Evidence of meeting #119 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was materials.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
Yes. That's pretty well an internationally accepted principle. I don't have a problem with that one at all.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Okay, that's why I asked.
We talked a lot about 50 years after the creation, of life plus 50 years. Is it appropriate for copyright to survive the life of the creator in the first place? On what basis do we have this system, in your view, in which copyright lasts longer than the person who created it?
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
The history of copyright, if you look at it, is a long one. It started out as a very short time period, then it has crept up. Archivists certainly believe that the period of protection, as it stands now, should not be extended. People's work needs to be properly recompensed.
Archives are a place where that balance in the act between creator and user is an everyday occurrence. The people who deposit their materials into the archives are creators. The users come to use those materials. We walk that line of balance every day, and I do believe that the term of protection, as it stands now, as an international standard, is a fair one, life plus 50, and that is the international standard.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It is the international standard, but if you were drawing your own rules, would it be 50 years, 25 years, or at death that the copyright ends?
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
I don't think it's unfair. That's a personal opinion. I can't speak for all archivists about that.
I think that with creative commons and the ability to waive your copyright, it's perfectly legitimate. If you want to make things openly accessible, it's very easy now to do so.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's fair.
In speaking of the creative commons and waiving copyright, I think it's a good segue into crown copyright, which is a topic that I find really fascinating, and a lot of people have never heard of it. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act prevents government-created material from being copyrighted.
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
It's absolutely open and free.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's right. It's public demand.
Is that the correct model for Canada?
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
We have crown corporations, and I think there are some issues around crown corporations that need to be addressed. I think it's a little more complicated here.
The British model is a little bit different from completely open. That's why I think we need a proper sit-down and investigation with stakeholders to look at what the issues are and try to come up with reasonable solutions. For heaven's sake, let's do it and stop talking about doing it.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Let's do something.
What in the British model should we emulate, in your opinion?
4:20 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
There are different provisions. It's a little more nuanced than absolutely open copyright for everything. I think that nuance is more suitable for our environment.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Have you ever had material that you couldn't archive because of copyright rules? Can you give examples to illustrate that?
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
The example that I gave is one of those situations where you have the thing physically in your hand. It's going to disappear because the CD is deteriorating, and there's nothing you can do legally to make it available for the long term. It's ridiculous.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Yes. I was a staffer the last time this topic came up, and I was working for the critic at the time during the 2013 reform. I remember learning at the time that the national archives had apparently lost about 80% of the videotape of Parliament prior to 2005.
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
Audiovisual materials are a big issue. Anything that's not in your hand that you can see is definitely problematic. Definitely the AV materials are an issue, but we have the right to reformat those audiovisual materials, as long as they're not protected by a TPM. If it's under digital lock, we can't reformat. If it's not under digital lock, we already have the right in the act to reformat it. Whether we have the funding to do that is another matter.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Is offshoring of material to circumvent copyright happening a lot? Is that a method to protect materials?
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
I don't think so. Not that I know of. I can't imagine how that would work.
The international framework with the international treaties is such that work is protected no matter where it is.
4:25 p.m.
Special Advisor, Copyright, Canadian Council of Archives
The rules are slightly different, but if you go to the U.S., the terms of protection are life plus 70 rather than life plus 50. You wouldn't be gaining much by going offshore. I can't imagine....
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
No, but they also have much looser fair use rules than our fair dealing rules, and if you look at—