[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Key case restores copyright balance
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Key case restores copyright balance
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:03:26 -0700
- In-reply-to: <OFD7A6BB49.71AC8AAC-ON88256BA0.007AEAF5@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sorry to reply to my own message but Check it OUT!....
I'll try to pull out some juicy excepts later but it's an incredibly well
written and thought out opinion. The dissent(by half the justices...I'm not
familiar with the Ca. SC but it looks to be 6 members and the Chief justice
breaks ties. ) was pretty much handwaving arguing that because this NEW
technology wasn't mentioned in the contract with the makers of the prints, the
people who bought them and transferred them were infringing. The deciding
opinion deals with that one.
SOme of the more amusing aspects of the opinion were that they quoted US court
cases and then stated that Canada must be careful in this matter since there
are differences and I think I read a couple of hints that they think the USofA
is a bit off the beam.....and they will wait until the USofA gets its act
together....but check it out...better than the sunday paper over breakfast
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Key case restores copyright balance
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
Date sent: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:25:35 -0700
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Canada SC opinion is at
> It's about 41 pages long and just skimming through a couple of pages reads
> more entertaining than many of the USSC opinions.
> "R. A. Hettinga" <email@example.com> (by way of Arnold G. Reinhold)
> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 04/19/02 07:58 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Key case restores copyright balance
> Key case restores copyright balance
> By MICHAEL GEIST
> Thursday, April 18, 2002 - Print Edition, Page B16
> The view that Canada's copyright law tends to favour content creators may
> soon be put to rest in light of a recent Supreme Court copyright decision.
> The case involved a challenge by Claude Théberge, an internationally-known
> Quebec painter, against an art gallery that purchased posters of Mr.
> Théberge's work and proceeded to transfer the images found on the posters
> from paper to canvass.
> The gallery's technology was state of the art -- it used a process that
> literally lifted the ink off the poster and transferred it to the canvass.
> The gallery did not create any new images or reproductions of the work,
> since the poster paper was left blank after the process was complete.
> Mr. Théberge was nevertheless outraged -- he believed he had sold paper
> posters, not canvass-based reproductions -- and he proceeded to sue in
> Quebec court, requesting an injunction to stop the transfers as well as
> seizure of the existing canvass-backed images.
> Although the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the seizure, a
> divided Supreme Court overturned that decision, finding that the images
> were merely transferred from one medium to another and not reproduced
> contrary to the Copyright Act.
> In reaching its decision, the Court's comments regarding the importance of
> maintaining a fair copyright balance are particularly noteworthy.
> Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Ian Binnie stated that "the
> proper balance among these and other public policy objectives lies not
> in recognizing the creator's rights but in giving due weight to their
> limited nature . . . Once an authorized copy of a work is sold to a member
> of the public, it is generally for the purchaser, not the author, to
> determine what happens to it."
> Justice Binnie then continued to emphasize the dangers of copyright that
> veers too far toward copyright creators at the expense of the public. He
> noted that "excessive control by holders of copyrights and other forms of
> intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public domain to
> incorporate and embellish creative innovation in the long-term interests
> society as a whole, or create practical obstacles to proper utilization."
> Supporters of copyright reform have often sought to label their opponents
> as thieves looking for free music or pirated movies. With this decision it
> would appear that the opponents have been joined by a group not so easily
> dismissed: the Supreme Court of Canada.
> Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa Law School
> director of e-commerce law at the law firm Goodmans LLP. His Web site is
> Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.