Evidence of meeting #3 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Chair of the Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators
Well, I wouldn't say that, but....
5:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:50 p.m.
Chair of the Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators
You're working for Hydro-Québec or a law firm and they give you a promotion, and they say they would like to tell people about you becoming a vice-president. They want a photograph, so you give him the photograph you gave your mother. The gentleman will say it was a non-commercial thing for him. He didn't make any money. He didn't sell it, rent it, or get one penny. It's true—it's non-commercial for him. For the photographer, normally the company would pay him for that kind of service, so it is a commercial thing for the photographer.
This is an example of when one photograph can be commercial and non-commercial at the same time. What do you do with that? We're saying that if it doesn't damage the business seriously, then you can do it. But if it damages a business in a big way, then there should be a limit. This has to be negotiated case by case.
5:55 p.m.
Co-President, National, Canadian Photographers Coalition
We're talking about financial damage or credibility damage. If somebody copies a picture poorly on a Xerox machine and my name is right across the front of it, I'm not going to like seeing it up there, because lots of folks are going to see it and think I'm a terrible photographer. It's things like this.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
I've been lenient with some, but, sorry, Mr. McColeman, not right now.
Mr. Benskin.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Workman, there was something that was rather intriguing about the context you created for the situation. As a person coming from Quebec, I'm almost reading this as a language issue as opposed to a technological issue. I remember back in the days when Quebec was pushing to have American films available to the francophone population. They passed a law saying that you could not release a film unless there was a French version available. It seems to me that helping the blind community with either video description or e-readers would be almost a language issue as opposed to a technological one.
Would you comment on that, if I'm way off base?
5:55 p.m.
National Director, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
No, I would absolutely agree. I think we're talking about discrimination here. These products could be accessible.
I'm not saying that they could be in every case. A very small publisher who is releasing only a few hundred copies of a work is probably not going to be in a position to do multiple formats in Braille, audio, and other things like that.
But in a large majority of the cases, the products could be accessible, and without causing an undue hardship, which is the test for violating human rights. So yes, I think we're absolutely talking about a violation of human rights here.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Okay. Thank you.
So some sort of movement to have that type of material as part of the choice of languages in a video.... For example, you would have French, English, Portuguese, Spanish, and descriptive video as part of the original package itself, as opposed to you having to go elsewhere and have this done after the fact.
5:55 p.m.
National Director, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
Yes. In the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, we always promote universal design—being able to access the same sorts of things in the same sorts of ways without needing special equipment or needing to go to a special service or organization. I think that's absolutely what we're looking for.
I don't expect that to come in the Copyright Act. I think it's a little beyond the scope of the Copyright Act. It would need to find its home in some other legislation, probably, but in the meantime, I think we can do some things to strengthen the exemption that we do have in the Copyright Act.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you.
To Mr. Cornellier and Mr. Boyle, first off, I understand your position. It's ironic that the photographers are the last people to get this.
As artistic director of a theatre company, I have commissioned about four or five works, and I have always made it a point to make sure the rights were always left with the playwright, with a sort of limited amount of right of first refusal on my part from the company, and—
5:55 p.m.
Chair of the Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
—so I guess we're all struggling a bit with the concept of defining commercial use. As an actor, for example, I will get photos made. It's almost on an honour system, because I will go to my photographer, he will print those up, and I will use those and credit him. When I run out, I go to him and get more, and I pay him for that.
There are others who will take that photograph and get four or five copies, and then go to a photo repro place to get the low-quality cardboard things made and use those. The photographer doesn't get any money for that.
So with regard to defining commercial use—I know you've been trying to, and members of the committee have been trying to give you time to do that—I'm going to let you try again to add a little more definition to that question.
6 p.m.
Chair of the Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators
Monsieur Thibeault...?
6 p.m.
Chair of the Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators
Basically, I can give you another example of that. I think it's easier when we have examples.
For a blog, let's say there's a woman sitting in her kitchen blogging about a recipe. She takes one photograph and puts it on her blog. It won't affect my business. It won't kill me. There would be no problem there.
But if it's a company blog.... Obviously, if the blog is made by a company, they're basically there to make money. Suddenly, that blog becomes commercial for me.
So you can have a blog that's non-commercial and you can have a blog that's commercial.
Also, there's another aspect of blogs. Let's say that woman is putting the material out there as non-commercial. She has the rights and she can do it. But if she tells everybody—which the law permits her to do—to reproduce it, at one point the photo on her blog will be all over the place and people can reproduce it and give that permission to others. At that point, I cannot sell my picture anymore, because it's already there for free.
So where's the limit for that? That's how we're trying to spell out that limit, by saying that if it damages my business.... If you just use it once, or twice, or a few times, and you do it with respect, there will be no damage. But at one point, there could be enough damage to my business—like the Napster example I gave earlier—that I would lose half of my business.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here today and for your testimony.
I was pretty proud. I was looking through here, and I saw that my cousin, John Beesley, is one of the photographers who's featured in your book, so that really got my attention. Now I have to hang on your every word.
I know John, like 95% of your members, is a small business person, and small business is something we care very much about. We want to ensure that we reduce the frustrations that small businesses have. We spoke a bit about the unique challenges that photographers face in Canada when it comes to protecting their work.
Can you describe to us some of the frustration now before this bill gets passed, and how you see life for the photographer and the customer after the bill gets passed. We all value the work photographers do, whether it's wedding or graduation photographs. Photographs and good photographers capture the most important times in our lives. I know we certainly hear about it when we feel it wasn't a good photograph, but likewise when it's a great photograph, it's something we cherish.
To each of you, from a customer's perspective of these small business people, how are things going to be different after the bill passes?
6 p.m.
Chair of the Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators
From a customer's point of view, at this point there are two ways. Either they own the work when they commission it, or there's a contract that negotiates how it's going to work.
With the new law, we're approving the fact that the customer can use it for private use. Private use is never a problem. Private use is never commercial. Private is within the families, within a certain...and we have no problem with private at all. I don't see a place where it would cause a problem. Within your family, within a few friends, it doesn't affect my business that much. It's the non-commercial part.
Most clients will use it in the private sector, let's say, and they will be pleased to do that, and we have no problem with that. It will help them to do that. It's clear in the law that it's possible for them to use it.
Our problem is more in the non-commercial sector where it could go commercial and non-commercial. Most people in their private life won't be affected by that. That's why we want to correct that for other people who will go into the non-commercial space—as I said, a lawyer who wants to be promoted—it's definitely for a commercial space. Promotion of a product, and promotion of a person, is commercial.
It will now very easily give the person the ability to use it in a private space. That's a given for them and we have no problem with that. We're good with that.
6:05 p.m.
Co-President, National, Canadian Photographers Coalition
It also gives us the support of the law by providing photographers with first copyright in their works.
