Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
The goal of the government should be to define copyright in such a way that matches how people are using media, not how media companies have historically operated.
As one example, media-shifting (converting from format A to format B) for personal or classroom use should be specifically allowed for. I'm not going to suggest that DRM (such as is found on Blu-Ray players, iTunes downloads, and so on) should be outlawed, but that technology and instruction allowing such use (for example, the ripping of DVDs) should be protected, as should consumers' rights to use those technologies for non-infringing uses.
I would also strongly consider the government to consider the use of 'region coding' in technologies such as DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, which prevent consumers from importing media from other countries, and which prevents consumers moving into or out of Canada from being able to use their media. At the moment, an individual who buys a DVD in Toronto then moves to London (or vice-versa) will be unable to play their (rightfully purchased) content on local machines.
Region coding's primary purpose is essentially price-fixing, which is well outside the scope of the copyright consultations; however, the ability to use one's media regardless of their location may well be a relevant topic of discussion.
Also worth discussion in my opinion is possession/use of shifted media equivalent to the original media owned. For example, instead of spending a week copying a TV series from DVDs to my computer to watch on my iPod or laptop while travelling, I can spend a day downloading them from the internet. Whether this is infringing (if I own materially identical media) is currently a grey area. I would propose that this use be explicitly provided for, given that this is something that is fairly widespread.
cjsf [2009-08-14 17:39] Comment ID: 1665 Reply to: 230
To agree and expand on this comment… there need to be exemptions for media/format-shifting not just for classroom and personal use. I think we need to consider exemptions a bit more broadly here and consider larger non-profit uses. The technological demands of the 21st century mean that organziations need to shift materials from digital to analogue and amongst a variety of devices for their own internal use. People and organizations such as charities, non-profits, educational institutions - anyone who are not trying to make a financial gain off of copyrighted material - need to have the flexibility to use copyrighted materials and run their organizations in an efficient manner. Non-profits by and large are already short on staff and funds, why make it harder for them?
Permission for format shifting is one thing and being charged for using copyright materials is another. If you look at section 32.2.3 of the current act, it recognizes that charities should not have to pay tariffs on copyrighted materials. This should be expanded to included other non-profits such as community systems. Again, we're only talking about organizations who are not trying to make a financial gain on copyrighted materials. It's about making sure that the people in a position to pay for copyrighted works pay, but that people not in a financial position to pay for copyrighted works aren't penalized and limited for not having the same financial resources.
CIVL Radio [2009-08-17 16:12] Comment ID: 1714 Reply to: 1665
I agree and would like to expand the discussion about non-profit community radio stations [argument follows]: ?
Non-profit radio stations are licensed community building organizations that produce social utility, whose fragile supply must not be inversely affected by the establishment of copyright provision. ?Without the charts that campus & community radio stations produce the market is blinded, and this service must be defended through the allowance of campus & community stations to format shift, and even share content amongst, at least, themselves, so that the content market can realize a non-biased rating of content producers.
The charts that Campus & Community radio stations produce are valuable to the industry because they are produced by a diverse collection of independent voluntary sources from across the country. This rare and vital chart feeds the commercial industry, and markets for live music, including festival and concert promoters across the country and those exporting Canadian content abroad.
Furthermore, with specific regard to tariffs, campus & community radio station have thin budgets, ours donates its' surplus revenues to charities and scholarship trusts, others are charities, and still others, at the discretion of provincial society registrars, are simply non-profit. These organizations have no motive to make gains from copyright protected material, while providing their service to copyright holders, promoting and popularizing their content.
In light of this service, and their community building motivation, these organizations should have a capped tariff at a maximum of $100. Currently, copyright holders send copies of their content to these organizations at their own expense. The benefit to copyright holders, produced by non-profit radio stations must be transferred into any binding copyright law, and would best be reflected in a leniency clause for the community radio industry.
Thanks for reading.
cjsf [2009-08-22 14:32] Comment ID: 2008 Reply to: 1714
One good example of the problems with the multiplication of tariffs for campus and community radio stations is when SOCAN brought forth its tariff for podcasting.
SOCAN was asking campus and community radio stations to pay $200 in royalties per month or $2400 per year. But there are campus and community radio stations out there that survive on budgets less than $10,000 - one tariff would have used us 1/4 of these stations' budgets!
This is enough of a cost that they would have to cease podcasting - ironic, since the CRTC has expressed disappointment that the campus and community radio sector isn't participating more in the online environment. These stations aren't reaping huge profits by playing emerging artists to start with and with this type of tariff regime, emerging artists will get even less exposure. A $100 tariff cap on all tariffs, like is currently in place for NRCC tariffs (section 68.1 of the current act) for campus and community radio stations/community systems is a great idea.
As an online educator, I would love to be able to use more online resources in my classroom without feeling like I am breaking 'copyright' laws in the process. In the past I have sent emails to poets asking to use their poetry, some have replied and others have not. Therefore, asking permission to use ones work is next to impossible most of the time. I would also like to be able to upload movies from Youtube and other sources so that my students in their online classes have a chance to build their understanding of a short story or text which was also made into a movie. For example, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Laws should be modernized so that all teachers are able to use materials online in their classrooms without penalty. There should be more flexibility to use different forms of media in an online and face to face classroom without such tight laws. I understand that the creators of such information feel that they should be paid for their services, and I understand that a lot of time and effort was put in, but our schools barely have the funds to buy new books, and many school boards in BC are having to fire teachers due to recent deficits. Therefore, if the school boards poured all their money into copyrights then teachers would feel even more of a tight squeeze on their budgets and what we can provide for our students in our classrooms. It would be great to see new copyright laws created which help educators instead of hindering them and the quality of education they bring to the table for their students.
DarkDigitalDream [2009-07-23 10:27] Comment ID: 636 Reply to: 212
I strongly disagree with copyright law in general. However, the idea of removing it all at once seems to scare a lot of people. The parent comment above would be a great first step in a gradual shift that shows people copyright law is no longer needed for non-commercial copying and distribution.
Copyright term limited to 20 years after creation. Renewable once by author. Free to copy for educational purposes
Copyright term limited to 14 years after creation. Non-renewable. Free to copy for educational purposes.
Free to copy for non-commercial purposes. Our culture is finally OURS.
As an informed consummer, what scares me is how the C-61 bill laws doesn't seem to afford me any true rights, since nearly all of them can be removed.
Although each article seems to confer the consummer with certain rights when it comes to digital products, it then describes that all those rights as "recommended" rights the consummer should be granted.
"(2) If the individual has downloaded the sound recording from the Internet and is bound by a contract that governs the extent to which the individual may reproduce the sound recording, the contract prevails over subsection (1) to the extent of any inconsistency between them."
Subsection (1) refers to my so called reproduction rights.
I strongly suggest that the goal of any amendment is to secure what are the consummers and the creators rights when it comes to copyright material and not what rights can be removed through loosely worded contract and license agreements.
phillipsjk [2009-07-22 22:54] Comment ID: 576 Reply to: 207
You missed the loophole!
The "Term Of Services" on any particular website take precedence over the laws of Canada. So I could set up my own "copyright laundering" site with TOS such as:
"3. By using this site, you agree that an irrevocable, perpetual license to copy the work is granted by the mere act of uploading and re-downloading the content. This is allowed by section 7-3 of the 2010 Copyright reform act, as passed by the Canadian parliament."
Any law that reverses Canadians historic "Fair use" rights will be unpopular and unenforceable.
The digital locks placed on media by corporate entities should simply not exist because they fly in the face of our Fair Use rights as consumers
At the behest of foreign (Mostly U.S) commercial interests we are moving to a media model that replaces ownership with revocable licenses.
To me this is unacceptable.
Anyone using copied material for commercial use should be fined but someone ripping a dvd they purchased on to their computer for personal home use is not a criminal.
This concept exists irrespective of the arbitrary limits the manufacturer wishes to impose and the law must reflect this without ambiguity.
The one thing that bothers me right now is when I am told that even if I bought a CD I do not have the right to upload it to my Ipod. The people who say that claim that I bought the CD (licence) to play in a CD player and that a separate licence should be bought in order for me to be "allowed" to put it on my electronic device. Who loses if I still buy a CD, I do not illegally download anything so who does this really bother… the record companies, not the artists themselves. I hope this new copyright legislation will understand that once we have bought and paid for a CD, we should be allowed to copy it only our Ipods (or other devices of the sort)
Ryoung [2009-07-21 10:51] Comment ID: 174 Reply to: 166
Steph, I share your concern as well.
What I also find deplorable is how licenses that are being sold digitally online share the same "fair use" restrictions.
For example, a song purchased on the iTunes store can only be played on a iTune device (iPod, iPhone,…), unless it is DRM-free.
This restriction impacts the consummer is more ways than simply not being able to put my music on another device, but also forces me to purchase devices that can legally play my previously acquired music licenses.
In the end, both for music CD and digital music, who is benefitting from this type of copyright law? Not the creators themselves, but the distributors who can now control the whole chain of how we can enjoy our purchases.
I believe that this new legislation should be focussed on protecting the Canadian creators and not the distributors.
For a more current example of this in action, see Palm Pre vs Apple, how apple wishes to force us to buy the iPhone.
StephP77 [2009-07-21 11:53] Comment ID: 184 Reply to: 174
I will have to check out the link you posted. I also wanted to mention that I once legally downloaded some music from the Palmarès website and when I went to upload to my Ipod, Itunes said I didn't own the licence for it. Maybe those websites should harmonize their systems so that what we download is easily transfered to which ever device we prefer/own.
Ryoung [2009-07-24 10:23] Comment ID: 773 Reply to: 184
I wouldn't count on it. ITunes is notoriously good at keeping your IPod to work only with music you can put in the ITunes library.
You can put songs on an IPod through other means than your ITunes, but you do so at your own risk, possibly voiding whatever guarantee you have on your device.
Reason why reverse engineering shouldn't be banned!
ltig99 [2009-07-21 10:59] Comment ID: 176 Reply to: 166
Absolutely right, once we purchase something, it should be ours to do with as we please. If I choose to share it with others that should be my choice as well. Take books for example; is it illegal for me to lend a book to someone? Should everyone in my household purchase a seperate copy of the same book if they want to read it? Of course not, that would be stupid.
KLow [2009-07-22 11:02] Comment ID: 394 Reply to: 176
Don't use physical analogies. They don't work. Lending your book means you don't have a copy of your book anymore. You've actually given away your book. This is very different from copying where a new item is generated from the one you own and so other people having it doesn't cost you anything at all.
crade [2009-07-22 12:04] Comment ID: 402 Reply to: 394
There is abolutely nothing special about a physical dvd vs an electronic one. It's like saying water is one thing in a baloon and something else in a cup.
Format shifting as been around a long time, and I don't see how the container of your songs changing from a mix tape to a hard drive really changes anything.
There is no real reason that someone should not be allowed the same rights and freedoms after purchasing a book, movie, song, etc electronically that they would have if they purchased it in some other format.
People just want to use whatever they find most convienient at the time to consume the content. Yesterday is was a dvd player, today it's a cell phone, tomorrow something else. Should they be forced to purchase their movie collection again for each device?
You are right though when you are lending, if you keep a copy for yourself, then it's not lending is it? It doesn't matter what format the copy or the original is in though. Having the same rights and freedoms doesn't mean you get to make copies for others or redistribute content; we have never had those rights.
crade [2009-07-21 11:47] Comment ID: 181 Reply to: 166
And it's not good enough just take the obvious examples that show the new law is wrong and make exceptions out of them. Saying "Well, you can still lend paper books because they are in the exceptions" or "Well, you can still copy records to tape because they are analog (or black, or round, or whatever)" These are examples of fundamental principles, not exceptions. Media transfer needs to be protected for present and future generations as well.
phillipsjk [2009-07-22 23:21] Comment ID: 582 Reply to: 181
The problem is a lot of DRM models try to get the digital medium to work the same way as the analog medium (by forcing lossy copying).
For example, the "Apple Approved" method of removing DRM from Itunes songs is burning (The lossy-compressed format) to CD, then re-ripping (and possibly adding more lossy compression).
One time, I read about the tale of a programmer who reverse-engineered the WMV format. He was called up by a Mircosoft programmer who informed him that the "proper" way was to go through the (lossy, slow) dshow API. The result: we are told using the API is a more "correct, robust" way of doing things and the WMV container format details are pulled for fear of legal ramifications. I was not able to find the source document off-hand; some details may be wrong.
awoolner [2009-07-23 22:42] Comment ID: 719 Reply to: 166
The issue is that the media companies want it both ways. If, by buying the CD, I am buying a license, fine… but will they then replace my physical media if it is damaged or otherwise fails?
Of course not! So what are they selling, exactly?
If this sounds crazy, think about it in the context of Enterprise software. Companies will buy licenses for 100s of computers to run a piece of software. It's common practice for the company selling the software to provide additional copies of the software if something happens to the copies the purchaser originally received… because what's paid for isn't the bits on the physical media, it's the right to use the bits.
The music companies are trying to have it both ways: they sell us the physical media, and then tell us that we only own a license to the bits on that media, and that copying those bits (or even bits that are similar, e.g. lossy compression), is not permitted. If we then lose those bits, however, they will not provide us with them again, and expect us to purchase the physical media again!
I think an arrangement like this ought to require a special contract, because that's not what *I* agree to when I buy a CD, nor is it historically implicit in such a purchase.
Copyright has expanded throughout the world to become something far larger than was reasonably intended. The expansion appears to be radiating from the US, where, each time Disney's creations approach the end of their copyright lifetime, the period of coverage is extended by another quarter-century. This expansion problem has now extended, via American music and film producers' associations to Canada.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation by providing a period of exclusivity to a work's creator in much the same way that patents do for physical products, but the constant lengthening of the covered period serves chiefly to prevent any expansion upon existing works during the lifespan of the creator and any of his/her offspring.
I submit that a copyright system to match the patent regime of 17 years would be quite sufficient to encourage innovation and permit payment for the creator's effort. This would allow for a more reasonable time of entry into public domain than currently exists and would harmonize the administration of physical and artistic innovation protection.
Philippe Latulippe [2009-07-22 23:02] Comment ID: 579 Reply to: 165
I completely agree. However a slip of the mouse caused me to rate it as "Disagree". Oops!
p.s. Here's an example of what's going on under the 'fair use' gambit … The National Portrait Gallery in London England has been 'pilfered' by an American 'hacker' who circumnavigated their website to access 'high resolution' imagery that he then posted to 'Wikipedia' …
cndcitizen [2009-07-21 10:23] Comment ID: 168 Reply to: 164
Please read the whole article…"All the creators of the original images are long since dead"
These are photographs of art (paintings and such) placed on the web-site…if the gallary didn't want to expose the pitures for general distribution then they shouldn't have placed them there. That was their mistake. I could walk into the gallery and take a picture of the work myself and place it on the internet who would care?
"Photographs of works of art are protected by copyright in the UK, but not in the US, where Coetzee lives. All the creators of the original images are long since dead, but the photographs were only taken for the NPG as part of a Â£1m digitisation project in the last couple of years."
crade [2009-07-21 10:51] Comment ID: 173 Reply to: 164
Do we want to be the kind of country that tries to keep it's history from an encyclopedia so we can try to make money off hording it?
KLow [2009-07-22 10:06] Comment ID: 385 Reply to: 173
Or would we rather be the kind of country that has museums rely solely on taxpayer support because they can't draw any significant profit due to their holdings being available for viewing, for free, on the world-wide web?
cjskahn [2009-07-22 10:39] Comment ID: 392 Reply to: 385
What makes it the museum's property? Sure, they own the physical photographs themselves, but they do not own the image depicted on it. They do not own the way that the ink is arranged.
What gives the museum the right to monopolize it? Are the photos an intellectual work, or a derivative work, or are they just simply copies of the paintings?
If the photos are just copies of the paintings, and the paintings are in the public domain, then I would submit that the photos--as simple copies of the paintings--should also in the public domain.
KLow [2009-07-22 12:34] Comment ID: 407 Reply to: 392
By this logic, all photos should be in public domain, since they're just copies of what's already out there.
Except that's not correct. Photos themselves are original works. In this case, they happen to be original works detailing works in public domain. In essence these photos are derivitive works, but still defendable under copyright. If you want to go to the museum and take your own photos, that's your business. If you want the museum's photos, then you should adhere to the museums terms.
crade [2009-07-22 13:40] Comment ID: 425 Reply to: 407
Unfortunately, in this case, the museum has managed to take advantage of the technicality that cameras *can* be used to make original works to basically re-copyright artwork that is supposed to be in the public domain. Cameras can also be used as photocopiers which is what we see being done here. Since the museum has the originals under lock and key and certainly won't allow other pictures to be taken of them, they can now sell copies of the original artwork that is supposed to be in the public domain as if they had a copyright on the original work. If the original were somehow lost or detroyed, they would maintain a copyright on the only remaining copy. Yay.
KLow [2009-07-22 13:55] Comment ID: 429 Reply to: 425
And that sucks that the museum won't allow pictures to be taken within it, but that's a problem with museum policy, not copyright legislation.
crade [2009-07-22 14:05] Comment ID: 431 Reply to: 429
How do you figure? It's not their job to ensure public interests are protected. Since the museum's policy is supposed to make the museum money, it's working fine.
Freetard [2009-07-22 17:34] Comment ID: 495 Reply to: 425
And there's the problem with public-domain works: nobody can force the owner of a work to allow its reproduction, even though it is no longer under copyright protection. If you have the only extant copy of a work, it's your choice to allow its duplication and distribution. In the case of a private collector, I doubt anyone would make a fuss- in this case, the issue is that the museums are funded by tax monies, therefore their collections ought to be accessible to the public. Nobody can claim copyright to the original Mona Lisa, but anyone who takes a photo of it, or reproduces it in any way can claim copyright on the reproduction, which is what the gallery has done in this case.
crade [2009-07-23 11:03] Comment ID: 639 Reply to: 495
Actually, I for one would complain if this was done privately as well. No one can (or should be able to) force you to allow reproduction of your originals. However, you shouldn't be allowed to claim copyright on copies of work in the public domain. Allowing this not only allows people hording public domain works but encourages it. In general this really isn't allowed; if I have the only recording in the public domain work, I can keep it to myself if I want, but I can't distribute copies and claim I have copyright on them. There is just a hole in the law if the copy happens to have been made by a camera. I personally think they should close that hole by recognizing that cameras are copying devices (as well as other things) and having a good faith requirement that the photo's primary intent isn't a direct copy of an existing work before allowing the photographer to claim copyright over it.
Freetard [2009-07-24 00:05] Comment ID: 728 Reply to: 639
Indeed, good point. In the case of the art gallery or museum, a scan of an original should not be copyrightable at all. After all, what's to stop me from buying a poster of the Mona Lisa at the gift shop, taking it home, scanning it, and claiming copyright on the digital copy? Same thing as photographing the original.
rinzertanz [2009-09-10 11:05] Comment ID: 2386 Reply to: 639
"I personally think they should close that hole by recognizing that cameras are copying devices (as well as other things) and having a good faith requirement that the photo's primary intent isn't a direct copy of an existing work before allowing the photographer to claim copyright over it."
cjskahn [2009-07-22 14:22] Comment ID: 433 Reply to: 407
Umm, what a straw man argument, I think you've misunderstood.
All photos would be in public domain if they are simple copies of paintings that are in the public domain, and are not transformative, derivative, or otherwise add some artistic input of their own.
That's exactly my question: are the museum's photographs of the paintings simply copies? Or are they really a derivative work? Did the museum simply transfer the image in the painting to another medium (photograph), or did they add something to it that wasn't there before?
Which brings it back to my point: if the museum simply transferred the image in the painting into photographs, and didn't add something transformative to make it a derivative work, I don't think it should be considered a derivative work and it should therefore be in the public domain along with the original paintings.
All of this is in the USA, of course, where they have Fair Use clauses.
As a type designer who's HAND-DRAWN typeface was illegally digitized by Germans ('Lindsay' by URW++ of Hamburg) way back in the 1980's, it is very discouraging not to be able to 'fight them' thru Canadian courts, (let alone the WIPO or any other 'neutral' international court.) Why? Cuz German law does NOT recognize my 'claim' to ownership. Their law protects the 'owners' of the 'digital data' NOT my Original work. And that's a problem all round. 'Data' is NOT 'the artwork'. To Copy a Work does not give that Copier the Right to Ownership unless it has been 'assigned' by the Owner of the Original Design. I did no such thing.
I have COMPLETE documentation to back up this claim, including a confession by an 'in-house' URW designer who worked on the face. These dudes are pirates. They are thieves. They STOLE my WORK (and created 5-FIVE (!)-versions of the typeface) before I raised a 'peer-to-peer' stink thru the International Typeface Corporation and other 'profile sites'.
I have had to 'police' URW++ my Self, chasing them thru the internet, posting remarks like this to get them to 'cease & desist', and/or 'honor an Agreement' that is FAIR, plus compensate me for the YEARS of use … sigh. Who will HELP me? Not 'Canada'.
I'm also very interested in the whole 'art rage' at the moment of 'transformative use' of an existing artwork under 'fair use' claims. Most often 'transformative' artwork is built on the work of a dead artist so it flies under the wire. Those who practise/preach this, to my mind, dubious 'art form' on living artists generally encounter some kind of 'argument' if they are caught. (See Shepard/Garcie controversy as an example.) Canadian LAW should be AWARE of this 'hot' area in the arts community …
sjbrown [2009-07-21 13:58] Comment ID: 216 Reply to: 158
canadada, your complaint seems to be against German law, not Canadian. What change would you propose?
rinzertanz [2009-07-21 15:27] Comment ID: 220 Reply to: 216
Kindly note, for some reason I can't log in under my 'canadada' account so I've had to 're-register' …
In answer to your query.
Please understand when I first signed my ORIGINAL Agreement with Letraset England back in 1980 I was a bit naive. I ASSUMED they'd honor their contract. They didn't. They engaged in several third-party transactions - including digital manipulation of my design - without my knowledge or consent.
Through a 'shell company', ( that subsequently 'dissolved'), they worked in tandem with URW to 'test run' the then 'new' digitizing software, ICARUS. This system was designed be Peter Karow, founder of URW. My typeface was a 'test font' and used as an example of how 'great' the 'new' technology was. They then proceeded to 'use' 'Lindsay', and 'licensed' it as a DIGITAL font, (again without my knowledge or consent).
I ONLY found out about it by accident in 1991 … Since then I have been trying to 'retrace' how my face got out of the hands of Letraset and into the data matrixs of not only URW (who went bankrupt and reemerged as URW++) but Elsner & Flake, also of Hamburg Germany. I have since learned that Veronica Elsner was working with, and for, URW at the time the ICARUS system was 'introduced' at Letraset … It's not too tough to 'connect the dots' here.
Overall, it was/is a mess.
Ironically, only Elsner & Flake make any pretense of 'honoring' my original 'Lindsay' design NOW. The others just turn a blind eye and/or claim they 'licensed' it from Letraset … Letraset, on the other hand, who have also gone thru several ownerships since I first signed with them, claim 'no knowledge' of prior events…
What would I suggest? I don't really know. All I do know is that I've been shafted. There seems no 'law', either nationally or internationally, that will now allow me to get URW++ to heel. The PROBLEM is that they NOW claim the 'data' as 'theirs'. This 'data claim' OVERRIDES my claim of 'original artwork' - in Germany. Note though, that this is COMMON in the digital world. Once an item is 'digitized', that DATA is what has 'worth' and is 'copyrighted', not the Original artwork.
See the problem here - ?
cndcitizen [2009-07-21 16:30] Comment ID: 234 Reply to: 220
canadada - I really do honestly feel sorry for you for the above…that is horrible. I have always said commercial use should be prosecuted and it should be.
Unfortunately German copyright laws are different just like every other country. Each country creates their own laws based on the will of the people they represent.
If the above happened to you in Canada, the existing laws can be applied by you to enforce your copyright. Since it is infringement in another contry you are at that countries mercey.
One avenue of thought though is if they are putting your typeface on any commercially available product you might be able to bar that product from entering Canada or the US because of your original work…just think Rim and the Blackberry issue being barred from the US until they settled license deal.
rinzertanz [2009-07-21 17:30] Comment ID: 257 Reply to: 234
Thanks for your answer.
On surface that sounds like a good idea. I have seen the typeface on many products all over the world … The latest was on the popular internet game, 'Carcassone'. Unhappily, and realistically, to attempt to 'verify' where anyone using the face got it would be like the proverbial 'finding a needle in a haystack'… PLUS, most graphic/package designers have access to 'muli-pacts' of type-design. Digitized 'Lindsay' has been available in several of those pacts CREATED by URW++ - for YEARS - (without my consent or compensation.). So, 'the cat is out of the bag' so to speak.
It's vverrry difficult, near impossible, to verify/monitor URW's sales. Why? Cuz distributors have Agreements with the 'data manufacturers' not the designers. Myfonts, probably the largest on-line type resource, has admitted they've sold the face thru the years, but they will not release URW sales figures to me. (URW++ denies ANY sales - how ODD then that they'd do 5 knock-offs!!! and attempt to SELL them…)
Anyway, the thing that bugs me most is that my original design - now 'captured' in URW data - is part of their overall 'corporate assets'. If they ever decide to sell their business, my face will go along with all others, and that will just add another obscuring layer to this truly HORRIBLE NIGHTMARE licensing experience …
To wit, I have two other early HAND-DRAWN faces that I will NOT bring to market: the very timely 'Canada', and the ever-playful 'Gato'. Rather, I have decided to let these typeface designs remains as Original Art Works, letter by letter.
Perhaps SOME DAY hand-lettering by HAND will AGAIN be understood for what it really is - ie. FINE ART. At the moment though, 'typeface design' has succumbed to the all consuming beastie computer … seems 'anyone' now can be a 'designer/artist' by poking at a few buttons …
eye.zak [2009-07-23 14:26] Comment ID: 666 Reply to: 257
I wonder if a worldwide copyright registry would have helped your case ?
rinzertanz [2009-07-23 15:49] Comment ID: 686 Reply to: 666
But, in truth, after near 30 years of tracking/dealing with this ONE mess - on all sorts of different levels - I'm not overly optimistic that a 'world registry' would be of much use.
The WIPO, as an example, is a pretty useless institution. It protects 'business interests', not the individual.
phillipsjk [2009-07-23 20:51] Comment ID: 712 Reply to: 220
You touch on a subtle problem: the "copyright" gets renewed every time the format is shifted. Copyright protects the specific fixation (assuming it is "creative" enough), not the original idea.
This is for a very good reason: Our ideas (for the most part) are not as unique as we think they are. It is very likley that people in a similar situation to you will come up with similar ideas.
One thing I find annoying is how hard it is to find "classical" music in the public domain. Move a few notes around, call it a new arrangement, change the formatting, and you have a "new" work based on the old. The fact you can't get the original work from the old work is beside the point.
rinzertanz [2009-07-23 21:48] Comment ID: 716 Reply to: 712
In my instance it was a bit different, and also more 'clear cut' , cuz the 'data developers' of the 'knock-offs' didn't change the name of the typeface design. They just added 'version' titles, ie. 'Lindsay Outline', and/or "Lindsay Df'. These 'knock offs' are clearly the original design. The data developers themselves use the same name to identify these unauthorized 'versions'.
What I've learned though is that it is as you say, the 'original idea', as such, is not really protected in the marketplace, rather it is the business manufacturers of the digital DATA/software/matrix that enjoy 'protection' in the broader sense of the business of distribution and sales. They hold the 'licenses' to 'copy', so to speak.
It was most unfortunate that my typeface was caught up in the malestrom of monumental change within the type industry. The digitizing of type happened very rapidly as market demands exploded This was primarily as a result of the internet.
cjskahn [2009-07-22 10:43] Comment ID: 393 Reply to: 158
Clearly your beef here is not even with Canadian law.
This is something I think we can all agree on: the law should give you some sort of short-term protection on your work to prevent others from ripping it off and hurt your ability to make a living off of it.
A lot of the debate going on is whether we should give you 10-year protection, or lifetime+50 years protection, along with what are our fair uses, etc.
silencekiller [2009-07-22 23:56] Comment ID: 596 Reply to: 158
When a corporation patents something and then sits on the patent for years until someone infringes and is forced to pay royalties, it is called patent trolling. This practise is generally looked down upon.
In the same way, why are you expecting to make money from a typeface that you copyrighted decades ago? You're an artist. Your livelihood should depend on the new art that you are creating now.
Even if you disagree, you would still be much happier creating new art than fighting an international battle with pirates over a 20 year-old font.
canadada [2009-08-10 01:25] Comment ID: 1461 Reply to: 596
Sorry for the delay, just catching up here.
In answer to your post, No. Totally disagree.
1. My design was utilized by the English company that I signed my Agreement with to 'test drive' a new & emerging software program - without my knowledge or consent - contrary to the TERMS of our Agreement. The subsequent 'data' then mysteriously 'moved' to two German type houses and was incorporated into their 'catalogues'. Both houses actively marketed, licensed to other vendors and sold the face. The company that I originally signed with did not report third party revenue and it was only by CHANCE that I discovered it was even digitized. 5 'alternate' versions were made by one house, URW++. I had no existing contract with them - and yet they USED my name to 'identify' the face and sell it. That's not right. That is NOT 'patent trolling', it's called 'theft'.
2. The 'monies' are inconsequential at this point.
It's 100% the principal. My work was 'digitized' and 'licensed' with no acknowledgement or compensation to me. That just burns my butt. How would you feel if someone did that to you?
OF COURSE I am doing, and have done, OTHER art. I am producing things all the time. That fact is immaterial to the point.
3. Happiness? I derive a certain kind of pleasure knowing that I am a thorn in URW++'s side. I will not let them FORGET what they have done, and I'll go to my grave letting everyone know they, URW++, are scoundrels. 20 years be damned, it is and REMAINS my design.
A few people hinted, but nobody has pointed out that the entertainment industry has manage to use the gubmint to not only bailout their industry through legislation, but have managed to sell music at a higher price in spite of market competition. iMusic et. All charge the same price for every song regardless of age, content, number of musicians, production costs, or DEMAND. They seem to feel that every copyright is worth the same amount?
Moreover, before you got a full spectrum recording; now you get a scaled down MP3 (which was a format NEVER intended for wholesale distribution, nor even developed by the industry) that might be infested with DRM and poor sound quality. But they are charging MORE in adjusted dollars (and subtract THEIR distribution costs) for that Thompson Twins song they sold on vinyl 25 years ago.
It would be nice if our politicians took a step back and looked at the big picture once in awhile
and not automatically stroke the industry PR machine by conceding they are 'victims' simply
because they claim they are losing some money.
Make the industry PROVE it at least once that downloading cut into their profits by making them prove any of their artists were popular in the first place. Taking the simple minded idea that 'Britney should have sold X' and therefore if she doesn't sell X, then it must be pirates! is nuts.
rickposn [2009-07-21 09:44] Comment ID: 161 Reply to: 156
Some excellent ideas and comments in this post. I especially like the last paragraph and am tired of the argument that 'Britney should have sold X' and therefore if she doesn't sell X, then it must be pirates!
I think that it's near impossible for them to prove this with any certainty but what I'd like to submit for consideration is a simple thought pulled from the financial industry that we're all likely familiar with … "Past performance does indicate future results". T
It cannot be assumed that because artist A sold less of the new album than an old album that it is due to piracy. Sales will fluctuate for a given artist and for every industry year over year. Get used to it other industries have.
albrown [2009-07-25 22:29] Comment ID: 899 Reply to: 156
I do remember distinctly that the Record industry was being questioned about overpricing of CD's for a number of years prior to the early 90's. But very little was done to protect the consumer from the cartels that were operating. What I see now is an industry model that is essentially broken and must now revert to an industry that operated very well prior to media recording. What I don't see are the exponential figures for Media players, Cd burners, DVD burners, blue ray discs and blank media which must now be going through the roof. Quel surprise! The recording industry owns shares in these industrys as well! I do not condone copyright theft, but in fact without data to be copied would the sales of the aftermarket electronic equipment be so good?
What I see is a bloated and inept industry struggling to enforce a 20th century market approach onto 21st century technology. The future is different, very different. Lets hope we don't criminalise people for every paper copy , magnetic tape recording that we have ever made; otherwise we are going to need very large prisons indeed.
Lets remember it was the expensive audio CD that caused a couple of university students to pick a defunct video standard (MP3) and use this to compress audio to get onto floppy disc. Something that the recording industry hadn't even bothered to look at.
In fact the whole distribution of media has changed, but the cost of books and audio has not kept up to pace with the improved economics. I would urge the government to let the market reign, the industry must look after itself, innovate, protect the interests of the copyright holder and provide good products to the consumer. Criminalisation of its citizens should not take place to maintain profits for poorly managed and ineffective media companies.
vancoUVer Records [2009-07-29 19:42] Comment ID: 1126 Reply to: 156
Not the industry or the business.the people whom are our brothers and sister are the creators.
FairUseInCanada [2009-08-21 22:23] Comment ID: 1991 Reply to: 156
Great post and some great points made! To add to your post since you only addressed the music industry, consider watching a DVD movie that you purchased at Future Shop and say you have a large family of 3-4 kids, with your brother or sister coming over with their 2-3 kids. If you all sat down to watch this movie together, you would all be branded CRIMINALS and your neighbour could call federal police (the neighbour may actually do it if they don't like you) to charge you all for copyright infringement. And in spite of all this, the movie industry claims that they are "not protected enough" when it comes to their copyrights.
And as I said in some other post, don't forget their "threatening warnings" that you are forced to watch before each and every movie that you buy or rent.
Wiill they remove the Canadian copyright levy on blank audio/video recording media?
cndcitizen [2009-07-21 01:31] Comment ID: 131 Reply to: 129
If they chage the law then they would have to…for the Cnd govnmt it wouldnt' matter to them because they don't make any money from it anyway.
auxonic [2009-07-21 12:08] Comment ID: 189 Reply to: 129
I sure hope not. It's not too much of a burden and the existing structure has sheltered us from the kind of assault that US consumers face regularly from the music and movie industries. Without explicit protection for individuals we could face the most ridiculous abuses of the system imaginable.
Freetard [2009-07-22 17:38] Comment ID: 497 Reply to: 129
Lets hope not. It's the only thing protecting us from the kind of lawsuits the RIAA has been bringing in the States. Besides, there's not much incentive to kill it, when it brings CCC something like $30 million a year in revenue.
phillipsjk [2009-07-22 23:40] Comment ID: 589 Reply to: 129
I find the copy-right levy annoying as well. The scary question (as others have pointed out): Would it be replaced by something worse?
Problems with blank media levy:
-If I copy a CD, "artists" get paid (so far, so good)
-If I burn a Linux distribution to a CD, "artists" get paid, not the distro maintainers or programmers
-If I take pictures with my film camera and get them scanned to a CD, "artists" get paid (not verified. there may possibly be an exception)
-If I back-up my work onto a DVD, "artists" get paid
-If I pirate a Movie onto a (video-CD), musicians, not the movie producers get paid.
-If I am an up-and coming recording artist, and burn a demo-CD, ESTABLISHED artists get paid
The point is that BLANK media can be used for ANYTHING.