’s Historic Agreement: A Major Step Towards Global Pandemic Preparedness

In a groundbreaking move, members of the World Health Organization (WHO) have reached a historic, legally binding agreement aimed at preparing the world for future pandemics. This pact, designed to address the lessons learned from the COVID-19 crisis, sets the stage for a more equitable global response to health emergencies, particularly in the distribution of essential drugs, vaccines, and medical technologies.

The agreement marks a significant milestone in global health governance, especially at a time when multilateral institutions like the WHO are facing considerable financial strain. The United States, which was once the WHO’s largest financial contributor, withdrew from negotiations after President Donald Trump initiated the U.S.’s departure from the organization. Despite this setback, the deal underscores a strong commitment from member states to work together on global health security, with or without U.S. involvement. “This is a historic moment,” said Nina Schwalbe, founder of global health think tank Spark Street Advisors. “It demonstrates that countries are committed to multilateralism and to collective action.”

This agreement, the second of its kind in WHO’s 75-year history (the first being a tobacco control treaty in 2003), focuses on structural inequalities in how pandemic-related health tools are developed and distributed. Article nine of the deal ensures that future pandemic-related drugs, therapeutics, and vaccines will be made globally accessible. It also gives the WHO stronger oversight over medical supply chains and paves the way for local production of vaccines during health crises.

A key challenge in the negotiations was the issue of technology transfer—sharing the knowledge and manufacturing capabilities necessary for lower-income countries to produce their vaccines and treatments. To address this, the agreement mandates that manufacturers allocate at least 20% of their real-time production to the WHO during a pandemic, with a minimum of 10% designated for donation and the rest priced affordably for developing nations.

The deal is not yet finalized, as it must be adopted at the WHO Assembly in May, and some details, such as the annex on Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing, still require further negotiation. However, once ratified, the agreement will bolster global preparedness, enabling quicker responses to future pandemics and more equitable access to life-saving resources.

As health experts emphasize, the global community must invest in preparedness now to avoid the costly toll of another pandemic. “We can’t afford another pandemic, but we can afford to prevent one,” said Helen Clark, co-chair of The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness. This agreement represents a critical step toward ensuring that the world is better equipped to face future health crises with solidarity, transparency, and a commitment to equity.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Aretilaw firm
Uol
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
eCredo

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter