Canadian PM Copies Campaign Commercial, Doesn't License Hockey Clips

from the didn't-he-want-stricter-copyright-laws? dept

Tue, Apr 19th 2011 3:17am — Mike Masnick

While the latest attempt at putting forth new copyright laws in Canada didn't survive, I always find it amusing when politicians pushing for stricter copyright laws get caught breaking copyright law. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was already being talked about after it came to light that he appeared to have done a pretty close copy of a campaign ad from US Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. You can see both ads below:

However, as Rob Hyndman alerts us, now some have discovered that Harper did not properly license the video clips he used of a hockey match between Canada and the Soviet Union in 1972.

Horst Ficel, a partner in the firm, says that Hockey Canada granted the players the rights to all the marketing of the series in the mid-1990s. Today, a committee with player representatives decides who can license the footage.

Ficel is busy fielding requests for permission to use the clips to mark the upcoming 40th anniversary of the historic series.

But decidedly not among those requesting permission was the Conservative Party of Canada, Ficel said..

"It's definitely not approved by me. It's not approved by the committee."

He says the committee is careful to avoid anything that might be considered political.

Now, personally, I think this should be "fair use," but Canada (notoriously) has no fair use. It does have a more limited concept of "fair dealing," but (and I'm certainly not an expert in Canadian copyright law), it's not clear if political commercials are covered by Canada's fair dealing provisions. The fair dealing provisions focus on "research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting," and I don't see how political ads match any of those.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, commercial, stephen harper, tim pawlenty

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

trish, 19 Apr 2011 @ 4:47am

:)
I will never need to buy the DVD of this 40-year old game now that I have seen this one-second clip of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 19 Apr 2011 @ 5:01am

The real question
Why do politicians insist on copying things that suck? I have watched clips of kittens on YouTube that are more interesting than this piece of garbage.

Copy a DH xTranormal video or something next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 5:40am
  
  Re: The real question
  He tried. I sic'd Copyright Man on him. It was really breathtaking to see a politician and a grown man in a body condom go face to face, so to speak....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 19 Apr 2011 @ 6:37am
    
    Re: Re: The real question
    let's agree to never utter "breathtaking", "politician", and "body condom" in the same sentence again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2011 @ 5:28am

Now, raise your hand if you've missed the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techie42 (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: the point...
  Well as a Canadian I think there are several points
  
  1) Our Northern Replubican gets his marching orders from the USA. As Haroper himself said "I don't care what goes into the new law as long as it makes the American's happy"
  
  2) He takes American plotitions so serious he copys their play book.
  
  3) He wants stricker laws but, yet he canm't obay the laws we already have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techie42 (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re: the point...
    Sorry my typing is a bit 'off' today...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2011 @ 5:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: the point...
      Maybe trade your Canadian keyboard for an American one? ;)
      
      ...wait, that would probably make things worse...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2011 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re: the point...
    Good on you sir. I can't believe he's still sitting.
    
    There is no Democracy.. only the republic, for which it stands. The people are dragged into war as the Germans were in WWII. Told the transfer of their assets to soverign entities are for their own good, herded and corralled to work for promissory notes and not one voice of descent is ever recorded in err. Then the Internet happened, and everything changed... for a while...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 6:30am

Not necessarily a copy of Pawlenty
So much as a collection of random images suggesting 'Canadian-ness' and reminiscent of a junior high school art project. Neither commercial gives me insight in to the candidate or their views, other than the fact that they have poor decision making skills for choosing such an overused and underinformative format. It doesn't even give me any reason to remember their names, which is why I had to scroll up twice to get the names while writing this brief response. So there, candidates, your very expensive commercial wasn't even able to keep your names in my head for a minute.

Also, I wonder if any of the other images used in Harper's video were properly licensed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 19 Apr 2011 @ 6:52am

Political Ads? not commercials but political.
First, political compains are not really 'commercials', allthough often they look like them, and often take the same time slots on your TV.

They are not ads, but they are a method of information delivery, often it is about how good your guy is, or how bad the other guy is.

Or what you are going to do if you are elected, or what the other guy will do if he is elected.

In particular, they are trying to EDUCATE people about what they can offer, or what will happen if they are not elected (and the other guy gets in).

So for 'fair use' and 'fair dealing' they meet virtually ALL the necessary boxes.

research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting

Research - yes, so people can find out what that person stands for

Yes, they can do that privately

Yes, it is for criticism (of the other guy)

Review, yes that too

AND

News Reporting - yes, it has that as well.

So a political campain is not a 'add campain' therefore it would and does certainly fall under 'fair use' or 'fair dealings'

"but (and I'm certainly not an expert in (Canadian - ANY)copyright law),"

Yes, Mike copyright law is not your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 7:14am
  
  Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
  Are you completely off your rocker?
  
  1. Research means BY the individual putting out the content. Your content can be research work. It does NOT mean that your video can be USED for others in terms of research. Besides which, political propaganda as research material is....specious to put it mildly.
  
  2. Private study, see above. The content would be the result of private study, not the use of that content.
  
  3. Criticism is where you're closest...but still wrong. Fair use stipulates that you're critiquing the work you'd be otherwise infringing upon. Unless this politician was criticizing the NHL, then this fails the test. Doing so in Canada would be a bold move, to say the least.
  
  4. Review...uh what? What is a campaign commercial reviewing? In the same sense as a book/movie review? Nothing, that's what.
  
  5. And if you REALLY think a campaign advertisement is "news reporting", then I suggest you find the nearest hammer and bash yourself in the head with it in the hopes of getting some of those misfiring synapses properly lined up, because that's grade A monkey retardism right there, my friend....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 19 Apr 2011 @ 9:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
    is that the BEST you can do ??
    
    I thought you were one of Mikes "TOP" attack dogs.
    
    you can always tell when you are Mike gets desperate as Mike starts to create poor 'articles' such as this one.
    
    As if ANYONE apart from Mike gives a shit if he uses a few seconds of a game on a promotion.
    
    If it was from anyone else, that Mikie 'liked' he would be defending them to the hilt with 'fair use' and how terrible copyright laws are.
    
    Unless it suits him to state otherwise.
    
    Very two faced.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 19 Apr 2011 @ 10:51pm
      
      Is That The Same Darryl?
      Come on, where�s the ruthless copyright troll we have all come to know and love? Your postings just aren�t up to the same standard any more. Are you in fact just some other bozo using the Darryl name?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
      "If it was from anyone else, that Mikie 'liked' he would be defending them to the hilt with 'fair use' and how terrible copyright laws are."
      
      As per usual, dumbass, you've completely missed the point of the article. Try to take your head out of your ass long enough to witness:
      
      Mike isn't criticizing the guy's use of the video. Rather, he's criticizing the guy for insisting on more stringent copyright law EVEN THOUGH he doesn't mind infringing himself. It's hypocrisy.
      
      Sort of like if you requested someone type with proper grammar, you insignificant twat....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
        proper grammar overrated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 19 Apr 2011 @ 7:46am
  
  Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
  @darryl
  
  Ok now I am convinced you write these things only as a form of sarcastic commentary. Because that posting is the biggest steaming load of twisted justification bullshit I've seen in a while. You have to be an artificial astroturf copyright absolutist or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
    Ok now I am convinced you write these things only as a form of sarcastic commentary.
    
    I am still not convinced. I used a robot journalism software package and it came up with a better, more coherent comment than Darryl did. Thus, I believe Darryl is nothing more than a bunch of cats pushing keys on a computer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 7:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Political Ads? not commercials but political.
      Hey! My cats are very deliberate about which keys they pretend to 'accidentally' press. I don't think Darryl has the same diligence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 19 Apr 2011 @ 7:16am

Yeah, we have fair dealing, it doesn't normally cover this type of thing I believe, but he should be able to get away with those tiny clips. It is not particularly educational, since it doesn't mention anything about their policy
of shutting down the government, making vague evasive speaches and taking extended vacations at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]