Julianna Yau’s blog

The internet has been raging with bill C-10, which seems to have become the new media baby now that the government is dragging its feet with releasing the proposed copyright legislation.

Geist is surprisingly brief on his coverage of the activity, with a mere mention and pointing people to one of the anti-C-10 Facebook groups.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts issued a press release on the matter (I’m linking to my own blog because I can’t find it on their website), as did ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada.

Trying to read through the entire bill is a nightmare, and I’m grateful to “FF Canuck” for finding the relevant text in the bill. The offending text, in short, is that “public financial support of the production [of a Canadian film or video] would not be contrary to public policy”.

While I agree with some criticisms that this isn’t necessarily or specifically a censorship clause, anyone who reads between the lines (or any of the articles covering the issue) knows its intent is to facilitate censorship. It’s chillingly familiar to the undertones of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and it’s no wonder everyone is aghast.

Just what exactly is “contrary to public policy”? What exactly is “public policy”? Who decides what “public policy” is and whether a work is contrary to it?

Surely the Canadian government shouldn’t be allowing hateful propaganda, but where do we draw the line…and, more importantly, from where do we draw the line? As others have noted, other provisions are in place to ensure that works which violate human rights are not allowed to be distributed. Is it really the place of the governmental branch in charge of tax credits to determine whether a film should be funded?

Related posts

• C-10 - Missing the point? (0)
• More on C-10 (1)
• Digging deeper into C-10 (0)
• Continuing C-10 Drama (0)
• C-10 Opposition Still Going Strong (0)

Ottawa, February 29, 2008 - The National Director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA), Alain Pineau, has issued a statement today asking why further regulations for the content of publicly funded films and television productions are necessary.

Mr. Pineau notes that the debate for now should be focused on the adequacy of existing controls already in place in Canadian law. The CCA will wait until all the details are available before commenting on the proposed changes and the manner in which the reported review panel will operate.

The Criminal Code already contains provisions that deal with pornography, child pornography, the promotion of hate, slander, libel, advocating crime and sundry other elements which have proved adequate in the past to deal with these offences.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued rulings clarifying some of these activities such as pornography (Butler decision), child pornography (Robin Mitchell Sharp decision) , hate crimes (Zundel decision), etc. These decisions are steeped in rigorous research and prove how difficult it is to rush to judgment based on mere idiosyncratic and personal opinions.

The CCA is concerned that these “content tests” may be required by other funders of film and television productions, or for productions in other media, for example from publishers who produce controversial novels, poems or plays; from sound recording companies who produce music where lyrics are deemed objectionable, or other forms of artistic or cultural expression.

The CCA has asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Hon. Josée Verner, and her officials to proceed with extreme caution and prudence in effecting revisions to the manner in which such decisions are made. The letter recalls that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of expression, should be ardently and tirelessly defended by the Minister responsible for Canadian artistic and cultural expression.

The CCA will issue further commentary on this issue when the documentation is made available by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) is the national forum for the arts and cultural community in Canada. It provides research, analysis and consultations on public policies affecting the arts and the Canadian cultural institutions and industries. The CCA fosters informed public debate on policy issues and seeks to advance the cultural rights of Canadians.

- 30 -

Related posts

• Canadian Conference of the Arts on BDU Hearings at the CRTC (0)

The Art Law Blog is questioning whether a sticker on the back of a driver’s license is sufficient to donate to the public domain. What I find amusing (sorry, Zaretsky), is the question is probably exactly what the artists behind the Public Domain Donor stickers wanted.

Like the recent Obay campaign, I think we’re starting to see that people and companies are so seriously over-the-top that it’s difficult for us to determine when something is to be taken seriously.

Related posts

• The Responsibility of Preserving Public Art (0)
• Playing catch-up (0)
• Oil Drilling near The Spiral Jetty (0)
• My letter against the proposed drilling near The Spiral Jetty (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part two: the discussion (0)

With the people they have lined up for this panel, this will prove to be an interesting and heated discussion. What will be interesting is the specific focus on media arts (keeping in mind that all art forms work a just differently enough for it to be problematic to treat them all the same).

A panel including: Jonathan Culp, Johanna Householder, Jonathan Sommer and Laura Murray
Date: Sunday, April 6 at 2:30 pm
Location: at Trinity Square Video, 401 Richmond St. West, Suite 376
Co-presented by the Images Festival

Related posts

• You know what they say about assuming… (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part two: the discussion (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part three: my thoughts (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part one: the presentation (0)
• Writing to government about a copyright inquiry (2)

The Art Law Blog picked up on another story about resold “trash”. In this case, an artist has disposed of their work, and it was resold by another artist. Although the second artist isn’t claiming creative rights to the work, the question which remains is: does the second artist have the right to sell the work?

I’m going to say that this doesn’t have to do with copyright, per se, because there are no copies involved. this is more of an issue of the artist’s moral rights. It’s a situation similar to that of writers whose unfinished works are published after their death. The question then becomes: is it the creator or the public who determines the cultural value of an unfinished work?

The danger of allowing others to sell the unfinished work of the creator, without the creator’s permission, is that the work can easily become part of the creator’s perceived body of work, even though it was never intended to be such. Sketches, notes and maquettes are easily identifiable as pre-work…relics of the creative process, rather than the result of the creative process.

Related posts

• Quick update (0)
• Pat Martin and Tax Exemptions for Artists (0)
• Jessica Litman - Rethinking Copyright (0)
• Canadian Conference of the Arts on BDU Hearings at the CRTC (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part two: the discussion (0)