Read: [next] [previous] message
[d@DCC] Copyright reform by stealth...
From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
Thanks to Wallace for this link... http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/006db_2004-10-20-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1#62 "Hon. Joseph A. Day moved the second reading of Bill S-9, to amend the Copyright Act. (Honourable Senator Day). He said: Honourable senators, I will be brief in reintroducing this bill since it deals with a very narrow issue. It is an attempt to take out of the Copyright Act a fiction that has been carried in it a good number of years whereby photographers are not treated as artists." S-9 An Act to amend the Copyright Act http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=S&StartList=2&EndList=1000&Session=13&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4224&List=toc The intent of the bill is to repeal the following from the act: ---cut-- Term of copyright in photographs 10. (1) Where the owner referred to in subsection (2) is a corporation, the term for which copyright subsists in a photograph shall be the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived or, if there is no negative or plate, of the initial photograph, plus a period of fifty years. Where author majority shareholder (1.1) Where the owner is a corporation, the majority of the voting shares of which are owned by a natural person who would have qualified as the author of the photograph except for subsection (2), the term of copyright is the term set out in section 6. Author of photograph (2) The person who (a) was the owner of the initial negative or other plate at the time when that negative or other plate was made, or (b) was the owner of the initial photograph at the time when that photograph was made, where there was no negative or other plate, is deemed to be the author of the photograph and, where that owner is a body corporate, the body corporate is deemed for the purposes of this Act to be ordinarily resident in a treaty country if it has established a place of business therein. R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 10; 1993, c. 44, s. 60; 1994, c. 47, s. 69(F); 1997, c. 24, s. 7. ... Engraving, photograph or portrait 13(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright. ---cut-- Like any other example of using copyright as the blunt instrument it is, there are many unintended consequences to this that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether a photographer is an artist. We need someone to author an article that will discuss the intended consequence, not disagree with that, but to instead focus on the unintended consequences and the greater harm that will come from the bill that are not adequately being considered. - Don't talk about photo-artists being "professional" and their subjects being "regular citizens", which is not often the case with photography where there are far more amateur photographers than professionals. Focusing only on professionals and whether they are artists can easily backfire, as was the case with me where I sided with the photographers and was turned around only after other more relevant consequences were discussed. - Do talk about "Hey, could you take my picture in front of Niagra Falls with my camera", and who should hold the copyright on that picture (obviously it should be the owner of the camera or, as 10(2) suggested, the owner of the film). - Do talk about privacy rights, and that these should trump any rights relating to copyright. Who the owner of copyright is should have no bearing at all on whether, for instance, "Boudoir photos" should be published without the clear (written?) permission of the subject. Using the CIPPIC submission as an example: http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/s132CA_Submission14-04-04.pdf I disagreed with summaries in paragraph 5+6, while strongly agreeing with paragraphs 7+8. IMHO the inclusion of 5+6 served as a distraction to both myself and the committee who should have been expected to dismiss this type of concern. I also disagree with the CIPPIC submission as to what the expectations of consumers are. I did my own informal polling over the last few months. Those who I spoke to expect that when they commission a photograph that the photographer holds copyright unless there is a legal agreement to the contrary. They do not, however, expect that them holding copyright alone gives them the right to publish these works outside of making copies when the permission from the subject is granted. Parliament will have far more than a "copyright" battle on their hands the first time "Boudoir photos" show up on a portfolio in a photographers office, public showing or website without the permission of the subject. This is the type of issue that should be the focus of very public (newspapers/etc?) submissions. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Telling my story: The Life of one Hacker Early draft, looking for comments and corrections of my memory. http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/life-of-hacker.html - For (un)subscription information and posting guidelines please see http://digital-copyright.ca/forum.shtml
Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles
You need to subscribe to post to this forum.