• Not all creators are equal. Their skill sets are different, their creations are different and their needs are different.
• Technology is always changing. Media and styles of creative output are always changing. A Copyright Act which speaks too specifically to technology or media (the direction toward which we seem to be headed) will always need revision and always cause problems.
• Availability of business models and intrinsic rights are not the same thing. Within reason, the business model used by a creator or business associates should not be limited by legislation. (Within reason being not in violation of human rights, anti-trust, anti-competition, etc). More specifically (and I expect an onslaught of disagreement on this, but I stand by it), a company should be free to use DRM if they choose to, and consumers are free to not buy products with DRM if they choose to. Companies use it because we still buy the product. There is no better protest than not buying their product. That being said, I don’t support the use of DRM (see the chapter “Speed Bump” in Wired Shut for why).
• The all-rights-reserved vs a-Creative-Commons-licence model gives creators their choice of how they want their work used. What we need is better definition of fair use, not more legislated exemptions and conditions.
• With new technologies for making capturing and duplicating easier and less expensive for everyone, the concept of what is being purchased and why needs serious reconsideration.

What I think is needed:

• We need a simpler Copyright Act, not a longer one. (Sadly, see Digital Copyright by Jessica Litman for why that will probably never become a reality)
• We need better public education on copyright, so that we don’t need to resort to a copyright slide ruler to figure it out. This, of course, would be easier to accomplish if the Copyright Act were simpler.
• We need better public education on art and the workings of the creative industries. As I noted before, people are shocked when they find out how much an artist actually gets from the sale of their work. In 2004, the average total income of an artist from all sources was $23,500. In 2005, the median income in Canada for all occupations was $41,401. Although average and median aren’t the same thing, and there is a year’s difference in the numbers, it’s still discouraging.
• We need to define sampling versus stealing
• We need to differentiate advertising and working for free
• We need to remember the creator

“So much attention was paid to the needs of visual and media artists in the platform document that was collectively assembled by the Creators Copyright Coalition yet there is so little in this current bill that addresses those concerns,” said Julianna Yau, CARFAC Ontario Board Secretary.

As an example, jurisdictions like the State of California are embracing the resale right or “droit de suite” which gives visual and media artists a right to a percentage of the sale price that is paid to an artist when one of their works is resold by a gallery or other purchaser. North America has generally lagged behind the European Union which in 2001 issued a directive requiring member states to institute the “droit de suite” right in their copyright policies. In the United Kingdom alone the Designers and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) has collected £5.2 million (approximately $12million) in resale royalties for over 1500 artists since February 2006.

It is also disappointing that wording around the Exhibition Right was not strengthened to oblige publicly funded exhibitors to pay visual and media artists for all uses of their work. This is the sort of revision that will likely be allowable during the upcoming consultative

For more information about Bill C-61 visit:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01153e.html

For more information about the Creators Copyright Coalition’s Platform on the Revision of Copyright visit:
http://www.creatorscopyright.ca/documents/platform-jan08.html

CARFAC Ontario is the association of professional visual and media artists in Ontario. We have worked for 40 years to promote the material and moral welfare and rights of visual artists, including legal, economic, and physical health. We believe that artists, like professionals in other fields, should be paid for their work and share equitably in profits from their art practice. The work of CARFAC Ontario is to develop policies, publications and services that assist artists, galleries, curators, art patrons and anyone with an interest in creating a society that supports visual and media
artists. Working, professional visual and media artists actively govern CARFAC Ontario. As artists, we understand the needs of artists and have developed services and programs to assist artists at every stage of their careers.

- 30 -

I have also moved all of my feeds from Akregator (which was randomly marking new feed items as read) to Google Reader so I can better control the amount of time I’m spending on trying to maintain something resembling a pristine inbox.

This break from the online conversation about copyright, technology and the other things that strike my interest was what I needed to be able to read C-61 with a fresh mind. I have not yet read any of the responses by the usual suspects, although I can imagine what they are. I doubt that any of my online peers are happy with C-61, and I’m mostly upset at myself for believing that it could be anything less than distasteful.

C-61 is obviously meant to help corporate rights-holders, and not consumers or the artists themselves. It reads more like a supplementary user guide for how you can technically use works than a set of guiding principles on the rights relating to acceptable usage of works. If the revisions in C-61 are made as they stand now, the Copyright Act will become more obscure and quickly obsolete than it is already. It shows a fundamental failure to understand either what the creators and consumers want and, more importantly, what is needed from a document which governs the rights relating to the use of works.

I’m not going to bother with an in-depth analysis of C-61, because I’m sure the blogosphere is already overflowing with those. Mostly, I am balking at how overly specific the wording is and that the legislators don’t understand technology, internet culture, creators, users or the creative arts industries.

I’ll leave the copyright bill speculation to the others while I try to keep up with life:

• Sam Trosow
• Michael Geist (who is also offering The Unofficial Canadian DMCA Background Document)
• The National Post
• The Globe & Mail

I was also recently told about Online Rights, another copyright advocacy website.

• Michael Geist’s list of 5 copyright myths
• Charlie Angus also predicts a new copyright bill (link via Digital Copyright Canada)
• C-10 still won’t die
• The US isn’t having any more luck with patent reform than copyright reform

Some things to consider:

1. Currently, all works in the US (like in Canada) are automatically copyrighted to the creator. No registration is required. This greatly reduces the financial and administrative burden of some creators, and increases the financial and administrative burden of creators who appropriate/creatively reuse work. It also increases the financial and administrative burden of any other party who wants to use a copyrighted work in a context outside of fair use.
2. The Orphaned Works bill proposes that works which are not registered will be considered orphaned, and therefore not be protected by copyright or moral rights. This will allow greater access to works outside of the context of fair use, but swing the financial and administrative burden to the creators.
3. The cost of copyright registration in the US is currently $45 per work. For me to register the copyright in the US (if I were working from the US) for my modest collection of 27 sculpture would cost $1,215. For some, this could be seen as part of the cost of producing work and/or securing their ability to further generate income from their work. However, this would be impossible for artists who generate any amount of income based on a low overhead.
4. Registration of copyright in the US requires the submission of a copy of the work. This is not the case in Canada (and, oddly, Canada’s registration fee is substantially higher at $65 per work for most types of work).

A quick search on Google shows that this is has been a concern in the US for some time. As Mark Simon noted, this is also happening in Europe (although I am having a difficult time tracking down information about that, amidst all the US content).

Locating the creator of a work is certainly an issue, but these proposed changes are not the solution… primarily because the solution shouldn’t create a whole host of problems for those who used to be protected.

This is great news, but doesn’t make people’s concerns a simple case of “legal absurdity”. The proposed wording in C-10 uses the phrase “public policy“, and does not speak specifically to issues of criminal content. Again, the concern is not the isolated inclusion of the phrase “public policy”, but its existence alongside Charles McVety’s lobbying “to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content”.

CARFAC Ontario has published their press release on C-10, as well as a form letter which can be used to send to members of parliament. The Toronto International Film Festival Group has also published a press release on C-10. The Facebook group Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and TV! No to Bill C-10! has 29,360 members as of the writing of this post.