[d@DCC] Searching for S-9: pro and con...

[Russell McOrmond]

  I did a bit of searching for S-9 this morning.  While the photographers
claim this is a bill to give them the same rights as other creators, as a
creator who has actually read the bill and the sections of the act it
suggests to repeal, I do not believe this is the case.

My summary of S-9, which asks to repeal section 10 and subsection 13(2) 
of the Copyright act:

  Section 10(2) of the act is there to deal with a situation that is very
unique to photography, and removing it will give photographers special
privilege that will be contrary to what the expectations of most citizens
are.  This is special-interest politics that ignores these unintended
consequences, and is exactly the reason why the average citizen turns
against "creators" when they seek reforms in their favor.  Public policy
should be dealing with the majority case, which is amateur photography,
not simply the *extreme* special case which is commercial photographers
who use borrowed cameras.

  http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/puja-picture.html

  The commissioned photography subsection 13(2) is very tied to 13(3), so
a reform of one should include the reform of the other.  This gets into 
labor relations, something that the senate claimed that they didn't 
intend to do even though this is entirely why the photographers are asking 
for it: to have additional bargaining power with their employers.


  10(1,1.1) is one of the few places (Only place? I can't find another
reference) in the act that talks about the fixed term of corporate
ownership of copyright.  While I agree that 10(1,1.1) special cases
photography, the proper solution is to clarify the term of corporate
ownership for all works in section 6 before repealing 10(1,1.1).  

  Copyright term is already excessively long, and without an appropriate
registry is excessively hard to determine when it expires.  Removing life+
from the calculation and going to fixed terms should have been part of the
original reform to remove the past requirement to register your copyright.

  I should be able to look at a work and be able to quickly determine if
it has been returned to the public domain or not.  All the ways in which
legacy copyright holders have been trying to obscure the term of copyright
must be cleaned up!

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_Senate_Other.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1#S-9
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#section-6
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#section-10
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38965.html#section-13


The searches:

  Searches find references in our forum, and to my Puja Picture article, 
as well as the following..

Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communications
  - Continues to claim that photographers don't own copyright, even though
the places where they do not are extremely narrow and deal with situations 
where photography is different than other creativity.

http://www.capic.org/copyright/copy1.html
http://www.capic.org/toronto/newsletter/nVol.2_Issue36.html



http://www.davidmattison.ca/wordpress/index.php?p=843
   Help stop Canadian Senate Bill S-9, write your MP

http://spacemonkeys.ca/blogs/matt/archives/789_Who_owns_that_photograph_.html
  Interesting article talking about the problems with S-9 on the 
commissioned photography issue.

http://www.ppoc.ca/copyright/copyright.htm
  - This is a previous version of the bill.
    "Bill S-20 ( now Bill S-16 )  reintroduced into Senate", from 1998.


http://www.mgphotography.com/pages/copyrightnow.html
  - Private photographer pushing the same message as CAPIC



  This is what I found quickly.  If there are others, let us know.

  Please do as these articles say, and write to the ministers involved.  
Please also publish your letters so that others can get ideas from it, and
that we can also see the separation of the "pro" and "con" being one of
separation of the special interests of commercial photographers against a
wide spectrum of Canadian society (amateur photographers, other creators,
etc).

  It may be appropriate for someone to take on a web-watch on this issue,
creating an page on the main site that they keep updated with articles
talking about this.  Put both the pro and the con in there:  I don't see
the pro-side showing any concern for the issues we are bringing up, nor
really focusing on the actual content of the bill.  They seem to be
talking about separate issues entirely, and thus can be countered fairly
easy by focusing discussions on the actual outcomes of S-9.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Code is Law: how software code regulates the activities of citizens,
 and acts similar to law.  How do we ensure transparency/accountability?  
 http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/code-is-law.html
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss