Authorization revisited

Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 341-362

  Gendreau, Ysolde ^a  

^a Gowling Lafleur Henderson   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041114223     PISSN: 08863520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42.
2. 1988, c. 48.
3. Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
4. 17 U.S.C. (1994).
5. Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, S.C. 1988, c. 65, s. 62, amending s. 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act. See Ysolde Gendreau, A Canadian Retransmission Right: A Reality at Last, (1988) 4 I.P.J. 397.
6. th Supp.], s. 2. See David Vaver, The Canadian Copyright Amendments of 1988, (1988) 4 I.P.J. 121.
7. The debate on the relationship between the rights in the opening paragraph and those that are thereafter enumerated is not closed, but its interest seems to remain academic. Some consider that the two "groups" are mutually exclusive (see Claude Brunet, Copyright: The Economic Rights, in COPYRIGHT AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION LAW IN CANADA 129, 134-36 (Gordon F. Henderson ed. 1994) while others regard the enumeration as an illustration of the rights mentioned in the opening lines (see NORMAND TAMARO, LE DROIT D'AUTEUR : FONDEMENTS ET PRINCIPES, MONTREAL, 79-80 (1994).
8. The debate on the relationship between the rights in the opening paragraph and those that are thereafter enumerated is not closed, but its interest seems to remain academic. Some consider that the two "groups" are mutually exclusive (see Claude Brunet, Copyright: The Economic Rights, in COPYRIGHT AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION LAW IN CANADA 129, 134-36 (Gordon F. Henderson ed. 1994) while others regard the enumeration as an illustration of the rights mentioned in the opening lines (see NORMAND TAMARO, LE DROIT D'AUTEUR : FONDEMENTS ET PRINCIPES, MONTREAL, 79-80 (1994).
9. 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 46.
10. Dramatic Literary Property Act 1833, 3 & 4 Will. IV, c. 15, s. 1, The Sculpture Copyright Act 1814, 54 Geo. III, c. 56, s. 3; Copyright Act 1842, 5 & 6 Vict., c. 45, s. 15.
11. Karno v. Pathé Frères, Ltd., (1909) 100 L.T. 260, 262 (the supplier of a film to someone who is performing it is not authorizing the performance because it is not the servant or agent of the person who is performing the film).
12. Copyright Act, 1911, supra note 8, s. 1(2).
13. Falcon v. Famous Players Film Co.,[1926] K.B. 474, 491. See also Evans v. E. Hulton & Co., Ltd. (1924), [1923-1928] MacG. Cop. Cas. 51. 13 (1921), [1917-1923] MacG. Cop. Cas. 309.
14. Canadian Performing Right Soc'y, Ltd. v. Canadian Nat'l Exhibition Ass'n, [1934] O.R. 610; Canadian Performing Right Soc'y, Ltd. v. Canadian Nat'l Exhibition Ass'n, [1938] O.R. 476; Canadian Performing Right Soc'y, Ltd. v. Yee, (1943) 3 C.P.R. 64.
15. Performing Right Soc'y, Ltd. v. Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate, Ltd., [1924] 1 K.B. 1; de Tervagne v. Ville de Beloeil, [1993] F.C. 227.
16. Transatlantic Film Co, Ltd. v. Bolus (1919), [1917-1923] MacG. Cop. Cas. 111; Transatlantic Film Co., Ltd. v. Albion Cinema Supplies Co. (1919), [1917-1923] MacG. Cop. Cas. 118. But see Monckton v. Pathé Frères Pathephone, Ltd., [1914] 1 K.B. 395, at 403, an earlier case where it had been found that to sell a record implies an authorization to perform the musical work it embodies (per Buckley, L.J.). It is worth noting that Kennedy, L.J., bases his reasoning on the concept of secondary infringement. See infra, the developments accompanying notes 49-53.
17. Falcon v. Famous Players Film Co., supra note 12. The case is an interesting early example of the impact of new technologies on copyright. The public performance right had been assigned to the plaintiff in 1898, while the film rights had been sold to the defendants in 1919.
18. Composers Authors and Publishers Ass'n of Canada v. CTV Television Network, Ltd., [1968] S.C.R. 676.
19. Canadian Cable Television Ass'n v. Canada (Copyright Board), [1993] 2 F.C. 138, 155. The reasoning in this case appears dubious because it rests upon the premise that the subscriber (who in this context is most often a private individual in his home) causes a public performance. Perhaps it can be explained by the fact that, at the time the matter arose, the definition of "musical work" in the Canadian Copyright Act was still raising interpretation problems following the decision in Composers Authors and Publishers Association of Canada v. CTV Television Network Ltd. Id. 20 [1953] S.C.R. 182.
20. Id. at 189, per Rand, J.
21. [1945] A.C. 108.
22. Id. at 123. See in general P.D. Hitchcock, Home Copying and Authorization, (1983) 67 C.P.R. 17, who reviews both Muzak and Vigneux.
23. Evans v. E. Hulton & Co., Ltd., supra note 12; Underwriters' Survey Bureau, Ltd. v. Massie & Renwick, Ltd., [1938] 2 D.L.R. 31, aff'd on this point, [1940] S.C.R. 218 (the case which specifically approves the recourse to British case law on this matter); Wilden Pump & Eng'g Co. v. Fusfeld, (1985) 8 I.P.R. 250.
24. Keays v. Dempster, [1994] F.S.R. 554.
25. A & M Records, Inc. v. Audio Magnetics, Inc. (U.K.) Ltd., [1979] F.S.R. 1.
26. C.B.S. Songs, Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer Elects., Plc., [1988] 1 A.C. 1013.
27. For references to all the cases, see STANIFORTH RICKETSON, THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS & CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION §§ 9.575-9.610 (2nd ed. 1999).
28. [1940] A.C. 491.
29. The Corporation of the City of Adelaide v. The Australasian Performing Right Ass'n, Ltd., (1928) 40 C.L.R. 481.
30. Id. at 502.
31. (1990) 18 I.P.R. 663.
32. [1946] V.L.R. 338.
33. Supra note 22.
34. (1975) 133 C.L.R. 1.
35. Id. at 22-24.
36. WEA Int'l, Inc. v. Hanimex Corp., (1987) 10 I.P.R. 349, 364 (emphasis added). See also Australian Tape Mfrs. Ass'n, Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia, (1993) 25 I.P.R. 1, 4-5. But see the early British case of Fenning Film Serv., Ltd. v. Wolverhampton, Walsall & Distinct Cinemas, Ltd., [1914] 3 K.B. 1171, when the advertisement for unauthorized performances of films was considered an authorization to perform the films. 38 [1981] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 251.
37. Id. at 259.
38. Henley Arch Pty., Ltd. v. Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty., Ltd., (1998) 41 I.P.R. 443.
39. Nationwide News Pty., Ltd. v. Copyright Agency, Ltd., (1996) 34 I.P.R. 53.
40. Supra note 33.
41. Supra note 35.
42. Supra note 32.
43. See University of New South Wales v. Moorhouse, supra note 36; WEA Int'l, Inc. v. Haminex Corp., supra note 37; and the text accompanying those notes.
44. See in particular A & M Records, Inc. v. Audio Magnetics, Inc. (U.K.), Ltd., supra note 26; C.B.S. Songs, Ltd. v. Armstrad Consumer Elecs., Plc., supra note 27.
45. WEA Int'l, Inc. v. Hanimex Corp., supra note 37; Australian Tape Mfrs. Ass'n, Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia, supra note 37; RCA Corp. v. John Fairfax & Sons, Ltd., supra note 38.
46. The corresponding British provisions are sections 25 and 26 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 while the Australian one is section 39 of the Copyright Act 1968.
47. Copyright Act, s. 27(4); Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 24.
48. Emphasis added.
49. Supra note 30.
50. Supra note 32.
51. See supra, the cases in notes 13-23 and the accompanying text.
52. Performing Right Soc'y, Ltd. v. Ciryl Theatrical Syndicate, Ltd., supra note 15, at 12, per Scrutton, L. J. (emphasis added).
53. Falcon v. Famous Players Film Co., supra note 12, at 490, per Bankes, L.J.
54. Underwriters' Survey Bureau, Ltd. v. Massie & Renwick, Ltd., supra note 24, at 46.
55. Supra note 12.
56. Supra note 24.
57. Supra note 24.
58. Supra note 40.
59. Supra note 41.
60. Supra note 33.
61. Supra note 35.
62. See ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY, COPYRIGHT AND THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY - FINAL REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT, OTTAWA, March 1995, 10-13; M. Racicot, M.S. Hayes, A.R. Szibbo & P. Trudel, The Cyberspace is Not a "No Law Land" - A Study of the Issues of Liability for Content Circulating on the Internet, INDUSTRY CANADA, February 1997, at 233-34.
63. th) 417 [hereinafter Tariff 22].
64. Id. at 449.
65. th) 129, at 203.
66. Tariff 22, supra note 65, at 455.
67. id. at 458.
68. See in general Ysolde Gendreau, Le droit de reproduction et l'Internet, (1998) 178 R.I.D.A. 3.
69. Indeed, in June 1998 and in May 2000, the SODRAC, the collective society that administers reproduction rights, filed an application for a tariff for the reproduction of musical works on the Internet that would include "storing, hosting, caching, logging, mirroring, encoding . . . uploading, downloading, browsing and any other digital recording of a work." See Statement of Proposed Royalties to be Collected by SODRAC for the Reproduction, in Canada, of Musical Works in the Exploitation of an Electronic Network for the Years 1999 and 2000, available at http://www.cb.gc.ca/tariffs/i13061998-b.pdf.
70. Supra note 67.
71. Id. at 203.
72. See supra, the discussion accompanying footnotes 48-53.
73. Tariff 22, supra note 65, at 457.
74. Emphasis added.
75. Tariff 22, supra note 65, at 448.
76. Id. at 466 n. 46.
77. WIPO Copyright Treaty, Article 6(1).
78. Id. at Article 7(1).
79. Berne Convention, Article 8.
80. The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 1996 also uses the same language.
81. On this issue in general, see Alain Strowel, The Liability of Online Service Providers: Recent Developments in Europe and the United States, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 131 (Irini A. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8) ; Marie-Hélène Côté, La responsabilité des intermédiaires à l'égard des violations de droit d'auteur commises par des tiers sur l'Internet, (1997-1998) 10 C.P.I. 359; Y.F. Lim, Internet Service Providers and Liability for Copyright Infringement through Authorisation, (1997) 8 AUSTRALIAN I.P.J. 192; G.A. Bloom & T.J. Denholm, Research on the Internet: Is Access Copyright Infringement?, (1996) 12 C.I.P.R. 337.
82. On this issue in general, see Alain Strowel, The Liability of Online Service Providers: Recent Developments in Europe and the United States, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 131 (Irini A. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8) ; Marie-Hélène Côté, La responsabilité des intermédiaires à l'égard des violations de droit d'auteur commises par des tiers sur l'Internet, (1997-1998) 10 C.P.I. 359; Y.F. Lim, Internet Service Providers and Liability for Copyright Infringement through Authorisation, (1997) 8 AUSTRALIAN I.P.J. 192; G.A. Bloom & T.J. Denholm, Research on the Internet: Is Access Copyright Infringement?, (1996) 12 C.I.P.R. 337.
83. On this issue in general, see Alain Strowel, The Liability of Online Service Providers: Recent Developments in Europe and the United States, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 131 (Irini A. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8) ; Marie-Hélène Côté, La responsabilité des intermédiaires à l'égard des violations de droit d'auteur commises par des tiers sur l'Internet, (1997-1998) 10 C.P.I. 359; Y.F. Lim, Internet Service Providers and Liability for Copyright Infringement through Authorisation, (1997) 8 AUSTRALIAN I.P.J. 192; G.A. Bloom & T.J. Denholm, Research on the Internet: Is Access Copyright Infringement?, (1996) 12 C.I.P.R. 337.
84. On this issue in general, see Alain Strowel, The Liability of Online Service Providers: Recent Developments in Europe and the United States, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 131 (Irini A. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8) ; Marie-Hélène Côté, La responsabilité des intermédiaires à l'égard des violations de droit d'auteur commises par des tiers sur l'Internet, (1997-1998) 10 C.P.I. 359; Y.F. Lim, Internet Service Providers and Liability for Copyright Infringement through Authorisation, (1997) 8 AUSTRALIAN I.P.J. 192; G.A. Bloom & T.J. Denholm, Research on the Internet: Is Access Copyright Infringement?, (1996) 12 C.I.P.R. 337.
85. On this issue in general, see Alain Strowel, The Liability of Online Service Providers: Recent Developments in Europe and the United States, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 131 (Irini A. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8) ; Marie-Hélène Côté, La responsabilité des intermédiaires à l'égard des violations de droit d'auteur commises par des tiers sur l'Internet, (1997-1998) 10 C.P.I. 359; Y.F. Lim, Internet Service Providers and Liability for Copyright Infringement through Authorisation, (1997) 8 AUSTRALIAN I.P.J. 192; G.A. Bloom & T.J. Denholm, Research on the Internet: Is Access Copyright Infringement?, (1996) 12 C.I.P.R. 337.
86. Tariff 22, supra note 65, at 458.
87. Id.
88. See in general, Ysolde Gendreau, A Technologically Neutral Solution for the Internet: Is It Wishful Thinking?, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 1 (Irini I. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8).
89. See in general, Ysolde Gendreau, A Technologically Neutral Solution for the Internet: Is It Wishful Thinking?, in COPYRIGHT IN THE NEW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT 1 (Irini I. Stamatoudi & Paul L.C. Torremans eds. 2000) (Perspectives on Intellectual Property series, vol. 8).
90. See supra note 50 and the text that accompanies it.
91. Copyright Act, s. 27(2)-(5).
92. Copyright Act, s. 27(3), where this knowledge is immaterial in the case of importation.
93. Supra note 30.
94. Supra note 35 and the text that accompanies it.
95. The very same criteria were enacted for secondary infringements of moral rights in Australia. See the new section 195 AVA of the Copyright Act 1968.
96. Secondary infringements with respect to moral rights were introduced in Australia in 2000 (see id.) and in the United Kingdom in 1988 (see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), ss. 83, 84(4)-(7).