Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc. et al., 2002 SCC 34

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 28, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2002 SCC 34;(2002), 285 N.R. 267 (SCC);23 BLR (3d) 1;[2002] SCJ No 32 (QL);[2002] 2 SCR 336;285 NR 267;17 CPR (4th) 161;210 DLR (4th) 385

Théberge v. Galerie d'Art (2002), 285 N.R. 267 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. MR.024

Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc., Galerie d'Art Yves Laroche inc., Editions Multi-Graph ltée, Galerie d'Art Laroche, Denis inc. and Serge Rosa (appellants) v. Claude Théberge (respondent)

(27872; 2002 SCC 34)

Indexed As: Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and LeBel, JJ.

March 28, 2002.

Summary:

Théberge, a painter, authorized É.G.I. to make paper posters out of certain of his works. Some art galleries bought posters and, by a chemical process, had the ink lifted from each poster and transferred to a canvas backing for purposes of resale. Thé­berge, alleging infringement of his moral rights under the Copyright Act and its poten­tial impact on the market for his works, brought an action against the art galleries and one individual. Théberge sought an injunction, an accounting and damages. Théberge obtained a writ of seizure before judgment to seize the canvas-backed repro­ductions. The defendants moved to quash the seizure.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported J.E. 99-1991, granted the motion. Théberge appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 9 C.P.R.(4th) 259, allowed the appeal. The defendants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Gonthier, L'Heureux-Dubé and LeBel, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court held that the defendants did not "copy" Théberge's works, nor was there production (or reproduction) of a new artistic work "in any material form" within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Copy­right Act. The court also held that Théberge did not bring himself within s. 38 of the Copyright Act, which authorized a copyright owner to seize before judgment all infringing copies and plates used to make the infringing copies, as if the copies or plates were the property of the copyright owner.

Copyright - Topic 602

Nature of copyright - Reproduction - What constitutes - Certain art galleries bought authorized poster reproductions of a paint­er's works - Using a chemical process, the galleries had the ink lifted from each post­er and transferred to a canvas backing for purposes of resale - The original poster was left blank and there was no increase in the total number of reproductions - The painter alleged infringement of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, sued the galleries and had the canvas-backed repro­ductions seized before judgment - The defendants moved to quash the seizure - It was proposed that the subsequent non-original material fixation of a first original material fixation constituted reproduction under s. 3(1) and, as a result, infringement of copyright - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that proposal and quashed the seizure - The court stated that this proposal's expansive reading of the s. 3(1) economic rights tilted the balance too far in favour of the copyright holder and insufficiently recognized the proprietary rights of the defendants in the physical posters which they purchased - Adoption of this expanded interpretation would introduce toe "civiliste" conception of "droit de destination" into our law without any basis in the Copyright Act itself, and blur the distinction between economic and moral rights imposed by Parliament - See paragraphs 24 to 75.

Copyright - Topic 603

Nature of copyright - Economic right - [See Copyright - Topic 602 ].

Copyright - Topic 4545

Infringement of copyright - Acts not con­stituting an infringement - Ink transfers - Certain art galleries bought authorized poster reproductions of a painter's works - Using a chemical process, the galleries had the ink lifted from each poster and trans­ferred to a canvas backing for purposes of resale - The original poster was left blank and there was no increase in the total number of reproductions - The painter alleged infringement of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, sued the galleries and had the canvas-backed reproductions seized before judgment - The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the seizure - The court held that the defendants did not "copy" the painter's works, nor was there production (or reproduction) of a new artistic work "in any material form" within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Act - The court also held that the painter did not bring himself within s. 38 of the Act, which authorized a copyright owner to seize before judgment all infringing copies and plates used to make the infringing copies, as if the copies or plates were the property of the copyright owner - See paragraphs 1 to 80.

Copyright - Topic 4587

Infringement of copyright - Remedies - Seizure before judgment - [See Copyright - Topic 4545 ].

Copyright - Topic 4587

Infringement of copyright - Remedies - Seizure before judgment - Certain art galleries bought authorized poster repro­ductions of a painter's works - Using a chemical process, the galleries had the ink lifted from each poster and transferred to a canvas backing for purposes of resale - The original poster was left blank and there was no increase in the total number of reproductions - The painter alleged infringement of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, sued the galleries and had the canvas-backed reproductions seized before judgment - The procedure used for the seizure before judgment was the one found at arts. 734 and following of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure - The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the seizure - The court held that seizure before trial was not a remedy available in an action based on the alleged breach of the artist's moral right in a work - See para­graphs 10, 76 to 79, 117 to 135.

Cases Noticed:

Blue Crest Music Inc. et al. v. Compo Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357; 29 N.R. 296, refd to. [paras. 5, 113].

R. v. Stewart, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 963; 85 N.R. 171; 28 O.A.C. 219; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 5, 113].

Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467; 111 N.R. 376, refd to. [para. 5].

Bishop v. Stevens - see Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc.

Morang and Co. v. LeSueur (1911), 45 S.C.R. 95, consd. [para. 16].

Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. (1982), 70 C.P.R. (2d) 105 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 17].

Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr. 2303; 98 E.R. 201, consd. [para. 30].

Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. v. Massie & Renwick Ltd., [1937] Ex. C.R. 15, consd. [para. 42].

Underwriters' Survey Bureau Ltd. v. Massie & Renwick Ltd., [1940] S.C.R. 218, consd. [para. 42].

Tom Hopkins International, Inc. v. Wall & Redekop Realty Ltd. (1984), 1 C.P.R. (3d) 348 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Fetherling v. Boughner (1978), 40 C.P.R. (2d) 253 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 43].

No Fear, Inc. v. Almo-Dante Mfg. (Cana­da) Ltd. (1997), 76 C.P.R. (3d) 414 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Walter v. Lane, [1900] A.C. 539 (H.L.), consd. [para. 44].

Apple Computer Inc. et al. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. et al. (No. 1), [1987] 1 F.C. 173; 3 F.T.R. 118 (T.D.), affd. [1988] 1 F.C. 673; 81 N.R. 3 (F.C.A.), affd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 209; 110 N.R. 66, refd to. [para. 45].

Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1997] 2 F.C. 306; 124 F.T.R. 192; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 348 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. (1988), 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 55].

Crim., January 28, 1888, Bull. crim., No. 46, p. 68, refd to. [para. 63].

Crim., December 2, 1964, Bull. crim., No. 320, p. 672, refd to. [para. 63].

Crim., October 7, 1977, Bull. crim., No. 315, p. 801, refd to. [para. 63].

Civ. 1re, May 5, 1976, Bull. civ., No. 161, p. 128, refd to. [para. 63].

Paris, March 18, 1987, D. 1988.Somm.209, note Colombet; Civ. 1re, April 19, 1988, Bull. civ., No. 112, p. 76, refd to. [para. 63].

Paris, April 27, 1945, Gaz. Pal., 1945, p. 192, refd to. [para. 63].

Hovener/Poortvliet, HR January 19, 1979, NJ 412 (Neth. S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Frost and Reed v. The Olive Series Pub­lishing Co. (1908), 24 T.L.R. 649, refd to. [para. 64].

C. M. Paula Co. v. Logan (1973), 355 F.Supp. 189 (U.S.D.C. Tex.), consd. [para. 66].

Peker v. Masters Collection (2000), 96 F.Supp.(2d) 216 (N.Y.D.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Lee v. A.R.T. Co. (1997), 125 F.(3d) 580 (7th Cir. C.A.), consd. [para. 72].

King Features Syndicate, Inc. v. O. and M. Kleeman, Ltd., [1941] A.C. 417 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 73].

Thériault v. Succession de Rémi Thériault, [1977] C.S. 1120 (Que.), consd. [para. 77].

Tri-Tex Co. v. Gideon, [1999] R.J.Q. 2324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

2946-1993 Québec Inc. v. Sysbyte Tele­com Inc., J.E. 2001-1143 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 102].

Stopponi v. Bélanger, [1988] R.D.J. 33 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Molloy v. Bouchard, [1990] R.J.Q. 1941 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 108].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 113].

Cartwright v. Wharton (1912), 25 O.L.R. 357 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

Stevenson v. Crook, [1938] Ex. C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 115].

L.B. (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd., [1979] R.P.C. 551 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 115].

Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 W.L.R. 273 (H.L.), consd. [para. 152].

King Features Syndicate Inc. v. O. and M. Kleemann, Ltd., [1940] 2 All E.R. 355 (Ch. D.), consd. [para. 153].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1425, art. 1426, art. 1427, art. 1429, art. 1431 [para. 167].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, art. 734(1), art. 734(5) [para. 89].

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, sect. 2 [para. 89]; sect. 3(1) [para. 12]; sect. 3(4) [para. 17]; sect. 13(4) [para. 163]; sect. 14.1, sect. 14.2, sect. 27(1), sect. 28.1 [para. 89]; sect. 28.2 [para. 17]; sect. 34(1), sect. 38(1) [para. 89].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Belleau, Charles, Des mesures provision­nelles, in Ferland, Denis, and Emery, Benoît (dir.), Précis de procédure civile du Québec, (3rd Ed. 1997), vol. 2, pp. 303 [para. 109]; 307 [para. 108].

Braithwaite, William J., Derivative Works in Canadian Copyright Law (1982), 20 Osgoode Hall L.J. 191, p. 203 [para. 73].

Brunet, Claude, Ĉopyright: The Economic Rights, in National Judicial Institute (Gordon F. Henderson, ed.), Copyright and Confidential Information Law of Canada. (1994), 129, pp. 136 to 137 [para. 48].

Carrière, Laurent, Voies et recours civils en matière de violation de droits d'auteur au Canada, in Service de la formation permanente, Barreau du Québec, Dé­veloppements récents en droit de la prop­riété intellectuelle (2001), 395, pp. 469 to 470 [para. 110].

Cohen, Amy B., When Does a Work In­fringe the Derivative Works Right of a Copyright Owner? (1999), 17 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 623, p. 654 [para. 55].

Colas, Émile, Le droit moral de l'artiste sur son oeuvre (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 521, generally [para. 120].

Gendreau, Ysolde, Moral Rights, in Na­tional Judicial Institute (Gordon F. Henderson, ed.), Copyright and Confi­dential Information Law of Canada (1994), p. 171 [para. 59].

Goudreau, Mistrale, Le droit moral de l'auteur au Canada (1994), 25 R.G.D. 403, generally [para. 120].

Herman, Jonathan, Moral Rights and Cana­dian Copyright Reform: The Impact on Motion Picture Creators (1989-1990), 20 R.D.U.S. 407, p. 411 [para. 119].

Howell, Robert G., Vincent, Linda, and Manson, Michael D., Intellectual Proper­ty Law: Cases and Materials (1999), p. 383 [para. 59].

Laddie, Hugh, et al., The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (3rd Ed. 2000), vol. 1, para. 1.2 [para. 25]; p. 614 [para. 64].

Lucas, A., and Lucas, H.-J., Traité de la propriété littéraire & artistique, 1994, p. 235 [para. 63].

McKeown, John S., Fox Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 3 [para. 30]; 60 [para. 115]; 64 [para. 73]; 426 to 427 [para. 165]; 667 [para. 127].

Moyse, Pierre-Emmanuel, La nature du droit d'auteur: droit de propriété ou monopole? (1998), 43 McGill L.J. 507, p. 562 [para. 116].

Pagnol, Marcel, Préface, in Boncompain, Jacques, Le droit d'auteur au Canada: Étude Critique (1971), p. 9 [para. 112].

Pollaud-Dulian, Frédéric. Le droit de des­tination: Le sort des exemplaires en droit d'auteur, 1989, generally [para. 63].

Richard, Hugues G., et al., Canadian Copyright Act, Annotated (1993) (loose-leaf ed.), vol. 3, p. 3-7 [para. 48].

Stewart, Stephen, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 7 to 8 [para. 122].

Strowel, Alain, Droit d'auteur et copyright - Divergences et convergences: Étude de droit comparé. Paris, 1993, pp. 19 to 20 [para. 62].

Tamaro, Normand, Le droit d'auteur: Fondements et principes (1994), pp. 5 [para. 113]; 84 [para. 145]; 93 [paras. 143, 151].

Vaver, David, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks (1997), p. 22 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Marzia Frascadore, for the appellants Galerie d'Art Yves Laroche inc. and Éditions Multi-Graph ltée;

Vincent Chiara, for the appellants Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc., Galerie d'Art Laroche, Denis inc. and Serge Rosa;

Louis Linteau, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants Galerie d'Art Yves Laroche inc. and Éditions Multi-Graph ltée;

Chiara & Associates, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc., Galerie d'Art Laroche, Denis inc. and Serge Rosa;

Laurin, Lamarre, Linteau & Montcalm, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 11, 2001, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on March 28, 2002, and the following reasons were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 80;

Gonthier, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and LeBel, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 81 to 181.