Industry Committee on Oct. 1st, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I call the meeting to order.

It's another fine Monday afternoon here. Welcome to INDU, where we are continuing our study of the five-year legislative review of the Copyright Act.

Today, from Telus Communications, we have with us Ann Mainville-Neeson, vice-president, broadcasting policy and regulatory affairs, as well as Antoine Malek, senior regulatory legal counsel.

From Association québécoise de la production médiatique, we have Hélène Messier, president and chief executive officer; and Marie-Christine Beaudry, director, legal and business affairs, zone three. That's exciting, zone three.

From the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, we have Marie-Josée Dupré, executive director, by video conference from Montreal. Can you hear me?

[Marie-Josée Dupré, Executive Director, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec]

Yes, very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Excellent.

Finally, from Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, we have Gabriel Pelletier, president, and Mylène Cyr, executive director.

I'll do my best.

Before we get started, Mr. Albas, I believe you have a notice of motion you'd like to present.

[Dan Albas, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses, and I'll make this very quick.

Obviously this is very timely. I'd like to table a notice of motion.

It reads as follows:

That, to assist in the review of the Copyright Act, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology requests Ministers Freeland and Bains, alongside officials, to come before the committee and explain the impacts of the United-States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on the intellectual property and copyright regimes in Canada.

Obviously this isn't something we can debate at this time. I do hope that members find it to be timely and that we can discuss this at an upcoming meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to go to presentations. Why don't we start with Telus Communications?

Ms. Mainville-Neeson, you have seven minutes.

[Ann Mainville-Neeson, Vice-President, Broadcasting Policy and Regulatory Affairs, TELUS Communications Inc.]

That's great. Thank you.

Just for a change, I'll make my presentation in English, but I'm happy to respond to any questions in French or in English.

Good afternoon, and thank you on behalf of Telus Communications for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

My name is Ann Mainville-Neeson, and I'm vice-president of broadcasting policy and regulatory affairs at Telus. With me is Antoine Malek, senior regulatory legal counsel at Telus and an intellectual property lawyer.

Telus is a national communications company. Whether it's connecting Canadians through our wireless and wireline businesses or leveraging the power of digital technology to enhance the delivery of health care services, we are committed to connecting with purpose, positioning Canada for success in the digital economy and enhancing economic, educational and health outcomes for all.

We provide a wide range of products and services, including wireline and wireless telephony, broadband Internet access, health services, home automation and security, and also IPTV-based television distribution. In light of earlier testimony that you received from other TV service operators, it is relevant to note that unlike our main competitors, Telus is not vertically integrated, meaning that we do not own any commercial programming services. We are purely an aggregator and distributor of the best content there is to offer.

In striving to be an aggregator of choice and the place where Canadians go to access content, we listen to our customers and we are constantly looking for better ways to meet and anticipate their needs and desires. We know that innovation is essential to competing in the digital environment, where consumers have more choice than ever before. We believe that innovation is essential in keeping the Canadian broadcasting system, which is a major source of income for Canadian artists, healthy and competitive. Accordingly, our remarks today are focused on amendments that would foster innovation by promoting efficiency and by increasing the resiliency of the act in the face of rapid change.

I want to start with one of the areas where amendments enacted in 2012 fell a little short on the innovation front. In 2012, Parliament adopted exceptions that would provide users with the right to record a program for later viewing. This recording can be made on their own device or on a network storage space. When the recording is made in the cloud, it is referred to as a network personal video recorder—NPVR—or sometimes cloud PVR.

While the 2012 amendments were a step in the right direction, the statutory language contemplates a discrete recording for each user. As a result, an NPVR service provider like ourselves might need to store hundreds of thousands—even millions—of copies of the same recording, one for each user who initiates a recording. That kind of excessive duplication is unnecessarily inefficient and costly for the network operator, and creates no value for the rights holder.

Innovation dictates leveraging the benefits of network efficiency by sharing a single recording of a program among all the users who initiated a time-shifted recording of that particular program. Telus recommends that the act be amended to allow this to happen without any additional liability being incurred by the network operator.

Looking to the future and other ways that the act can more broadly foster innovation and be adaptable to technological change, Telus recommends that the risks associated with innovation in the face of statutory ambiguity be distributed more evenly between rights holders and innovators. Specifically, we propose some changes to the statutory damages regime in the act.

Under the current rules, the potential liability posed by statutory damages can be completely detached from either the actual harms suffered by rights holders or any profits derived from an infringement. We recommend that the courts be empowered in all cases to adjust statutory damage awards to align them with the circumstances of the infringement. The courts are already empowered to do this, but in limited circumstances only. Evidence of bad faith should be required to justify statutory damages if they're disproportionate to the infringement. By ensuring that the punitive aspect of these awards is applied only in cases where it is appropriate and desirable to do so, the Copyright Act would no longer be discouraging innovation.

I would now like to turn to the notice and notice regime.

First, Telus agrees with other ISPs who have presented before you that notice and notice is a reasonable policy approach to copyright infringement because it balances the interests of rights holders and users. We also agree with proposals to mandate the form and the content of notices, especially to require them to be machine-readable so that the processing can be as close to fully automated as possible.

Telus also agrees with Minister Bains's earlier announcement that notices should not contain extraneous content, such as settlement demands, nor should they contain advertising on where to find legal content, as some have suggested. That is not the purpose of notice and notice.

Telus also echoes TekSavvy's proposal that ISPs be permitted to charge a reasonable fee for forwarding notices. This is not only a matter of fairness to ISPs, which are innocent third parties in copyright disputes; it would also address the potential for misuse of the regime. While the government has announced an intention to take steps to address misuse by prohibiting settlement demands, this doesn't address other forms of misuse, such as fraudulent notices or notices that include phishing links, which pose a security concern for consumers. Adding an economic cost to accessing the regime would go a long way towards minimizing its abuse.

Finally, Telus also proposes that the separate statutory damages provisions under notice and notice be amended to be harmonized with our proposals for amendments to the broader statutory damages regime under the act. Specifically, Telus proposes that under notice and notice, the courts should be given the discretion to lower a minimum award to ensure that it is proportional to any actual harm to rights holders, and that evidence of bad faith on the part of the non-compliant ISP be required to justify a disproportionate and punitive level of damages. Such an amendment would go a long way to helping ISPs deal with the significant and increasing costs that they are required to incur to help rights holders enforce their rights.

In closing, we thank the committee for its work in reviewing this important piece of legislation. Copyright is one of the key legal regimes that governs the digital markets of the modern economy, and we support its intent. In order to maximize the potential for Canada's digital economy, we believe the legislative framework must balance support for creators with the public interest in supporting innovation that leads to new technology and business possibilities for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Association québécoise de la production médiatique. Madame Messier.

[Hélène Messier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de la production médiatique]

Good afternoon.

I'll be giving my presentation in French.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Hélène Messier.

I am the president and chief executive officer of the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, or AQPM for short. Joining me is Marie-Christine Beaudry, director of legal and business affairs for Zone3.

Zone3 is one of the largest production companies in Quebec. It produces films, and its subsidiary Cinémaginaire recently produced the Denys Arcand film La chute de l'empire américain.

In the television arena, the company produces programs of all genres including series for youth like Jérémie, magazine programs such as Les Francs-tireurs and Curieux Bégin, variety shows such as Infoman and comedies such as Like-moi!

The AQPM brings together 150 independent film, television and web production companies, representing the vast majority of Quebec companies that produce audiovisual content for every screen in both French and English. The AQPM's members produce more than 500 films, television programs and webcasts watched by millions of people on every type of screen.

Our members are responsible for such film productions as the feature Bon Cop Bad Cop and Mommy—winner of the Jury Prize at the Cannes film festival and the César award for best foreign film—not to mention television programs La Voix, Fugueuse and the daily District 31, just to name a few. The commercial success of these productions is the envy of many.

In 2016-17, Canada's film and television production sector was valued at nearly $8.4 billion in total, generating more than 171,700 full-time equivalent jobs in both direct and indirect employment. Quebec's film and television production sector is worth $1.8 billion and generates 36,400 jobs.

We want to thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to its statutory review of the Copyright Act. Although the AQPM is concerned about a number of issues including piracy and the extension of the private copying levy to audiovisual works, our remarks today will focus on audiovisual copyright ownership.

Determining who the creator of a sculpture or song is may be straightforward, but it's a whole other story when it comes to an audiovisual work, be it a television program, film or web content. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works gives countries freedom in establishing copyright ownership of cinematographic works.

In Canada, the identification process began in the early 1990s but has been delayed ever since, leaving Canadian legislation silent on the issue. As a result, only the courts are empowered to identify who the author of a cinematographic work is on the basis of facts specific to that work. With few documented cases, no clear rule has emerged.

Many countries have opted to set out in their legislation how the author of an audiovisual work is identified. Countries with similar copyright philosophies to Canada's—the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand—have identified the producer as the sole copyright holder, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where both the producer and director are copyright owners.

Conversely, in Canada, not only are producers not recognized as copyright owners, but they are also forced to operate in an uncertain model when producing and using audiovisual works, managing all related risks. It is worth noting, though, that, in order to limit those risks, some clarification has been incorporated into collective agreements negotiated between unions, representing screenwriters, directors, music composers and performers, on the one hand, and the AQPM, representing producers, on the other. Generally speaking, the producer has rights and pays a fee or royalty for the use of those rights.

A question worth asking is whether “cinematographic work” is still the right designation for the wide range of audiovisual works dominating the sector today, including those intended for digital media. In the AQPM's view, the current definition of a cinematographic work is not technology-neutral since it refers to a traditional production technique—cinematography—as opposed to the actual work.

For that reason, the AQPM recommends that the new category “audiovisual work” be created. It would be defined as an animated sequence of images, whether or not accompanied by sound, and include cinematographic works.

The next question that arises is who the copyright owner of an audiovisual work is. The answer lies in characterizing the work somehow. Is it a work in and of itself, or is it a collaborative work or compilation that brings together a number of underlying works? Does the script or music, for instance, represent a whole that cannot be separated, or do a number of separate works make up a whole that is more than the sum of its parts? Who owns the copyright as far as that whole is concerned?

The AQPM maintains that the producer's role in the creative process and making of an audiovisual work dictates the recognition of the producer's creative contribution to the work. This would make the producer the owner of the copyright in the audiovisual work, and all related rights, without penalizing the creators of the underlying works. In that case, it would be important to specify that a corporation could be the first owner of copyright in the audiovisual work.

Ms. Beaudry will now explain why the producer should hold all rights to the audiovisual work, right from its infancy.

[Marie-Christine Beaudry, Director, Legal and Business Affairs, Zone 3 , Association québécoise de la production médiatique]

Good afternoon.

Being the producer of a cinematographic work is a whole art unto itself.

The producer can be thought of as the conductor of the cinematographic or audiovisual work. The producer is the only one present from the beginning of the work's creation to its delivery, and even after, during its use or exploitation. The producer has total control over the funding and management of the project, as well as the creative elements.

Not only by securing the funding, but also by selecting the artists involved throughout the process, the producer determines, guides and influences the content of the audiovisual work, be it a magazine, talk show, variety program, documentary or drama.

What's more, the producer participates in the actual creation of the cinematographic work through day-to-day involvement in the creative development process. When all is said and done, the producer is the final decision-maker, all the while respecting the prerogatives of screenwriters and directors.

Depending on the type of production in question, be it a work of fiction, a variety program, the recording of a concert or a documentary, the involvement of the artists, screenwriters, directors and composers will vary.

The components of the work will also vary: original or existing music, original script or book adaptation, film footage, existing artwork or the creation of original art. The combinations are endless, and many are those who can claim to be the author of any one of the elements that make up an audiovisual work.

It is essential that the producer be able to hold all copyright in the audiovisual work with total certainty. Not only does the producer play a vital creative role, but they are also solely responsible for respecting contractual obligations to third parties, including financing partners and the production team.

At the end of the day, the producer alone assumes the risk for any budget overruns that occur during production of the audiovisual work. The producer's involvement is absolute.

Today, it is nearly impossible to produce a cinematographic work without relying on tax-credit-based funding. In granting federal tax credits for cinematographic works, the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, known as CAVCO, stipulates in the application guidelines for its film or video production services tax credit that the producer be sole owner of global copyright in the work for the purposes of its use. This appears in the copyright ownership section.

Furthermore, nearly all funds for cinematographic production in Canada, not to mention bank financing in some cases, require the producer to be accredited by CAVCO, meaning that the producer must adhere to the requirement in order to access funding for production. Any change to the Copyright Act that awards copyright ownership to a third party would run counter to these funding requirements and undermine Canadian film production.

Once the work is completed, it is also the producer who determines, funds and manages the exploitation of the cinematographic work. To that end, certain elements are contracted out to third parties all over the world. The producer may decide to work alone or to go through a distributor or distribution agent.

The ways in which a cinematographic work can be exploited or used are many, and they require a myriad of copyrights in the work. That may include the distribution of the work in existing markets here, at home, or in other jurisdictions, the sale of a format based on the work, the marketing of merchandise and so forth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

My apologies, but I have to interrupt. You've been speaking for almost 11 minutes. Could you please wrap it up?

[Hélène Messier]

Yes, of course.

We have repeatedly called for a solution to address the uncertainty surrounding an audiovisual work. Should the government decide not to adopt our solution, it would have to make sure that each category of creator listed in the Copyright Act was not considered to be in conflict with existing collective agreements. The government would also need a presumption of law, similar to France, whereby the producer receives an assignment allowing the exploitation of all the rights in the work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I will now hand the floor over to Marie-Josée Dupré, from the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec.

You may go ahead for seven minutes.

[Marie-Josée Dupré, Executive Director, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to take part in these consultations.

My name is Marie-Josée Dupré, and I am the executive director of the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, better known as the SPACQ. Established 37 years ago, the SPACQ works to promote, protect and advance, in every possible way, the economic, social and professional interests of music creators—several thousand music writers across Quebec and French-speaking Canada.

The cultural sector is an important part of Canada's economy, but not all participants receive their fair share. Very often, music writers work in the shadows and are not necessarily feature artists. They are nevertheless the first link in a long chain of players, and usually the lowest paid.

I will now discuss the elements that are especially important in order for Canada to have copyright legislation that is simply adequate.

The first element is the duration of copyright. Further to yesterday's signing of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, or USMCA, we were pleased to learn that Canada will extend copyright protection to 70 years after the death of the author, as is already the case in the countries who are our main trading partners.

All of our creators will now be treated equally. The Copyright Act, however, contains a large number of exceptions, so limiting the number, interpretation and scope of those exceptions will be essential to preserve any gains from extending copyright protection to 70 years after the author's death. It would be very unfortunate if an overly broad interpretation of the existing exceptions were to chip away at compensation for the use of works.

The second element is the responsibility of platforms when it comes to user-generated content. We applaud the European Parliament's recent majority decision on the responsibility of content-sharing platforms, requiring royalties to be paid to creators and rights holders. Again, I would point out that, up until last night, Canada was one of the few countries, if not only one, to view such sharing of works as being exempt from responsibility.

It's time that lawmakers revisit their position and adopt appropriate measures. In other words, it's time to hold companies like YouTube—not to get too specific—responsible for payment of adequate royalties, given the content distribution on their platforms.

The third element is the private copying regime. Introduced in 1997, the system allows Canadians to copy whatever music they please for personal use; in return, authors receive royalties for those copies. The levy is supposed to apply to all audio recording media usually used by consumers.

Parliament's intent was clearly to create a regime that was technology-neutral, meaning one that would not become obsolete simply because of media advances. Unfortunately, in 2012, the regime's application was limited to blank CDs, a now outdated medium. Consumers, however, continued to make just as many copies of music on other types of audio recording media, including tablets and cell phones, which are not subject to the regime. Because of this restriction, creators are losing tens of millions of dollars in royalties.

Fixing this problem is paramount. The Copyright Act must clearly stipulate that the regime applies to all audio recording media, and the term “medium” must be interpreted broadly enough to cover all existing and not-yet-discovered media.

It is worth noting that companies with which creators do business set out in their contracts the ability to disseminate and copy creators' works by every known and not-yet-known means. Conversely, Parliament has curtailed creator compensation by amending a regime that cannot keep pace with technological advancement.

In addition, as far as the Copyright Board of Canada is concerned, it is essential that the process be simplified and that decisions be made more quickly so that creators can receive adjusted compensation, increased to reflect the situations under consideration, and so that users know where they stand within a reasonable time frame.

Waiting years for decisions hinders the effective application of levies by copyright collectives, and this is a major irritant for users. Keep in mind that these long wait times can mean that the use of levies at the source and related challenges are no longer the same, given the pace of technological change.

Above all, the government must ensure that the necessary resources are allocated to the board. As a result, the board will be more effective and will have a positive impact on both creators and consumer users.

In conclusion, the government must keep moving forward. It must recognize the value of the works used on a daily basis and ensure that the creators receive fair compensation. Otherwise, culture in general will suffer. Creators are at the heart of culture. Without creators, no content would be available.

Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

I'll now give the floor to Gabriel Pelletier, from the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec.

[Gabriel Pelletier, President, Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec]

I look forward to speaking to you, but I'll give the floor to Mylène Cyr.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have seven minutes.

[Mylène Cyr, Executive Director, Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec]

Mr. Chair and committee members, the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec is very pleased to be appearing today to discuss this important review of the Copyright Act. My name is Mylène Cyr, and I'm the executive director of the association. I'm joined by Gabriel Pelletier, the president of the association.

The ARRQ is a professional union of freelance directors. It has over 750 members, who work mainly in French and in the film, television and web fields. Our association defends the professional, economic, cultural, social and moral interests and rights of all directors in Quebec. The negotiation of collective agreements with various producers in one step taken by the association to defend the rights of directors and ensure respect for their creation conditions.

I'd like to discuss some of the goals mentioned by Minister Bains and Minister Joly in their letter to the chair of this committee: How can we ensure that the Copyright Act functions efficiently ... and supports creators in getting fair market value for their copyrighted content?

Finally, how can our domestic regime position Canadian creators ... to compete on and harness the full potential of the global stage?

As the Copyright Act stands, the determination of the creator of a work is primarily a question of fact. The act never specifies who the creator is. Film works, which are generally collaborative, are no exception. Canadian case law states that, if there are many candidates for the title of creator of the film work, the director and scriptwriter will generally be among them.

According to the principle issued by the Supreme Court, these creators clearly use their talent and judgment to create the film works. Under the act, the creators are the first owners of the copyright of the film works. However, certain sections of the act, in particular the sections that concern presumptions, generate some ambiguity in this area. This ambiguity prevents directors from obtaining fair market value for their rights. The SACD and SCAM brief states as follows:

When SACD-SCAM tried to negotiate general licences for the benefit of directors with certain users of audiovisual works, the users refused to negotiate on the basis of the legal uncertainty. Directors currently do not receive all the compensation to which they are entitled for the use of audiovisual works.

Recently, in our collective agreement negotiations, an association of producers questioned the ownership of the rights of freelance directors to film works. The effects of this ambiguity are particularly significant in a context where the broadcasting market is constantly evolving and where the market value of copyright must be able to evolve with it. It's therefore essential to give the market a clear chain of title that can be negotiated at its fair value for creators.

We find that it would be appropriate, as part of the review of the act, to clarify any ambiguity concerning the status and rights of the director and scriptwriter when it comes to film works in Canada. The ARRQ is proposing a simple amendment to the act that does not call into question the principles of the act or the current method of compensation, but that would resolve any ambiguity regarding the rights of freelance directors. We're submitting an amendment of section 34.1, which introduces presumptions respecting the copyright ownership of film works for the director and scriptwriter as co-creators of the film works.

This proposal, which the ARRQ supports, has been agreed upon by the SARTEC, WGC and DGC artists' associations. It also fulfills the objectives of the SACD-SCAM collective society.

[Gabriel Pelletier]

Mr. Chair and committee members, my name is Gabriel Pelletier. I'm not only the president of the ARRQ, but I'm also a director.

I'm very pleased to finally be able to speak to you today. I've been waiting many years for this moment.

In 2000, I directed a film entitled La vie après l'amour, which won the Billet d'or for the highest box office revenue in Quebec. The film even came in second place in terms of box office revenue in Canada in general. Its commercial success was obviously very profitable for the companies that distributed the film and for my producer's company.

I remember quite well the royalty amount that I obtained for directing the film, in Canada, because it's easy to recall. It's a round number, and even a very round number. It's zero dollars and zero cents. For the six films that I had the opportunity to direct in my career, a number of which generated $1 million in revenue, I obtained the same amount for my rights as a director in Canada. Yet, I've had no difficulty obtaining royalties in other countries in the Francophonie. Canada is the only place where the ownership of my rights as a director is contested and where I'm not given my fair share. As a result of ambiguity in the Canadian legislation, the SACD, which represents my rights, can't negotiate with the companies that use my works.

I'm not the only person in this situation. This is the case for all francophone directors whom I represent. No one is calling into question the rights of the other artists whom we direct to create our films or television programs, such as music composers or actors, who obtain neighbouring rights. So why are we calling into question the director's rights? Can we really claim that Xavier Dolan, Philippe Falardeau or Léa Pool don't leave an original mark on their works? That would be dishonest.

Like my director colleagues in Quebec, I'm a freelance artist. We all must cope with job insecurity in an extremely competitive environment. We must develop ideas and projects, and then pitch them to producers and finally to investors.

Only a few of these projects see the light of day. In many cases, we must work at a second job to fulfill our financial obligations when we aren't working on a project. Ensuring fair compensation for the distribution of our works is the best way to give us the financial peace of mind needed to continue doing what we do best, which is creating new works.

This is how we can harness our full potential and become competitive on the domestic and global stage, as suggested by Minister Bains and Minister Joly.

Committee members, today you have the opportunity to rectify a situation that has been undermining the key creators of film works, the directors and scriptwriters, in the representation of their rights. By simply clarifying the act and without betraying the act's principles, you can help these creators effectively contribute to the Canadian creative economy, while strengthening that economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you for your presentations.

We'll start the question period.

Mr. Graham, you have seven minutes.

[David de Burgh Graham, Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.]

Mr. Pelletier, I'd like to understand the “zero dollars” that you mentioned.

Could you explain the structure of a film crew and the distribution of revenue?

[Gabriel Pelletier]

There are different ways for directors to make money from copyright. They make money either through collective agreements, when licences are granted to the producer, or through broadcasters, when the work is used. These are all secondary markets, for example, and the reruns on television or digital platforms, at this time.

For instance, the Directors Guild of Canada, or DGC, works on a front-end basis. In other words, its members receive payments in advance, whereas francophone directors are generally paid at the back end of the project. We're therefore paid when the work is used. However, since broadcasters have been challenging the directors' ownership of copyright, they have refused to negotiate royalties for directors when the work is used.

The reason is that, in the past, directors were employees of broadcasters. Under Canadian law, the first owners of copyright were the employers. However, our market has changed, and broadcasters have outsourced the production of works to production companies. From that point on, we should have been the owners of copyright. We were supposed to negotiate an arrangement, but the companies refused to do so.

[David de Burgh Graham]

Okay.

Ms. Beaudry and Ms. Messier, would you like to respond?

[Hélène Messier]

Yes.

We aren't taking into account the initial fee paid to directors, which includes part of their use rights. Directors are then entitled to a portion of the producer's revenue for their residual payments.

If the director doesn't receive any revenue, the reason is that the producer, at the start, doesn't receive any revenue. If the director receives a percentage of the fees collected by the producer for use of the work on other platforms, for example, but the producer doesn't receive any revenue, the amount will be reduced if the director receives 4%, 5% or 10% of the amount obtained by the producer. I'd say that this is also the producer's problem. However, the initial fee is still a considerable fee that includes the director's rights for the first uses.

Ms. Beaudry, do you have anything to add?

[Marie-Christine Beaudry]

As producers, we have, for example, agreements with the SARTEC for scriptwriters. When the material is broadcast, scriptwriters receive from the SACD an amount that comes directly from the broadcasters.

In addition, the scriptwriters negotiated with us, the producers, the use and revenue from the use of the audiovisual work, and a right to access the economic life of the work. This means royalties of 4% or 5%, or on the basis of their specific negotiations with the producers.

The directors have the same right in our collective agreements where, according to the economic life of the work, they'll be associated with it. If the work is used elsewhere, they have access to royalties of 4%, 5% or more, depending on their direct negotiations with their producer. It's part of their collective agreement.

It must also be understood that there are different types of productions. In terms of audiovisual works, we're talking about both magazines and feature films. It's important to understand the wide range of situations that may arise when it comes to film works at this time. This must be kept in mind.

[David de Burgh Graham]

I don't have much time, Mr. Pelletier, but I think you would like to respond.