RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q/CAN/1
24October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4460)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONCOPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
Canada1
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation of
Canada inthereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights attheCouncil 'smeeting of
22to25July19962,thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given.
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Thestructure oftheCanadian Copyright Actisfairly clear from thenotification circulated
indocument IP/N/1/CAN/C/1. Itisstructurally verysimilar tomuch ofthecopyright legislation of
commonwealth countries thatfollowed whatwasoncethepattern oftheUKCopyright Act,asitwas
atthebeginning ofthiscentury.
AsCanada isacountry which hasbeen party totheBerne Convention formany years, I
would liketosayafewwords about theprocesses ofCanada 'simplementation oftheTRIPS
obligations. Several elements oftheTRIPS obligations, whether specifically embodied inTRIPS or
through thereference inArticle 9.1ofTRIPS, havebeencontained inCanada 'slegislation formany
years. Inaddition, theintellectual property chapter oftheNorth American FreeTrade Agreement,
which wasbeing negotiated inthecourse of1992and1993, picked upalmost word forword, forthe
most part, thedraft TRIPS textasithadbeenputforward byDirector-General Arthur Dunkel in
December 1991. Therefore, certain significant aspects ofourimplementation, suchas,forexample,
theexclusive rental right forproducers ofsound recordings andowners ofcopyright ofcomputer
programs, were implemented inourNAFTA Implementation Act, which came intoforce on
1January 1994. Thesame istruewithrespect toborder measures intheareaofcopyright.
Canada 'sWTO Implementation Actcame intoforce on1January 1996. Thecopyright
provisions oftheWTO Implementation Actrelate toextending toWTO Members theapplication of
provisions which hadotherwise beenapplied toparties totheBerne Convention andparties tothe
Universal Copyright Convention. So,forexample, Canada introduced newdefinitions WTO Member
andTreaty Country, bywayofensuring thatthepoints ofattachment would beadjusted totakeinto
account WTO Members. Thisinvolved anumber ofconsequential changes throughout theAct. In
addition, theapplication oftheTRIPS obligations required ustointroduce forthefirsttime
1Canada 'snotification oflawsandregulations intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights under Article 63.2
oftheAgreement hasbeen circulated indocument IP/N/1/CAN/C/1.
2Theminutes ofthemeeting have been circulated indocument IP/C/M/8.IP/Q/CAN/1
Page2
performers rights intotheCanadian Copyright Actwithin thenarrow scope thatisenvisaged inthe
TRIPS text. Anobvious significant element ofourimplementation oftheTRIPS obligations, and
arguably something thatweshould havedoneforNAFTA, butdidinfactdointheTRIPS context,
wastheabolition ofasystem ofcompulsory licensing andaserial licence thathadsubsisted inthe
Canadian Copyright Actforagreatmany years. Other provisions ofourTRIPS implementation dealt
withthequestion ofassuring copyright protection forpre-existing subject-matter. Asinother
countries, thisinvolved providing mechanisms totakeintoaccount therights or,atleast, theneed
tocompensate parties whohadmade investments inconnection withworks which hadnotbeen
protected prior toTRIPS implementation.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND
THEIR MEMBER STATES
1. Article 9(1)oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 11(1)(ii) oftheBerne
Convention (1971) requires thatauthors enjoy theexclusive rightofauthorizing "anycommunication
tothepublic oftheperformance oftheir works". Section 3(1)(f) oftheCopyright Actgrants to
authors thesoleright"inthecaseofanyliterary, dramatic, musical orartistic work, tocommunicate
thework tothepublic bytelecommunication". Theterm"telecommunication" intheCopyright Act
islimited totransmissions "bywire, radio, visual, optical orother electromagnetic system". Why
doestheCopyright Actlimitcommunications tothose "bytelecommunication"?
Berne "communication" rollstogether theaspect oftelecommunication, e.g.,broadcasting,
withtheaspect ofperformance inpublic. IntheCanadian Copyright Act"telecommunication" isused
etymologically inthesense ofacommunication fromafarasopposed toaperformance infrontofthe
public, i.e.aliveaudience. Thedefinition of"telecommunication" inSection 2issobroad astobe
technologically neutral. Thisfeature ensures thattheCopyright Act'scommunication rightisalready
welladapted totheexigencies ofthedigital environment.
2. Article 9(1)oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 11(1)(ii) oftheBerne
Convention (1971) requires thatauthors enjoy theexclusive right ofauthorizing communications to
thepublic oftheperformances oftheirworks. TheCopyright Actgrants toauthors theexclusive right
tocommunicate thework tothepublic. Isthere anydistinction tobemade between theright to
communicate thework tothepublic andtheright tocommunicate tothepublic performances of
works?
TheCopyright Actgives authors theexclusive right toperform thework inpublic andthe
exclusive righttocommunicate thework tothepublic bytelecommunication. These twoaspects fully
satisfy Berne requirements with respect toproviding theauthor with theexclusive right to
communicate hiswork tothepublic.
[Follow-up question]
Does theexclusive righttocommunicate thework tothepublic include theexclusive rightto
communicate theperformance ofthework tothepublic asrequired byArticle 11(1)(ii) oftheBerne
Convention?
Berne Convention, Article 11(1)(i), requires authors ofdramatic, dramatico-musical and
musical works toenjoy theexclusive right ofauthorizing thepublic performance oftheir works,
including suchpublic performance byanymeans orprocess. Section 3(1)oftheCopyright Actgives
thecopyright owner thesolerighttoperform thework, oranysubstantial partthereof inpublic. This
isthebasis oftheright ofpublic performance under theCanadian Copyright Act. Theright toIP/Q/CAN/1
Page3
communicate thework tothepublic bytelecommunication isprovided inSection (3)(1)(f). Theact
ofcommunicating awork tothepublic bytelecommunication doesnotconstitute theactofperforming
thework inpublic, nordoesitconstitute anauthorization todotheactofperforming thework in
public.
3. Dobroadcasting organizations havetheright inCanada toprohibit therebroadcasting by
wireless means ofbroadcasts, aswellasthecommunication tothepublic oftelevision broadcasts of
thesame (Article 14(3) oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
No.Canada complies withTRIPS, Article 14(3), viacopyright notbroadcasters 'rights. The
Copyright Actdoes notgivebroadcasters aright intheir broadcasting signals. However, asa
copyright owner, thebroadcaster mayownthecopyright inhis"broadcast day" asanoriginal
compilation oftheworks making upallorpartofthebroadcast programming.
4. Docopyright owners inthesubject matter ofbroadcasts have theexclusive right to
rebroadcast bywireless means ofbroadcasts, aswellasthecommunication tothepublic oftelevision
broadcasts ofthesame? Inparticular, docopyright owners havetheexclusive righttocommunicate
tothepublic bytelecommunication anyliterary, dramatic, musical orartistic work ifthe
communication isaretransmission ofalocal signal, theretransmission islawful under the
Broadcasting Act,andthesignal isretransmitted simultaneously andinitsentirety? Ifnot,isany
remuneration required tobepaidtotheowners ofthecopyrights ofthelocal signals thatare
retransmitted (Article 9(1)oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 11bis(1)(ii) oftheBerne
Convention)?
Under theCopyright Act, thesimultaneous retransmission oflocal signals isnotan
infringement ofcopyright intheworks carried intheoriginal broadcast. Likemany other countries,
Canada doesnotprovide copyright protection forthesimultaneous retransmission oflocal signals
which, bydefinition, arealready available tothepublic viatheprimary transmission. Therefore,
under theCanadian Copyright Act,copyright owners donothave anyrights arising from the
retransmission oflocal broadcast signals. Thesimultaneous retransmission oftheentirety oflocal
broadcast signals carrying copyright works doesnotconflict withtheauthor 'snormal exploitation of
hiswork anddoesnotunreasonably prejudice hislegitimate interests. Under theCanadian Copyright
Act,thesimultaneous retransmission ofdistant broadcast signals isnotaninfringement ofthe
copyright intheworks carried intheoriginal broadcast iftheretransmitter haspaidtheapplicable
royalties andcomplied withanyterms andconditions fixed under theauthority oftheCopyright Act.
5. Article 9(1)oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 12oftheBerne Convention
(1971) requires thatauthors ofliterary andartistic works enjoy theexclusive right ofauthorizing
adaptations, arrangements andother alterations oftheirworks. Does theCopyright Actgrant to
authors ofliterary andartistic works theexclusive right toauthorize themaking ofallforms of
adaptations, arrangements andother alterations oftheirworks? Arethere anylimitations tothese
rights?
Although theCanadian Copyright Actlacks ageneral adaptation right, thestatute gives the
author theexclusive righttoconvert adramatic work intoanovel oranother non-dramatic work and
toadapt aliterary, dramatic, musical orartistic work bycinematograph. Canada complies with
Article 12oftheBerne Convention viathese rights andbythereproduction right which hasbeen
given averyextensive scope byCanadian courts. Accordingly, theCanadian legal system handles
bywayofthereproduction right much ofwhat some other countries handle bywayofageneral
adaptation right. With respect toadaptation, itisalsopertinent thattheCanadian Copyright Act
specifically gives theauthor moral rights totheintegrity ofhiswork.IP/Q/CAN/1
Page4
6. Article 9(1)oftheTRIPS Agreement inconjunction withArticle 14oftheBerne Convention
(1971) requires thatauthors ofliterary orartistic works shallhavetheexclusive rightofauthorizing
thecinematographic adaptation andreproduction ofthese works andthedistribution oftheworks so
adapted. Section 3(1)(e) oftheCopyright Actgives authors theright to"reproduce, adapt and
publicly present theworkbycinematography". Istherightto"publicly present" intheCopyright Act
synonymous withtheright to"distribute" intheConvention?
Under Section 3oftheCanadian Copyright Act,therighttopublish awork together withthe
right topublicly present awork bycinematography together fulfil theobligations ofTRIPS,
Article 9(1), andBerne Convention, Article 14.
[Follow-up question]
Hastheauthor ofawork theright toauthorize thedistribution ofthecinematographic
adaptation ofawork? Ifyes,how?
Inthisrespect, anyrelevant rightoftheauthor would havebeenlicensed orassigned tothe
maker ofthecinematographic work. Canada doesnotinterpret theBerne Convention inafashion
thatrequires authors tobegiven adistribution rightonthesame footing as,e.g.,therights ofpublic
performance andcommunication tothepublic. Ourreading isthatanyrelevant distribution rightis
limited toaright offirstdistribution which implicitly passes tothemaker ofthecinematographic
work byreason oftheauthor 'sconsent toadaptation.
7. Does theCopyright Actconfer ownership ofthecopyright inacinematographic work upon
allauthors whohavebrought contributions tothemaking ofthework? Ifso,isthere anyprohibition
intheCopyright Actagainst authors who have brought contributions tothemaking of
cinematographic works from objecting tothereproduction, distribution, public performance,
communication tothepublic bywire, broadcasting oranyother communication tothepublic, orto
thesubtitling ordubbing oftext,ofthework, asrequired byArticle 9(1)oftheTRIPS Agreement in
conjunction withArticle 14bis oftheBerne Convention (1971)?
TheCanadian Copyright Actdoes notconfer theownership ofcopyright onallofthe
individuals (e.g., screen writers, cinematographers, etc.)whobring contributions tothemaking of
thecinematographic work. With respect tothecinematographic work, moral andeconomic rights
belong tothefilm'sauthor. With respect toanyunderlying copyright work included inthe
cinematographic work, moral andeconomic rights remain withtheauthor oftheunderlying work,
subject tothenormal ruleswithrespect tolicensing andassignment. Although theCopyright Actis
fullyequipped inthisregard, itshould berecalled thatthemoral rights intheBerne Convention have
notbeencarried overintoTRIPS.
8. Article 10(2) oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatcompilations ofdataorother material be
protected. Itisfurther provided thatsuchprotection shall notextend tothedataormaterial itself
andshall bewithout prejudice toanycopyright subsisting inthedataormaterial itself. Section
2.1(2) oftheCopyright Actprovides thatthefactthatawork isincluded inacompilation doesnot
increase, decrease orotherwise affect theprotection conferred bytheActinrespect ofthecopyright
intheworkorthemoral rights inrespect ofthework. Does theCopyright Actalsoexpressly provide
thattheprotection accorded tocompilations ofdataorother material doesnotextend tothedataor
material itself? Ifnot,doestheprotection accorded tocompilations ofdataorother material extend
tothedataormaterial itself?
Although thepoint isclearfromcaselaw,theCopyright Actnowhere explicitly provides that
theprotection accorded tocompilations ofdataorother material doesnotextend tothedataorIP/Q/CAN/1
Page5
material itself. With respect tocompilations ofdataorother material, Canada 'slaws arefully
consistent withTRIPS requirements.
9. Articles 11and14(4) oftheTRIPS Agreement require thatauthors havetherighttoauthorize
ortoprohibit thecommercial rental tothepublic ofcomputer programs andphonograms. Pursuant
totheCopyright Act,anarrangement willnotconstitute arental ofacomputer program or
phonogram unless "itisentered intowithmotive ofgaininrelation totheoverall operations ofthe
person whorents outthecomputer program". Accepting thattheterm"motive ofgain" maynotbe
restricted tocircumstances where themotive ofgain isthemain ortheonlymotive, whyare
commercial rentals other thanthose withamotive ofgainexcluded fromtheexclusive rental rights
granted toauthors ofcomputer programs andphonograms?
TRIPS, Article 11,applies tothe"commercial rental" ofcomputer programs andTRIPS,
Article 14(4) tothe"commercial rental" ofphonograms. With respect tobothcomputer programs
andphonograms, theCanadian Copyright Actprovides anexclusive rental rightwhich applies subject
tocertain criteria implementing theTRIPS reference tothequalification "commercial". Thisword
isinparttranslated bytheCanadian reliance ontheyardstick of"motive ofgain". Inpractical terms,
itisdifficult toconceive ofacommercial rental where there isnomotive ofgain. Accordingly, the
Canadian formula meets therequirements ofTRIPS, Articles 11and14(4).
[Follow-up question]
Asregards therental ofcomputer programs andphonograms, canCanada givesomeguidance
(based forinstance oncaselawifavailable) astohowthecriteria "motive ofgain" isinterpreted?
There isyetnocaselawbecause thelegislation came intoforce onlyon1January 1994.
Practically speaking, thelaw'seffect hasbeentoputanendtothebusiness ofrenting oursound
recordings andsoftware inCanada. Asmight beexpected, libraries continue tomake sound
recordings available interms ofpublic lending. "Motive ofgain" ispossibly more favourable tothe
rightholder because itisarguably broader thantheTRIPS reference to"commercial". Forexample,
"motive ofgain" might catch acharity deciding torentoutsound recordings asafund-raising
exercise.
10. Withregard toCanada 'scompliance withArticle 11oftheTRIPS Agreement, please provide
evidence ofthefollowing: (1)theamount ofrental ofcinematographic works inCanada; and(2)that
theamount ofrenting ofcinematographic works inCanada hasnotledtosuchwidespread copying
ofthese works thattherenting ismaterially impairing theexclusive right ofreproduction conferred
upon theauthors ofthese works.
InCanada, therental ofcinematographic works isgoverned bythebusiness arrangements
effected between theowners ofcopyright incinematographic works andanextensive system ofrental
outlets. Whether domestic orforeign, thecopyright owners incinematographic works arelargely
pleased withthepresent system andhavenot,toanysignificant extent, asked fortheintroduction of
anexclusive rental right withrespect totheir films. Similarly, theowners ofthecopyright in
cinematographic works havenotcomplained totheCanadian government about widespread copying
oftheirworks norhavetheyalleged thatrenting ismaterially impairing theirexclusive reproduction
right. Inthisregard, Canada 'sCopyright Actisfullyconsistent withtherequirements ofTRIPS,
Article 11:Rental Rights.
11. Article 12oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatwherever thetermofprotection ofawork,
other thanaphonographic work orawork ofapplied art,iscalculated onthebasis other thanthe
lifeofanatural person, suchtermshall benolessthan50years fromtheendofthecalendar yearIP/Q/CAN/1
Page6
ofauthorized publication, orfailing suchauthorized publication within 50years fromthemaking of
thework, 50years from theendofthecalendar yearofmaking. Inthecaseofanonymous and
pseudonymous works which arepublished between the26thyearandthe50thyearaftertheirmaking,
copyright would subsist inthose works forthefullterm required byArticle 12oftheTRIPS
Agreement, (e.g.between 76and100years fromtheirmaking) orwould thecopyright therein expire
pursuant toSections 6.1or6.2oftheCopyright Act75years following theendofthecalendar year
oftheirmaking?
With respect tothesituation described, copyright under theCanadian Copyright Actwould
expire 75years afterthemaking ofthework.
[Follow-up question]
Willthistermapply eveninthecasewhere awork ispublished 40years afteritsmaking?
Yes, theterm of75years from making would apply. Inexamining whether Canada 's
legislation onthispoint isconsistent withTRIPS, Article 12,itwastaken inaccount thatTRIPS,
Article 12,applies withrespect tocategories ofworks. However, Berne Article 7(3)andSection 6
oftheCanadian Copyright Actapply withrespect tothemuch more limited caseofcircumstances of
authorship. Inanyevent, theeconomic impact hereisnotlikely tobeverysignificant because we
arediscussing theverynarrow caseofanonymous orpseudonymous works leftunpublished formore
thanaquarter ofacentury.
12. Article 60provides anexception totheapplication ofthespecial border measures inthe
TRIPS Agreement when small amounts ofgoods arebrought intoCanada non-commercially ina
traveller 'spersonal luggage. Section 45(3) oftheCopyright Actcontains exceptions totheborder
enforcement measures. Onwhat basis aretheexceptions setoutinSection 45(3) oftheCopyright
Actjustified?
TheTRIPS border enforcement measures apply with respect topirated copyright and
counterfeit trademark goods. Therelevant section oftheCopyright Actonlyapplies innarrowly
defined circumstances andwithrespect totheimportation ofcopies which werelegitimately made in
thecountry ofmanufacture, notwithstanding anyrights under theCanadian Copyright Act.
III. REPLY TOAQUESTION POSED BYSWITZERLAND
1. HowdotheCanadian collecting societies organize thedistribution ofmonies owed toforeign
authors?
There isnothing intheCanadian Copyright Actthatimposes business practice on"lessociétés
degestion canadiennes" withrespect tohowtheyorganize thedistribution ofmonies owed toforeign
authors. Some oftheCanadian societies do,however, indicate theprocess ingeneral terms.
Generally, theymake payments toforeign collectives which thendistribute therevenues totheauthors
inthatcountry.
Forexample, SOCAN, theSociety ofComposers, Authors andMusic Publishers ofCanada,
indicates that"under theterms ofthe[Canadian] Copyright Act,[it]collects tarifffeesfromtheusers
onbehalf ofitsmembers andforeign copyright owners itrepresents inCanada. These feesarethen
systematically distributed asperformance royalties tocreators andpublishers whose works havebeen
performed andwhich SOCAN hasidentified andcredited through itsownprocedures. When [the
Canadian creator 's]work isperformed andidentified overseas, SOCAN forwards themonies receivedIP/Q/CAN/1
Page7
from foreign societies directly to...the[Canadian] copyright owner. Andwhen aforeign work is
performed here, SOCAN sends royalties tothecopyright owner 'sowndomestic society".
CANCOPY actsonbehalf ofartists, writers andpublishers withrespect tothereproduction
right. Alicensing feeorroyalty iscollected andgiven back totheartist, writer orpublisher.
CANCOPY represents published works fromaround theworld through agreements withinternational
reproduction rights organizations. (Asrecently asJuly1996, CANCOPY signed areciprocal
agreement withacollective inanother European country inwhich thetwoorganizations agreed to
represent eachother intheir owncountry aswellascollect andexchange royalties). Generally,
royalties collected inCanada aredistributed directly toCanadian affiliates regardless ofthecountry
ofpublication. Royalties collected abroad aredistributed toCanadian rightholders through
CANCOPY.
For further information, SOCAN material canbeaccessed atitsWEB page:
httb://www.socan.ca/ andCANCOPY athttp://cancopy.com/.
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Please explain whether andhowCanadian lawprovides protection forworks, phonograms
andperformances fromother WTO Members, andwhether andhowitdoessoonthebasis ofnational
treatment, asrequired byTRIPS Article 3(generally, withrespect toallcopyrights andneighbouring
rights) andArticle 9.1(incorporating Berne Article 5(1)).
With respect tocopyright works, phonograms andperformers 'performances, theCanadian
Copyright Actprovides national treatment totherightholders ofallWTO Members. Section 2isnow
equipped withanewdefinition of"treaty country" which includes "WTO Member" which isalso
specifically defined. Section 5.(1)(a)(ii) extends copyright protection toanywork (including asound
recording), theauthor ofwhich was,atthedateofthemaking ofthework, acitizen orsubject of,
oraperson ordinarily resident inatreaty country. Section 14onperformers 'rights specifically rests
onaWTO basis. With respect toperformances occurring afteraParty hasjoined theWTO, see
Section 14.01(1), andwithrespect toperformances before aParty hasjoined theWTO, seeSection
14.01(4).
2. Does Canada apply the“ruleoftheshorter term”tophonograms andperformances from
other WTO Members? Ifso,please explain howyoujustify suchaction under TRIPS Article 4.
No.
3. Please explain whether andhowCanada protects against both thedirect andindirect
reproduction ofphonograms asrequired byTRIPS Article 14.2, including bydigital transmission in
thecontext ofinteractive services.
Copyright Act,Section 5(3),specifically provides copyright protection forsound recordings.
Section 5(4)provides theowner ofthecopyright inthesound recording withtheexclusive rightto
reproduce thesound recording inanymaterial form. IntheWIPO Experts Committees working on
thepossible Protocol totheBerne Convention andthepossible NewInstrument fortheProtection of
theRights ofPerformers andProducers ofPhonograms, there hasyettobeanythorough discussion
oftheextent towhich thereproduction right would apply tospecific ephemeral "reproductions"
effected asanecessary incident ofadigital transmission. Whether suchtemporary reproductions are
covered bythereproduction right isaquestion onwhich international consensus islacking.
Similarly, thepoint wasnotcontemplated during thenegotiations forTRIPS, where there isnothingIP/Q/CAN/1
Page8
toshow thatthereproduction right inArticle 14(2) applies toatemporary reproduction inrandom
access memory. Nothing intheCanadian Copyright Actprecludes suchatemporary reproduction
fromfalling under theexclusive reproduction right. However, thispoint hasyettobeclarified with
respect tothereproduction rightintheCanadian Copyright Act. With reference totheinformation
highway andthenewdemands ofthedigital environment, thisquestion hasrecently beenthesubject
ofsome domestic discussion interms ofcopyright works ingeneral.
[Follow-up question]
Theanswer tothisquestion focuses primarily ontemporary orephemeral reproductions. Does
thereproduction right provided forphonograms under Canadian lawapply todigital delivery ofa
permanent reproduction?
Yes.
4. Please explain whether andhowCanada provides fullretroactive protection toworks,
phonograms andperformances fromother WTO Members, asrequired byTRIPS Articles 9.1,14.6
and70.2, eachofwhich incorporate byreference orrelyuponBerne Article 18.Please givethedate
backtowhich suchprotection extends withrespect toeachcategory ofsubject matter. Also, please
indicate whether there anycategories ofworks thatwould beprotected bycopyright inCanada which
arenotprotected duetotheoperation ofSection 77,andifso,please identify suchcategories.
Canada does provide retroactive protection topre-existing works, phonograms and
performances fromWTO Member countries. Thetermisgenerally lifeplusfiftyformostworks with
fiftyyears forsound recordings andperformers 'performances. Withrespect tosound recordings and
alloriginal literary, dramatic, artistic andmusical works, Copyright Act,Section 5.(1.01) provides
that"acountry which becomes a[...]WTO Member afterthedateofthemaking orpublication of
awork shall, asofbecoming a[...]WTO Member [...]bedeemed tohave been a[...]WTO
Member atthedateofthemaking orpublication ofthework [...]." However, theforegoing doesnot
apply ifcopyright protection expired inthecountry oforigin before thatcountry became aWTO
Member. Acorresponding provision withrespect toaperformer 'sperformance iscontained in
Copyright Act,Section 14.01(4). TRIPS, Article 70(7), doesnothaveanyeffect withrespect to
Canada because ourCopyright Actdoesnotmake protection conditional onregistration.
5. InSection 2oftheCopyright Act,“cinematograph ”isdefined toexclude, forpurposes of
Section 11.1ofthatAct,“works where thearrangement oracting formorthecombination ofincidents
represented givethework anoriginal character ”.Please explain themeaning ofthisdefinition and
therelationship ofthese works toSection 11.1, which appears torelate toduration.
Therationale forthedefinition of"cinematograph" inSection 2istopermit onecopyright
term(i.e.lifeplusfifty) for"scripted" cinematographic works andanother copyright term(i.e.fifty
years fromtheendofthecalendar yearofpublication) for"unscripted" cinematographic works, e.g.,
most news footage andhome videos.
6. Please explain whether thelisting ofcopyright rights inSection 3(1)oftheCopyright Act,
which explicitly includes certain types ofadaptations, alsoencompasses thegeneral right “of
authorizing adaptations, arrangements andother alterations ”required byBerne Article 12(as
incorporated through TRIPS Article 9.1)
Although theCanadian Copyright Actlacks ageneral adaptation right, thestatute gives the
author theexclusive righttoconvert adramatic work intoanovel oranother non-dramatic work and
toadapt aliterary, dramatic, musical orartistic work bycinematograph. Canada complies withIP/Q/CAN/1
Page9
Article 12oftheBerne Convention viathese rights andbythedomestic reproduction rightwhich has
been given averyextensive scope byCanadian courts. Accordingly, theCanadian legal system
handles bywayofthereproduction right much ofwhat some other countries handle bywayofa
general adaptation right. With respect toadaptation, itisalsopertinent thattheCanadian Copyright
Actspecifically gives theauthor moral rights totheintegrity ofhiswork.
[Follow-up question]
Please explain howCanadian lawhandles bywayofthereproduction right much ofthe
adaptation right required byBerne Article 12,andtowhatextent.
Copyright Act,Section 3(1)(b), gives thecopyright owner thesoleright inthecaseofa
dramatic work, toconvert itintoanovel. Inthecaseofanovel orother non-dramatic work, orof
anartistic work, Section 3(1)(c) gives thecopyright owner thesolerighttoconvert itintoadramatic
work, bywayofpublic performance orotherwise. With respect toanyliterary, dramatic, musical
orartistic work, Section 3(1)(e) gives thecopyright owner thesoleright toreproduce, adapt and
publicly present thework bycinematograph. InCanada there hasnever been acaseinwhich a
defendant successfully argued thathissecondary work isbeyond thescope oftherights provided by
Copyright Act,Section 3(1), where thereference tothesolerighttoproduce orreproduce thework
isverybroad. Toviolate theauthor 'sreproduction right, theinfringing copydoesnothavetolook
thesame. Similarity andsubstantial copying aredirectly atissue inthiscontext. Furthermore, an
adaptation almost invariably begins withanactofreproduction. Letting theexception prove therule,
reference canbemade toSection 27(2)(l) which establishes thatcopyright owners incomputer
programs haveanexclusive adaptation right.
7. Please explain howCanada reconciles theauthority provided withregard tolicenses for
publication byother thanthecopyright owner through Sections 16to21and22to26oftheCopyright
ActwithBerne Article 9(2)andTRIPS Article 13,which require limitations andexceptions to
exclusive rights tobelimited tocertain special cases which donotconflict withanormal exploitation
ofthework anddonotunreasonably prejudice thelegitimate interests oftherightholder.
Copyright Act,Sections 16-26, wererepealed bySection 59oftheWorld Trade Organization
Agreement Implementation Act,theintellectual property provisions ofwhich entered intoforce on
1January 1996.
8. Please explain howtheoperation ofSections 27(2)(e), 27(2)(f), 27(2)(h), and27(3) ofthe
Copyright Actcomplies withBerne Article 9(2)andTRIPS Article 13,which require limitations and
exceptions toexclusive rights tobelimited tocertain special cases which donotconflict withanormal
exploitation oftheworkanddonotunreasonably prejudice thelegitimate interests oftherightholder.
These aredeminimis exceptions ofanature common tothecopyright lawsofmany countries.
Forexample, Copyright Act,Section 27(2)(e), deals withnewspaper reports ofpublic lectures which
inother countries, e.g.,theUSAwould fallwithin thebroad category of"fairuse". Itiswellknown
that"fairdealing" under theCanadian Copyright Actisgiven anarrower interpretation than"fairuse"
under thecorresponding USA statute. Also within theUSA category of"fairuse"would bethe
situation provided forbyCanadian Copyright Act,Section 27(2)(f), which deals withthepublic
recitation ofareasonable extract ofapublished work. Withreference totheCultural Property Export
andImport ActascitedinCopyright Act,Section 27(2)(h), therelevant exception tothereproduction
rightisunlikely toaffect foreign rightholders andissolimited astoeasily meettheeconomic tests
imposed byTRIPS, Article 13.Withrespect tothepublic performance ofamusical work, Copyright
Act,Section 27(3), ismuch narrower inscope thantheclassroom exception found intheUSAIP/Q/CAN/1
Page10
Copyright Lawandwould accordingly haveaneasier timemeeting theTRIPS, Article 13teststhan
would theUSA classroom exception.
[Follow-up question]
Weunderstand thatevery country 'ssystem hasexceptions torights. Thequestion is,asto
each: doesitgotoofar?Ourquestions arenotdirected to"fairdealing" generally, buttospecific
exceptions inCanada 'slaw. Please explain whythese exceptions comply withthepermissible
limitations onrights inBerne andTRIPS. Inparticular:
- Section 27(2)(e) (dealing withpublication innewspaper ofreport ofpublic lecture). Hasthe
textofthissection beenlimited inoperation orapplication inanyway,suchaswithregard
tothetopic ofthelecture, theamount copied fromthelecture, thecommerciality oftheuse,
ortheeffect onthemarket forthelecture? Wenotethatthisexception appears togobeyond
"fairdealing" inanewspaper summary, aspermitted under section 27(2)(a.1).
- Section 27(2)(f) (dealing withpublic reading orrecitation byoneperson ofextract frompublic
work). Hasthetextofthissection beenlimited inoperation orapplication inanyway,such
aswithregard topurpose ofthereading orrecitation, oritscommercial nature?
- Section 17(2)(h) (dealing withreproduction fordeposit ininstitutions). Howarepermissible
reproductions limited bytheCulture Property Export andImport Act?
- Section 27(3) (complete exemption forpublic performance ofmusical works bychurches,
colleges orschools, andreligious, charitable orfraternal organizations, whenever donefor
religious, educational orcharitable objects). Thisisabigmarket foracategory of
commercially valuable works. Hasthetextofthissection been limited inoperation or
application inanyway, suchaswithregard tothetypeofthemusical work, theplace or
context oftheparticular use,oranydirect charge totheaudience?
With respect toSection 27(2)(e), therelevant Berne/TRIPS testwould betheimpact onthe
rightholder notwhether theuseiscommercial ornon-commercial. Areport inanewspaper islikely
toenhance, notdiminish, theeconomic returns from lecturing. Inanyevent, thelecturer canclose
theexceptions byposting thestipulated notice. Furthermore, theexception islimited toa"report"
(i.e., notaverbatim reproduction) inonlyonemedium. Todate, there hasbeennocomplaint from
lecturers withrespect tothisfeature inourCopyright Act. ForSection 27(2)(f), therelevant testis
again notcommercial ornon-commercial use,butrather whether thelimitation hurts therightholder.
Inthisregard, thepublic recitation ofanextract fromanovel islikely toenhance theauthor 'sreturns
from sales ofcopies ofthebook. Thispractice doesnotunreasonably interfere withthenormal
commercial exploitation ofthework. Thestipulation ofa"reasonable extract" isanappropriate
limitation inthiscontext where thelosteconomic value totherightholder isnotsignificant. Itwould
appear thatthere isnoCanadian caselawwithrespect tothisprovision. Theexception inSection
27(2)(h) isnecessary interaliabecause ourCopyright Actgives perpetual protection tounpublished
manuscripts. Itisdifficult toconceive ofacasewhere theuseofthisexception would failtomeet
thetestssetoutinBerne, Article 9(2), andTRIPS, Article 13.However, itispossible toconceive
ofinstances where therightholder would benefit, e.g., viatheofficial preservation ofa
cinematographic work otherwise totally lost.Withrespect toSection 27(3), itshould beobserved that
churches tendtousepublic domain works and,ifotherwise, there isareluctance tointerfere with
religious worship. Useforaneducational object bycolleges orschools iscomparable toeducational
exceptions inother countries, e.g., theUSA. When aschool holds adance itmust apply tothe
relevant Canadian copyright collective which provides aperformance licence onareduced tariff.IP/Q/CAN/1
Page11
There maybesome problem withrespect tounauthorized usebycharitable andfraternal organizations
which isanaspect thatwillbelooked atafresh.
9. Please explain thecriminal andcivilremedies available forcopyright infringement andthe
extent towhich theyfullyimplement theobligations inTRIPS Articles 41,45,50and61. Inthe
response, please specify, interalia,whether these remedies mayinclude theseizure, forfeiture and
destruction ofinfringing articles andequipment usedtomake theinfringing articles, asrequired by
Article 46and61,andthemanner inwhich thegrant ofcivilprovisional relief isprovided in
accordance withTRIPS Article 50.
Inanappropriate case, theplaintiff mayobtain anexparte "Anton Piller" order permitting
theplaintiff 'ssolicitor toenter thedefendant 'spremises without warning tosearch forinfringing
goods andrelevant documents. Governed bythesame factors asinother actions, interlocutory
injunctions areavailable where justandequitable inthecircumstances. Asuccessful plaintiff is
generally entitled toafinalinjunction inaddition totheother civilremedies available forinfringement
ofcopyright, suchasdamages andanaccount ofprofits. Exemplary damages maybeawarded in
copyright actions where thedefendant haswilfully andflagrantly ignored theplaintiff 'slegalrights
andtheprocess ofthecourt. Copyright Act,Section 38,specifically provides fordelivery upand
conversion ofinfringing copies. There arecriminal offences andpunishment withrespect todirect
andindirect infringement andprohibitions ofmaking orpossessing aplateforthepurpose ofmaking
infringing reproductions. Furthermore, thecourt isgiven power todeal with infringing
reproductions, fixations orplates which maybeordered destroyed ordelivered uptothecopyright
owner. Finally, theCriminal Code includes offenses offraud, conspiracy, andunauthorized useof
computers andmischief inrelation tocomputers. These Criminal Code provisions havehadsome
incidental effect withrespect toprotecting therights ofcopyright owners.
[Follow-up question]
Doremedies forinfringement include forfeiture anddestruction ofequipment usedtomake
infringing articles, inboththecivilandcriminal contexts?
Copyright Act,Section 42(3), provides therequired authority inthecriminal context. Inthe
civilcontext, theapplicable TRIPS obligations aresatisfied bySection 38,which allows thecopyright
owner totakeproceedings forrecovery ofpossession ofbothplates andinfringing copies.