Canadian Court Issues Triple-Whammy Ruling In Favor Of Free Speech And Commentary Online
from the fair-dealing dept
Close on the heels of Canada's recent copyright reform bill (which despite significant problems also contains some fantastic language that carves out important new exceptions to copyright) the Federal Court of Canada has issued a significant ruling that answers some key questions about copyright online. The decision is in a lawsuit filed by Richard Warman and the National Post against the operator of a forum, and looks at two main points: the right to quote news articles, and the right to link to a photo. On the first question, the court made it clear that even a several-paragraph quote is protected, on not just one but two levels:
While the first claim (Warman's article) was dismissed on the basis that it took too long to file the lawsuit, the legal analysis on the National Post claim involving an article by Jonathan Kay assesses the copyright implications of posting several paragraphs from an article online. In this case, the article was 11 paragraphs long. The reproduction on the Free Dominion site included the headline, three complete paragraphs and part of a fourth. The court ruled that this amount of copying did not constitute a "substantial part" of the work and therefore there was no infringement. The court added that in the alternative, the reproduction of the work was covered by fair dealing, concluding that a large and liberal interpretation of news reporting would include posts to the discussion forum. The decision then includes an analysis of the six factor test and concludes that the use was fair.
Both aspects of that part of the ruling are clear and could have a huge impact on copyright licensing in Canada. Perhaps most notably, as Michael Geist also points out, it raises even more serious questions about the disastrous situation surrounding Access Copyright negotiations at Canadian colleges and universities, and makes the already terrible deal (which many schools are signing on to) look even worse. Unfortunately, since the AUCC all but abandoned its members in those negotiations, many schools will have a hard time benefitting from this ruling—but for those universities that have decided to reject the deal and fight the good fight, the ruling represents a substantial boon to their position.
On the subject of linking to a photo, the decision lays down a third important standard, and is again unequivocal about doing so:
The third claim involved a link to a photograph posted on the photographer's site. The court had no trouble concluding that the link was not copyright infringement, rightly noting that the photographer authorized the communication of the work by posting it on his website. This finding should put an end to claims that linking to copyright materials somehow raises potential legal risks. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled against attributing defamation to such links and now the Federal Court has concluded that links cannot be said to constitute unauthorized communication and therefore infringement.
To many of us, that's just common sense: putting something on the internet constitutes a public invitation to link to it. But for years, time and time again we've seen courts and companies around the world attempt to claim that linking is infringement, or otherwise not allowed. And, indeed, this also has serious implications for the Access Copyright agreement, which has schools paying licensing fees and obeying rules for linking to material, despite it becoming clearer and clearer that copyright does not cover these activities.
All told, this is an excellent decision, and offers further proof that Canada has the very real potential to move copyright law in a positive direction. There are still lots of battles to be fought, but there's also a genuine emphasis on the rights of users (especially in the courts) that can hopefully be harnessed and nurtured more and more over time.
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, fair dealing, jonathan kay, linking, richard warman
Companies: access copyright, national post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
*Claps*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Claps*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Claps*
Shouldn't you then say: "Better serial killers help"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Claps*
When you don't have these ever-present fears, its a lot easier to watch your government to ensure they don't strip you of all your freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Claps* blaktron
American arrogance and ignorance will defeat them every time!
It's no wonder many of them are illiterate and don't have a clue as to where Canada is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Claps*
Omnibus bills, passing legislation in the middle of the night, special police powers, no transparency in budgets, illegal lack of transparency in departmental budgets...sad times with Cons at the helm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *Claps*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Claps*
Something you guys may want to consider!
First rule of thumb would be to elect smart officials and not morons who can't find their butts with both hands and a map, which is what you have now!
Our Health care works, whereas yours is non-existent!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Claps*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Claps*
Free Dominion is a racist forum dedicated to holocaust deniers and neo-nazis.
I wouldn't be so quick to praise Canada in this case, given these horrible people living within our borders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *Claps*
Free Dominion is a racist forum dedicated to holocaust deniers and neo-nazis.
There's a reason I didn't even name or mention the defendants in the post :) It's the ruling that matters. I certainly wouldn't want these important free speech concepts being thrown out just because of the views of the first people who happened to test them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: *Claps*
I am happy for this particular ruling. I also support, to an extent, Canada's approach to limiting hate speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I understand what I just read and C&Ped here? Am I to understand that Canada's position is that hyperlinks are not infringement? Oh, isn't the CRIA gonna have a ball with that. It puts a huge hole in the idea that infringement consists of hyperlinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
precedent-setting court ruling
The Fourniers - the defendants in this - have been the subjects of many lawsuits by people trying to curb freedom of speech on the internet. They have already set a previous legal precedent in Canada to protect the identity of the users of their forum from cyber-bullies: now, they have to prove that there is a prima facie case for defamation before a user's id is handed over to a person who wants to sue them.
It is important to note that by now, the Fourniers (who run Free Dominion) are low on funds and had to represent themselves in court. So, Connie Fournier, a computer scientist, went up against some very high priced IP lawyers - and won a bit more freedom for us all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: precedent-setting court ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should put an end to such claims. Sadly, it probably won't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody gives a wild flying fuck about Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is with..
Keep in mind that nobody's ever bombed Canada, especially our own Government and we have Healthcare that works!!
Osama Obama can't even formulate one, let alone get it off the ground!
We drink good beer and not that dish water swill that you clowns guzzle by the gallon, just to get a buzz!
Food for thought!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Major precedents in Canadian courts can and do affect legal proceedings in a lot of countries that have populations totalling lots more than the USA and vice versa (ie: iiNet in Australia, Patent law on generic medicines in India, etc etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This blog covers global tech & IP issues, since these things spread further than just the quaint backyard of 'Murrica. Like for instance, the discussion of imported goods maybe not having first sale right. Or large chunks of the rest of the world rejecting your domineering 'treaties' like ACTA and TPP.
Please feel free to crawl back into your trailer and ignore your dependency on the rest of the world. Much good it's done you before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This year has been quite special. While it is a stormy year as The Pirate Bay fellas said (and predicted) it would be in the beginning of the year, the people also scored some significant victories. While we are living convoluted 'copyright' times I see the end of the storm ahead in a few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *Claps*
Your statement is simply untrue.
Part of the Fournier's counterclaim against Warman was that he is using the 'maximum disruption' technique (which he has promoted) against them.
Warman's defense to this was that he does not believe the Fourniers themselves are neo-nazis or nazis of any kind and that he is convinced that their site does not contain any neo-nazi or holocaust-denying material. Warman himself insisted that this be made part of the court record.
His defense was that since he only uses 'maximum disruption' against people he believes are neo-nazis, and he does not believe that either the Fourniers or their forum is neo-nazi, he could not possibly be using the 'maximum disruption' thingy on them.
Ms. Fournier pointed out that this line of defense by Mr. Warman is a no-starter: it would be like punching a brunette in the head, then offering the defense that he could not have punched the brunette because he has a strict policy of punching only blondes in the head...
It got a chuckle in the courtroom - including from Warman's own lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]