Healing fair dealing? A comparative copyright analysis of Canada's fair dealing to U.K. fair dealing and U.S. fair use.

AuthorD'Agostino, Giuseppina

Given the owner-centred nature of current copyright regimes, many commentators are calling for greater consideration of user rights and, more particularly, the development of fair dealing, a legal doctrine that allows for certain uses of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner. Fair dealing in Canada has been criticized as weak and overly restrictive, applying only to works used for a closed list of purposes. The Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 decision in CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada (CCH), which elevated fair dealing from a set of exceptions to a user right, has strengthened fair dealing but has also created uncertainty about its scope.

To arrive at a better understanding of Canada's current fair dealing framework, the author presents a historical analysis of Canadian fair dealing and compares Canada's regime with those of the United Kingdom and the United States. Despite CCH's liberalizing effect, the doctrine remains somewhat restrictive, bur it also has features that render it more capable than its U.S. and U.K. equivalents of attaining the balance of interests that copyright regimes seek. U.K. fair dealing lags behind Canada: certain criteria have emerged from the case law consonant to Canada's pre-CCH framework and in many ways there is now a hierarchy of factors with market considerations at the fore. The concept of U.S, fair use, which theoretically allows any type of use to be "fair" and merely provides factors to assist courts in their decision-making, presents a more effective option, though it too has weaknesses and cannot simply be transplanted into another jurisdiction. Canada should rather seek to build on the distinctive features of its fair dealing regime, such as its policy preoccupations that avoid championing owners' rights, and factors for determining fair dealing that are more flexible than those in U.S. fair use. In doing so, the author cautions against eclipsing creators (who are seldom owners) and whose treatment may have become more ambiguous after CCH. The author suggests several ways of improving fair dealing. These solutions are not limited to legal reforms, but also involve grassroots approaches. Copyright best practices developed by users themselves are particularly promising, having already contributed to findings of fairness in CCH and other cases.

Vu la nature des regimes actuels de droit d'auteur, centres sur les interets des proprietaires, plusieurs auteurs reclament une mcilleure prise en consideration des droits des utilisateurs, plus particulierement un developpement approfundi du principe d'utilisation equitable, qui permet certaines utilisations des oeuvres protegees sans la permission du titulaire du droit d'auteur. L'utilisation equitable au Canada a deja ete critiquee comme etant faible et trop restrictive, s'appliquant seulement a du materiel utilise a certaines fins precises. La Cour suprime du Canada, avec sa decisiun de 2004 dans CCH Canadian Ltd. c. Law Society of Upper Canada (CCH), qui a eleve l'utilisation equitable d'une serie d'exceptions a un droit des utilisateurs, a renforce l'utilisation equitable mais a aussi eree de l'incertitude quand a sa portee.

Afin d'arriver a une meilleure comprehension du regime actuel d'utilisatiun equitable au Canada. l'auteure presente une analyse historique du principe et compare le regime canadien a ceux du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis. Malgre l'effet liberalisateur de CCH, le principe reste restrictif, bien qu'il possede aussi das caracteristiques qui le rendent mieux equipe a atteindre l'equilibre das interets que poursuit tout regime de droit d'auteur. L'utilisation equitable au Royaume-Uni tire de l'arriere par rapport a la situation au Canada : certains criteres issus de la jurisprudence sont semblables a ceux du regime canadien d'avant CCH et li y a maintenant une hierarchie de facteurs qui favorisent les considerations du marche. Le concept americain de >, qui permet theoriquement n'importe quelle type d'utilisation et ne foumit que das facteurs pour assister les tribunaux dans leurs decisions, pr'esente une option plus efficace, mais qui a aussi quelques faiblesses et qui ne peut simplement etre transplantee au sein d'une autre juridiction. Le Canada devrait plutot tenter de batir sur les caracteristiques distinctes du regime actuel d'utilisation equitable, comme certaines preoecupations qui evitent de promouvoir de facon excessive les droits des proprietaires, et sur des facteurs qui sont plus flexibles que ceux en vigueur aux Etats-Unis. L'auteure est prudente par sa volonte de ne pas eclipser los createurs, qui ne sont que parfois les proprietaires de leurs oeuvres et dont le traitement est devenu plus confus apres CCH. L'auteure suggere plusieurs facons d'ameliorer le regime. Ces solutions ne se limitem pas a des retormes juridiques, mais comprennent aussi des approches >, c'est-a-dire das > developpees par les usagers eux-memes et qui som particulierement pmmetteuses, ayant deja contribue a determiner qu'une utilisation est equitable dans CCH et plusieurs autres arrets.

Introduction I. Fair Dealing in Canada A. Legislative Context B. Analyzing CCH 1. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada a. Purpose (and Commercial Nature) of the Dealing b. The Character of the Dealing c. The Amount of the Dealing d. Alternatives to the Dealing e. Nature of the Work f. Effect of the Dealing on the Work 2. CCH Observations: User-centric Approach a. Defence to User Right b. Expanded Purposes c. Exceptions and Fair Dealing d. Constructing Fair Dealing--Infringement, Burden of Proof, Agency, and Institutional Practices e. Cautionary Note on CCH User-centric Policy 3. State of Judicial Play Before CCH a. Restrictive Interpretation b. Liberal Interpretation c. Motive d. Policy 4. Post-CCH: Have Courts and Tribunals Taken CCH's Lead? a. Copyright Board Decisions b. Note on the Educational Context II. Fair Dealing in the United Kingdom A. What Have the Courts Said on the Enumerated Purposes? 1. Research or Private Study 2. Criticism or Review 3. Current Events Reporting B. The Dealing Must be Fair C. Hierarchy of Factors III. Fair Use in the United States A. U.S. Legislation 1. Four Fair Use Factors a. The Purpose and Character of the Use, Including Whether Such Use Is of a Commercial Nature or Is for Non-Profit Educational Purposes b. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work c. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used in Relation to the Copyrighted Work as a Whole d. The Effect of the Use upon the Potential Market for or Value of the Copyrighted Work 2. "Other" Fair Use Factors a. Monopolistic and Competitive Practices (and Necessity) b. Industry Practices and Institutional Policies 3. Fair Use is "III" a. Limits of TEACH Act b. Reasons for Optimism: Best Practices IV. Comparative Assessment A. Hierarchy of Factors, Not Number of Factors 1. Purpose (and Cornmercial Nature) of the Dealing 2. Nature of the Work B. Other Factors and Best Practices Conclusions A. Do Nothing? B. Legisiate CCH Factors? C. Cherry-pick Other Laws? D. Fair Dealing Best Practices? E. Clarify Copyright Act? Clarify Policy Objectives? Introduction

The copyright doctrine of fair dealing could have made its first statutory appearance as early as 1842. It was 1842 when a fair dealing facsimile was introduced for debate in Parliament in the United Kingdom. If passed, clause 15 of the bill to amend the then-existing Copyright Act would have been the United Kingdom's first fair dealing provision "allow[ing] extracts [of copyrighted works] for purposes of 'criticism', 'judgement', or 'argument'." (1) However, this provision was eventually deleted before the bill arrived to the House of Lords because it was thought to impede the "general diffusion of literature" (2) and to be "entirely inconsistent with the public interest." (3) Today's view is much different: fair dealing is said to advance the general diffusion of literature and promote the public interest. (4)

This marked shift in thinking about copyright and the importance of fair dealing is understandable. Over the course of the years, there has been an expanse in copyright protection. Copyright owners have demanded more and more rights. Many scholars have tracked this expanse, pointing to more works subject to copyright protection (and subject to different types of intellectual property laws), longer terms of protection, and more grounds of (criminal) liability. (5) The law has not been the sole culprit: courts and invariably owners themselves through private ordering have fuelled this expansion. (6) Also, authors, the supposed initial owners of copyright, have been a functional and rhetorical stand-in for owners since typically they have assigned the bulk of their rights. (7) These developments are among those that have led some to call this expansion in copyright the "second enclosure movement" (8) or others to observe that we live in an "infringement nation." (9) As a result, largely facilitated by today's technological ease to network and communicate, there has been a push back by increasingly vocal "user" groups demanding "rights". (10) In Canada, this push has been manifested on many levels, but perhaps most forcefully against government, which has received calls for "fair" copyright reform. (11) With regard to reform, the focus has naturally fallen on the doctrine of fair dealing--within certain limits, what a user can do with a substantial part of a copyrighted work without permission of the owner. (12) So while copyright grants exploitation rights to owners of original works and, therefore, grounds to sue based on copyright infringement, "fair" copyright proponents argue that such rights should be balanced against user rights, and that fair dealing is the answer. (13) Indeed, the fair dealing doctrine is "a key part of the social bargain at the heart of copyright law, in which as a society we concede certain limited individual...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT