Canadian Admiral Corp v Rediffusion Inc

Last updated July 15, 2022

Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc., [1954] Ex. CR 382, 20 CPR 75 is a Canadian copyright law decision by the Exchequer Court (a predecessor of the Federal Court of Canada). The Court held that rebroadcasting of public performances by cable companies did not violate any communication rights or public performance rights. There cannot be copyright in telecasting live events because there is insufficient fixation. The result of the case became a major factor in the following growth of the Canadian cable television industry.

Background

A football game was broadcast live from the stadium by a set of three cameras directed by a producer in a van just outside the venue. The game was not recorded in any format and was broadcast live to viewers. Canadian Admiral has purchased the rights to the live feed from the game. Rediffusion, a cable company, captured the transmission of the broadcast and sold it to private homes and public show rooms. Canadian Admiral sued for copyright infringement.

The issue was whether Canadian Admiral owned any copyright in the football game.

Opinion of the Court

The Court held that there was no copyright in the rebroadcast of a live game. As a general rule there can be no copyright in a sports event. The games are not pre-planned and not predictable. Moreover, the live direction by the producer was an insufficient amount of planning to create any fixation. Cameron J held that "[f]or copyright to subsist in a work, it must be expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance."

Aftermath

While the Copyright Act has never expressly made material form a condition of copyright subsistence,^[1]Canadian Admiral suggested that it was required.^[2]^[1] However, that is not to imply that a work cannot arise without fixation.^[1]

Canadian Admiral was not followed by the Federal Court of Appeal in the 1993 case of Canadian Cable Television Assn v Canada ( Copyright Board ), in which Létourneau JA held that other Commonwealth rulings that have considered when a performance takes place^{[lower-alpha 1]} "take a realistic view of the impact and effect of technological developments and they are consistent with the plain and usual meaning of the words 'in public', that is to say openly, without concealment and to the knowledge of all."^[3]

Notes

↑ Messager v British Broadcasting Co, [1927] 2 KB 543;
Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. M/S Tele-link, AIR 1989 Bom331.;
Chappell & Co Ltd v Associated Radio Co of Australia Ltd [1925] VicLawRp 46, [1925] VLR 350, Supreme Court (Vic,Australia).

Related Research Articles

Rediffusion was a business that distributed radio and TV signals through wired relay networks. The business gave rise to a number of other companies, including Associated-Rediffusion, later known as Rediffusion London, the first ITV franchisee to go on air in the UK. Rediffusion also spawned a record label, Rediffusion International Music, in 1968.

The copyright law of Canada governs the legally enforceable rights to creative and artistic works under the laws of Canada. Canada passed its first colonial copyright statute in 1832 but was subject to imperial copyright law established by Britain until 1921. Current copyright law was established by the Copyright Act of Canada which was first passed in 1921 and substantially amended in 1988, 1997, and 2012. All powers to legislate copyright law are in the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada by virtue of section 91(23) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Copyright Act of Canada is the federal statute governing copyright law in Canada. It is jointly administered by the Department of Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Copyright Act was first passed in 1921 and substantially amended in 1988 and 1997. Several attempts were made between 2005 and 2011 to amend the Act, but each of the bills failed to pass due to political opposition. In 2011, with a majority in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party introduced Bill C-11, titled the Copyright Modernization Act. Bill C-11 was passed and received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012.

The Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations also known as the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations and the Rome Convention, 496 U.N.T.S 43, was accepted by members of the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI), the predecessor to the modern World Intellectual Property Organization, on 26 October 1961. The Diplomatic Conference was jointly convened by BIRPI, the International Labour Organisation, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The agreement extended copyright related rights protection for the first time to entities or individuals who are not the author but have a close relationship to a copyrighted work, including performers, sound recording producers and broadcasting organizations. As of August 2021, the treaty has 96 contracting parties, with a party defined as a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force.

In broadcasting, the term blackout refers to the non-airing of television or radio programming in a certain media market.

Performing rights are the right to perform music in public. It is part of copyright law and demands payment to the music's composer/lyricist and publisher. Performances are considered "public" if they take place in a public place and the audience is outside of a normal circle of friends and family, including concerts nightclubs, restaurants etc. Public performance also includes broadcast and cable television, radio, and any other transmitted performance of a live song.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, also known as the CDPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 November 1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law in the United Kingdom, which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74). It also creates an unregistered design right, and contains a number of modifications to the law of the United Kingdom on Registered Designs and patents.

In copyright law, related rights are the rights of a creative work not connected with the work's actual author. It is used in opposition to the term "authors' rights". Neighbouring rights is a more literal translation of the original French droits voisins. Both authors' rights and related rights are copyrights in the sense of English or U.S. law.

Directive 92/100/EEC is a European Union directive in the field of copyright law, made under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. It creates a "rental and lending right" as a part of copyright protection, and sets out minimum standards of protection for the related rights of performers, phonogram and film producers and broadcasting organisations.

The current Copyright law of the Russian Federation is codified in part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It entered in force on January 1, 2008.

The copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Copyright Act 1968, which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act as well as by the Design Act. Since 2007, performers have moral rights in recordings of their work.

Under the law of United Kingdom, a copyright is an intangible property right subsisting in certain qualifying subject-matter. Copyright law is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended from time to time. As a result of increasing legal integration and harmonisation throughout the European Union a complete picture of the law can only be acquired through recourse to EU jurisprudence, although this is likely to change by the expiration of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, the UK having left the EU on 31 January 2020. On 12 September 2018 the European Parliament approved new copyright rules to help secure the rights of writers and musicians.

Fixation in Canadian copyright law is a threshold consideration that must be used in copyright infringement cases by courts to determine if copyright actually exists.

It is an infringement in Canadian copyright law for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that only the copyright owner has a right to do as covered in the Copyright Act.

Fair dealing is a statutory exception to copyright infringement, and is also referred to as a user's right. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is more than a simple defence; it is an integral part of the Copyright Act of Canada, providing balance between the rights of owners and users. To qualify under the fair dealing exception, the dealing must be for a purpose enumerated in sections 29, 29.1 or 29.2 of the Copyright Act of Canada, and the dealing must be considered fair as per the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Provisions related to Italian copyright law are found in Law no. 633 of 22 April 1941. Certain fundamental provisions are also found in the Italian Civil Code of 1942, Arts. 2575–2583.

Entertainment Software Ass'n v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada judgement that clarified the nature of and relationship between, the bundle of rights created for copyright owners under section 3(1) of the Copyright Act of Canada. In particular, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between the reproduction and communication rights under the Copyright Act, and applied the principle of technological neutrality to hold that downloading a work engaged only the reproduction right, and not the communication right.

Facts

References

1 2 3 Adeney 2011, p. 688.
↑ Canadian Admiral, at p. 390
↑ Canadian Cable Television Assn v Canada ( Copyright Board ), 1993 CanLII 2920 at p. 370, [1993] 2 FCR 138(5 January 1993), Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)