TORONTOâEveryone agrees that the Copyright Board needs fixing. A Senate committeeÂ recommended a full review in 2016. The government acted on the recommendation by convening a public consultation and received numerous submissions.
One of the governmentâs options to make the board more effective is to harmonize the availability of statutory damages so they are available to all creators represented by collectives and not only those represented by the performing rights societies SOCAN and Re:Sound, the music licensing company.
Michael Geist (âSnatching defeat from the jaws of victory,â The Hill Times, June 4, 2018) opposes harmonization. His opposition does not withstand scrutiny.
He claims that removing the discriminatory treatment between classes of collectives would pre-empt the work of the Industry Committee doing the mandatory copyright review. But, the government is approaching copyright reform on two tracks and harmonizing statutory damages is squarely within the Copyright Board consultation. The consultation paper specifically asked whether the different collective administrative regimes could be harmonized and specifically whether the statutory damages regime should apply to all collectives.
Both ministers in charge of copyright stated that a goal of the Copyright Board’s reform is to get creators paid faster. Heritage Minister MĂ©lanie Joly stated: âwe will reform the Copyright Board to ensure that we âŠ pay our artists faster and reduce costs for all partiesâ and also to âenable creators to efficiently access âŠstable streams of revenue.â Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains emphasized reforms to provide âan efficient, transparent, stable and predictable regulatory environment.”
Understanding the fundamental link between mechanisms that lead to a tariff being set by the board and the ability to predictably collect royaltiesâand in response to the governmentâs specific question as to whether all collectives should be treated equallyâcreators supported harmonization.
Geist suggests that only Access Copyright wants harmonization. In fact, it was supported by collectives and industry groups representing creators from Quebec and across Canada and from the spectrum of the cultural industries including program producers, visual, and media artists, music artists, performers, composers, publishers, and makers of sound recordings, and authors and publishers of books.
Geist argues that the proposal would have âa dramatic impact on substantive copyright issues such as fair dealing.” That is just wrong. When setting tariffs the board doesnât include royalties for uses of works covered by fair dealing.
Geist incorrectly claims that harmonization threatens âto create massive liability risks for some copyright stakeholders.” Users can appear before the board to oppose a tariff, argue that dealings are fair dealings, or for a lower royalty. Once a tariff is certified, users know what has to be paid. The integrity and respect for the board process is undermined if creators wait years for a tariff to be certified and still canât get paid.
When statutory damages were first introduced into law the government published a fact sheet. It explained, contrary to Geistâs claims, that statutory damages provide deterrents against infringement, better compensate copyright owners, ease the evidentiary burden in infringement proceedings, reduce the costs of litigation, and encourage settlements. The additional rational for statutory damages for collectives included âto encourage users to obtain the appropriate licences beforehand.”
The technical lacuna in the existing regime unfairly discriminates against creators represented by collectives that are not performing rights societies. Geist argues this can be justified because only latter collectives are compelled to apply for tariffs. But the distinction between collective types is one without a material difference.
First, the tariff process is compulsory for CRC. Second, in both regimes the copyright holder has the option to sue for infringement if a user refuses to pay the tariff or the collective can sue for payment of royalties under the tariff; the only difference in the regimes is that the performing rights societies must first file tariffs. In both cases, copyright holders cannot sue a person for infringement who has paid or offered to pay the applicable tariff. Third, for all practical purposes creators have to rely on the collective regime. Many donât have the resources to track down or negotiate licenses with thousands of users for thousands of works, especially with the explosion of uses arising from digitation and the internet.
Joly and Bains established the Copyright Board consultation to help creators get paid faster. The harmonization of statutory damages would help accomplish that.
Barry Sookman is a senior partner in the Technology Law Group of McCarthy TĂ©trault LLP. He is also an adjunct professor of intellectual property law at Osgoode Hall Law School.
The Hill TimesÂ