Considering Canada’s Supreme Court Decisions In This Week’s WIPO Proceedings18/07/2012 by Nancy Situ for Intellectual Property Watch 1 CommentShare this Story:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)IP-Watch is a non-profit independent news service, and depends on subscriptions. To access all of our content, please subscribe now. You may also offer additional support with your subscription, or donate.As members of the international intellectual property community prepare for their third day of the 24th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), they are told to keep the spirit of Beijing alive, referring to the recently concluded Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. However, there is reason to keep another country’s spirit in copyright law in mind as well. Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down five critically important copyright judgments that may very well colour the proposals made by member states at the SCCR.The Canadian Court emphasised two major principles of the Copyright Act in the rulings: first, to obtain a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works and providing a just reward for creators and second, to maintain technological neutrality.Two of the decisions pertained to fair dealing (the Canadian parallel to fair use) with the Court leaning toward a large and liberal interpretation consistent with landmark case CCH v. Law Society of Upper Canada. In Province of Alberta v. Access Copyright, the Court held that photocopying performed by K-12 (kindergarten to 12th grade) schoolteachers for the purpose of distribution to their students (but not at the request of) constitutes fair dealing under “research or private study”.[Update:] Canada also recently passed a new copyright bill (Bill C-11) that added “education” as an enumerated purpose qualifying for the fair dealing exemption.At the SCCR, the African Group submitted several draft proposals concerning copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research purposes, including the very congruent Article D which sets out the following as an authorised action:The use of works for educational purposes shall authorize individuals or institutes referred to in this Treaty to distribute a copy or copies of all or part of the work, including making available to pupils or students, the originals or copies thereof the work, or copies when these are necessary to illustrate the teaching.Similarly, Brazil submitted that the following would not constitute violation of copyright:The reproduction, translation and distribution of excerpts of existing works of any kind … as a pedagogical resource for the use of teachers with the purpose of illustration in the context of educational or research activities, to the extent necessary justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the source, including the author’s name is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible.Paul Whitney, a Canadian librarian with twenty years experience in copyright issues and currently a board member of the International Federation of Library Associations, praised the Court’s decision. He observed that a teacher, like an internet service provider, serves as a conduit and thus, the analysis of whether an activity was done for research must be conducted from the end user’s perspective.This reasoning was also seen in SOCAN v. Bell where the Court unanimously held that the use of short song previews constitutes research within the meaning under the fair dealing doctrine. Justice Abella, who delivered the judgment, upheld the Copyright Board’s decision to consider whether previews are for the purpose of “research” from the perspective of the user.Like Access Copyright, the definition of “research” was interpreted broadly:Limiting research to creative purposes would also run counter to the ordinary meaning of “research”, which can include many activities that do not demand the establishment of new facts or conclusions. It can be piecemeal, informal, exploratory, or confirmatory. It can in fact be undertaken for no purpose except personal interest. It is true that research can be for the purpose of reaching new conclusions, but this should be seen as only one, not the primary component of the definitional framework.The definition of “research” for the purposes of copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research purposes has yet to appear at the SCCR but any submission that is too broad or too narrow is bound to stir up controversy.The remaining three decisions also involved musical works. In Re:Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, the Court unanimously held that film soundtracks are excluded from the definition of “sound recording” when they accompany a cinematographic work.In Rogers v. SOCAN, the majority held that while a single transmission of a musical word over the internet does not constitute “communication to the public” within the meaning of the Act, the same cannot be said where there is a series of repeated transmissions of the same work to different recipients.In Entertainment Software Association v. SOCAN, the majority rejected the Copyright Board’s conclusion that the internet delivery of a permanent copy of a video game containing musical works amounted to a “communication” under the Act. Justices Abella and Moldaver opined that the Board’s decision “violates the principle of technological neutrality, which requires that the Act apply equally notwithstanding the technological diversity of different forms of media.”Technological neutrality is certainly on the minds of many member states at the SCCR. A proposal from Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay on copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research purposes centres on the “[o]bligation to update and expand exceptions for educational purposes, in particular the digital environment.”The Canadian decisions have been raised this week in the SCCR by South Africa and Nigeria, but the government of Canada has not yet spoken on the issue.Nancy Situ is a researcher with Intellectual Property Watch. She is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. Her interests lie within copyright and trademark policy, especially pertaining to freedom of expression and challenges in an online environment. She is currently an IPilogue editor and the Senior Editor-in-Chief of Obiter Dicta.[Editor’s Note: The Canadian “pentalogy” of copyright decisions has generated significant response from Canadian bloggers. Some of those are below:]http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ch/ http://www.barrysookman.com/ http://samtrosow.wordpress.com/Share this Story:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)RelatedNancy Situ may be reached at email@example.com."Considering Canada’s Supreme Court Decisions In This Week’s WIPO Proceedings" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.