Reintroduced Copyright Legislation

[Monito]

[...] The bill also proposes to extend fair dealing exemptions to cover satire, parody and education — meaning students, educators, artists and satirists can break copyright under limited circumstances if the use itself is fair. Canada’s copyright law already allows for the use of copyright material for non-commercial research and study.

The Conservatives are also proposing, through the so-called “YouTube” or “mash-up” provision, to make it legal for people to remix creative content into new works — as long as it’s for non-commercial purposes and does not have a significant adverse effect on rights-holders.

The bill also will enshrine in law a “notice-and-notice” approach to Internet Service Provider liability, to protect Internet intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users. Without such protections, ISPs, search engines, video sites and blog hosts are more likely to remove legitimate content if they face legal threats.

And when it comes statutory damages, the bill distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial copyright infringement, placing a $5,000 cap on liability in non-commercial cases such as picking a lock on a DVD purchased overseas to watch at home. [...]

[...] The federal government plans to fast-track the legislation through a special committee and have it passed into law by Christmas, federal Industry Minister James Moore said. [...]

Michael Geist, a university of Ottawa law professor and Toronto Star contributor, said he remains very concerned that Canadian legislators are “caving to U.S. interests.”

In a Toronto Star article on Sept. 3, Geist cited secret cables released by Wiki Leaks that exposed “a stunning willingness” by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands for a U.S. style copyright law. [...]

Canadian photographers welcome the introduction of copyright reform

OTTAWA, Sept. 29, 2011 /CNW/ - The Canadian Photographers Coalition (CPC) welcomes the reintroduction of Copyright reform legislation. The Copyright Modernization Act includes a provision to award photographers first ownership on commissioned works; a right held by all other creators. [...]

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1062119--digital-copyright-bill-to-be-fast-tracked
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/29/not-caving-to-u-s-on-copyright-bill-heritage-minister/
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2011/29/c7831.html

[BobFisher]

Yes, and...... ?

[Monito]

Photographers in the US and elsewhere might like that something similar to the DMCA takedown notice is being implemented in Canada.  This works two ways:  1) Photographers can get infringing uses of their photos taken down;  2) Photographers who have images hosted on Canadian servers will not get their images arbitrarily deleted without recourse.  (Paragraph 3)

All photographers may be interested in the implications of the digital lock provisions which may extend to watermarks and EXIF data.  I don't know if it does because I haven't analyzed the provisions. (Paragraph 4)

Canadian photographers will welcome the change that makes commissioned photographs the copyright of the photographer and not the person ordering the work (absent contract to the otherwise).  (Paragraph 8 )

On the other side, photographers may find that their images are "mashed up" (collaged or merged or otherwise modified) in ways they dislike and there may not be much to do about it.  We'll have to see the wording and there may have to be litigation to resolve issues. (Paragraph 2)

So, yes, and what do you think of these developments?  Especially seeing that you are a producer of intellectual property including photographs in Canada.

[BobFisher]

I have yet to find a need for a formal DMCA Takedown Notice.  I've had my copyright infringed upon more than once and a simple email with the option to license or remove has resolved the issue.  I can see the rationale behind the provision but think it also can end up adding to the legal administrivia.

I'd suggest that digital watermarks and EXIF data aren't 'digital locks'.

The change to 'work for hire' rules will, I believe, put Canada out of step with other jurisdictions and could potentially open a Pandora's Box when it comes to employer/employee relations in many different areas with regard to IP.  I think it's a mistake.

The 'mash up' provision will also, I think, put Canada out of step with other jurisdictions and extend the concept of 'fair use' beyond what it should be.  I'd have to do a more thorough review of the relevant legislations in other countries to be sure.  Either way, I think it's a mistake.

I haven't read the proposed legislation in total but based on the summaries I've seen generally I'd suggest that yet again our government has shown a glaring ineptitude in dealing with an issue.  The times I'm embarrassed to be Canadian continue to increase in number.

[Monito]

It's not a change to work for hire.  People employed full time produce intellectual property and their employers own the copyright.  That is unchanged.  People working on movie and video productions for short or medium terms also do not own copyright and that continues unchanged.

Canada and New Zealand are the only major jurisdictions that have this weird distinction made about photographers and the copyright on their artistic work, distinct from all other artists and producers of intellectual property.  The change will bring Canada in step with the UK, the US, Europe, Australia and most if not all other countries.

[BobFisher]

Sorry, my misunderstanding.  That's right.  It's fine for portrait/wedding photogs. 

And as for the 'mash up' provision, a quick review of Title 17 doesn't turn up a similar provision there so this may still put Canada out of step.