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.
In Canada, a work "must be expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance"[1] to be subject to copyright protection. Fixation is not a statutory requirement in Canada and the rationale for its use in court has been the subject of much scrutiny.
Case law
In Canadian Admiral Corp. v. Rediffusion Inc., [1954] 20 C.P.R. 75, the plaintiffs had purchased the exclusive right to live telecasts of football matches played by the Montreal Alouettes. Rediffusion Inc., the defendant, had taken those live telecasts and re-transmitted them to its own subscribers without license or permission. Canadian Admiral alleged copyright over the live telecasts and this was the central issue in the case.
The court found that in order for copyright to apply, there must be "something definite and ascertainable to protect".[2] Mere spoken words, not reduced to a definite ascertainable form which can be referred to at any time is not sufficient to create copyright. Rather, a work "must be expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance."[1] Thus, in the case of musical or dramatic works, musical notation or a script, would be respective examples of the requisite fixation.[1]
In contrast, live telecasts lack any tangibility or permanence. Rather, images are captured on the field and transmitted to viewers as a television signal. The signal itself is constantly changing. While the plaintiff had argued that the process was analogous to a cinematographic production or photograph (both being subject to copyright), the court rejected this argument. Films and photographs produce something of a material form of more or less permanent endurance, that is, a negative of the image (or series of images).[3]
Note:
There is no copyright in the match itself. Broadcasting rights (the right Canadian Admiral Corp obtained) is grounded in real property (as opposed to intellectual property) concepts. The right purchased by the broadcaster is a right of access to the venue and to record what is happening.
There is no dispute that a recorded match would be subject to copyright. It is only whether there is copyright in the live telecasts.
Originality of the work is not contested in this case. The telecasts are not subject to copyright because they are not fixed.
Fixation in the Copyright Act
Under the Canadian Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c.C-42), there is no definition for fixation nor is it required that every work be "fixed".
Under s.3(1)(1.1), however, any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, communicated by telecommunication, "is fixed even if it is fixed simultaneously with its communication."[4] This provision partially overrules the outcome in Canadian Admiral Corp. v Rediffusion Inc. Today, a live broadcast that is being simultaneously recorded, is protected by copyright. The definition of fixation within Canadian Admiral Corp. v Rediffusion Inc., remains the valid.
Under Part II, Performers' Rights, fixation is also addressed. The performer retains certain rights to reproductions of his/her performance depending on whether the performance was fixed or not. If the performance is not fixed, the performer has the sole right to communicate it to the public by telecommunication, to perform it in public (where it is communicated to the public by telecommunication otherwise than by communication signal), and to fix it in any material form.[5]
Comparison to the US
Alongside originality, fixation must also be satisfied in order to be protected by copyright. Fixation, in the United States, is defined and required as per Title 17 of the United States Code. As per 17 U.S.C. §101, fixation takes place in a work, "when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."[6] This definition is largely similar to the view taken in Canadian Admiral Corp v Diffusion Inc., though fixation in the US only requires the lower standard of "transitory duration" for copyrightable work whereas in Canada, fixation has been articulated as "more or less permanent endurance."[6]
In USA, in order to qualify for the copyright protection, a work must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression.[6] In the White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company,[citation needed] the court defined the "copy" as a "material object in which a work is fixed and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Further, in the Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.,[citation needed] the court held that the law does not require work to be written down in the exact way that it is perceived by the human senses (eyes).
According to William Patry, fixation in the United States is intended to serve two purposes. It lowers the burden of proof and forms the dividing line between common law protection and the federal Copyright Act protection.
The method by which fixation takes place may vary depending on the subject matter of the copyrighted work. Meeting the requirement of fixation can be more difficult in certain types of works.
Even in works that appear to be original, fixation may not be self-evident. In Kelley v. Chicago Park District, the author, Chapman Kelley, sought to enforce moral rights in his wildflower display at a public park in downtown Chicago. Kelley utilized the landscape and flowers to create large outdoor displays from 1983 to 1985. In order to claim relief, Kelley claimed copyright in the ‘living landscape art’. The requirement of fixation was one of the points where his case failed. The court was of the opinion that the living garden was not fixed in the form as necessary to enjoy copyright protection. The elements that constituted the garden were found to be ‘alive’, ‘inherently changeable’ and therefore ‘not fixed’.[7] The court also noted that in this instance, it was very difficult to determine at what point fixation had occurred.
Demonstrating fixation can also be crucial in showing infringement. A work may be infringed by the creation of copies in violation of §106 of the United States Copyright Statute. It must be shown that infringing works are in a 'fixed' form constituting copies. As per 17 USC §101, in the case of both 'copies' and 'phonorecords',they are 'materials in which a work can be fixed by any method now known or later developed'.[8] Owing to the use of the term 'transitory duration', the minimal threshold for duration has been the subject to instances of litigation in the United States. Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. is a prime example. This litigation involved the a cable network provider known as 'Cablevision' which offered a remote storage DVR technology for their viewers. It differed from ordinary DVR services in that instead of storing the content in the personal drive of the subscriber, the content was stored remotely at Cablevision's facilities. At multiple stages, the content was buffered in such a manner that programming content was held in the buffers for periods o.1 and 1.2 seconds at a time. The Circuit Court decision held that on account of the buffer period the duration requirement was not satisfied as the reproduction was only for a transitory duration.[9]
In the case of sound recordings, fixation actually determines the scope of rights. According to 17 USC §114(b), the exclusive right of the copyright owner is restricted to duplication of the 'actual sound fixed in the recording' and this goes for the right to create derivative works as well. This excludes the imitation or simulation of the sounds in the copyrighted recording.[10]
In some cases, the fixation of the work may not be relevant to a claim of infringement. 17 U.S. Code §106 gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work.[11]However, no requirement of fixation appears in the definitions of derivative works under 17 USC §101.
Apart from this, fixation in the United States is relevant to the law on live performances as well. The law provides remedies in case of an unauthorized fixation in the sound or images of the live performance in a phonorecord or copy.[12]
Fixation in material form under Indian copyright regime
Copyright is the protection from unauthorized use of author’s original creative expression. For the purpose of copyright protection, the work concerned has to be Original work of authorship[13] and Fixed in material form. A work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression when it’s written down, recorded, or otherwise made permanent so that it can be perceived and reproduced by others. Berne Convention provides that the copyright subsists in literary and artistic works “whatever may be the mode or form of its expression”[14] allowing each signatory to determine whether it will require fixation “in some material form.”[15]
Indian regime follows the fundamental rule of copyright law, laid down in Article 9(2) of TRIPS and Article 2 of WCT, 1996, that copyright does not subsist in ideas and only protects original expression of the ideas. The requirement of fixation in material form is a precondition for copyright to subsist in a work.[16] Generally, in the common law countries, the principle of fixation in copyright law is followed.
For subsistence of copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work, the UK Act makes recording, in writing or otherwise, a precondition[17] whereas the Indian Act does not have such a qualifying clause for literary or other works for copyright subsistence in them. This leaves ground for exploring the possibility of copyright protection for original and oral literary and dramatic pieces.[18]
However, in the case of musical works, in India, the condition of fixation in a medium has been done away since 1994 as can be deduced from the amended definition of ‘musical work’ compared to the pre-amended one.[19] This amendment finds its genesis in Justice Krishna Iyer’s observation that the earlier provision was an “un-Indian feature.”[20]
The rationale of principle of fixation is the requirement of certainty as to what the work is. Another reason for it is to define the limits of copyright so that it does not extend to ideas or underlying information and its ability to be used as an evidence. Fixation need not be permanent but may be temporary or transient.[21] To illustrate, the original extempore speech is protected as a literary work,[22] provided some record of it is maintained. In that respect, the copyright would be owned by the person making the speech and not by the person who records it.
Fixation and infringement
To reproduce a copyrighted work in any material form without the consent of the copyright owner constitutes an infringement.[23] Thus, an infringing copy must be in a "material form".
Material form has been interpreted to mean "palpable, tangible, perceptible" and not merely ephemeral.[24] Yet in 2009, the Copyright Board of Canada concluded that 4-6 second buffer of copyrighted material stored on the RAM of satellite receivers satisfied the material form requirement of a reproduction despite being imperceptible to the user. That the user could potentially retrieve a more permanent ephemeral copy was noted.[25] Thus, ephemeral copies (including streaming, caching and temporary downloads) are considered to be in material form.[25]
On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, however, the material form issue was not addressed and it could still be argued that such temporary copies such as those held on RAM do not meet such a requirement. It is odd to consider, for instance, how "material form" has been construed from being something "capable of identification and having more or less permanent endurance" in Canadian Admiral to something "ephemeral" and incapable of being perceived in the Satellite Radio decision. In addition, it could be argued that section 30.71 in Bill C-11 will address temporary reproduction for technological process, exempting reproduction of work or other subject-matter if the reproduction forms an essential part of a technological process. This would be in line with a supreme court decision where caches on an IP server were found to be copies made purely for technical reasons (to improve efficiency and utility) and therefore fell within a copyright exemption for telecommunication providers.[26]
Rationales and considerations
Fixation, as a requirement for copyrightability, is capable of supporting different objectives:
Administration: having something to refer to makes it easier to determine whether copyright subsists and whether it has been infringed.
The Idea vs Fact Dichotomy: tangible forms make it easier to separate underlying ideas from the expression of those ideas.
Notice: material forms make it easier to identify what may be subject to copyright, allowing others to avoid infringement.
Reducing Opportunism: without material forms, baseless allegations of copyright can abound.
Non-Casualness: fixed forms are formalised, raising the threshold as to whether something should be protected.
Incentive to Codify Knowledge: fixed forms lend themselves better to preservation, transmission and dissemination.
Under these rationales, it can be seen how the requirement of fixation lends some certainty to the law. Passing conversations, for instance, would otherwise automatically qualify for copyright protection. Fixation can also be easily understood when the nature of the work itself, implies a material form: a photograph or painting, for example. On the other hand, fixation can be a slippery concept, particularly because it is not statutory required under the Canadian Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c.C-42). Rather, one can argue that the Act specifically refers to works being protected "whatever may be the mode or form of its expression."[27] Thus, speeches, lectures and the like, fit well within this broad definition. The implication being that fixation is not a universal requirement.
Another issue with fixation becomes evident when we consider that works are often subject to revision and constant update. In the case of an electronic database where the data changes by the minute, for example, how can the system be considered "fixed"?[28] Other poignant examples include performances that are improvised or interactive art (such as immersive theatre). In these cases, fixation appears to be making a value distinction between what kinds of artistic works are worthy of protection.
Rigidly requiring fixation reduces the reach of copyright by restricting the number and kinds of work to which copyright can offer protection. This favours the public interest in the sharing and dissemination of information at the expense of the creator or author receiving a just reward. In the US, this tipping of the scales in favour of the public interest sits well with the general approach to copyright protection, the aim of which is constitutionally mandated as the "Progress of Science and Arts". In Canada, however, there is no constitutional guidance on how to balance the competing interests of the public with those of the creator or author. In CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] SCJ No.12, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized taking the "middle way" between US and UK copyright law on the question of originality. Even if this "middle way" approach was adopted with regards to fixation, rejecting the US requirement for fixation as one extreme, it remains unclear what this would be mean in actual practice - rather, it may well be the case that "the whole concept of fixation requires rethinking."[29]
Copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to make copies of a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.
Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.
Software copyright is the application of copyright law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.
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.
Théberge v Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc[2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34 is one of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading cases on copyright law. This case interprets the meaning of "reproduction" within the Copyright Act of Canada, and touches on the moral rights to copyrighted material and how much control an author has over his work once it is in the hands of a third party.
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.
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company, 209 U.S. 1 (1908), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that manufacturers of music rolls for player pianos did not have to pay royalties to the composers. The ruling was based on a holding that the piano rolls were not copies of the plaintiffs' copyrighted sheet music, but were instead parts of the machine that reproduced the music.
Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc., [1954] Ex. CR 382, 20 CPR 75 is a Canadian copyright law decision by the Exchequer Court. 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.
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 United States copyright law, a copyright notice is a notice of statutorily prescribed form that informs users of the underlying claim to copyright ownership in a published work.
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.
In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.
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.
The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1926, are in the public domain.
The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 is an act of the US Congress that makes the layouts of integrated circuits legally protected upon registration, and hence illegal to copy without permission. It is an integrated circuit layout design protection law.
Authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada is an important and complex topic which lies at the nexus between Canada's Copyright Act, an important body of case law, and a number of compelling policy motives. Analysis of Authorship and ownership of copyrightable works in Canada can proceed by examination of the rules determining the initial allocation of copyrights, rules governing subsequent changes in ownership, and finally rules governing complex works such as compilations.
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.
The protection of intellectual property (IP) of video games through copyright, patents, and trademarks, shares similar issues with the copyrightability of software as a relatively new area of IP law. The video game industry itself is built on the nature of reusing game concepts from prior games to create new gameplay styles but bounded by illegally direct cloning of existing games, and has made defining intellectual property protections difficult since it is not a fixed medium.
The Copyright Act is the legal framework that protects the use of an individual's work once the idea has been physically expressed. It is a form of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. Ghana's current copyright law is Act 690 issued by the Parliament of the Republic of Ghana. It was enacted on May 17, 2005 and replaced Parliament's Act No. 110, the country's previous Copyright law from 1985. The Copyright law affords protection to a variety of works, grants Copyright holders rights to their work and defines the duration of that Copyright protection.
References
1 2 3 Canadian Admiral Corp v Rediffusion Inc., [1954] 20 C.P.R. 75, para 28.
↑ Canadian Admiral Corp v Rediffusion Inc., [1954] 20 C.P.R. 75, para 30.
↑ Canadian Admiral Corp v Rediffusion Inc., [1954] 20 C.P.R. 75, para 35.
↑ Canadian Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42), section 3(1)(1.1) with reference to section 3(1)(f)
↑ Canadian Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42), section 15(1)
↑ Section 3 (2) of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 (CDP Act)
↑ T C James, Copyright Law of India and the Academic Community, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 9, May 2004, pp. 207-225
↑ See Section 2 (p) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as amended in 1994 which reads as “musical work” means a work consisting of music and includes any graphical notation of such work but does not include any works or any action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. Before the amendment it read, “musical work” means any combination of melody and harmony or either of them, printed, reduced to writing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced
↑ Indian Performing Right Society v. Eastern India Motion Picture Associates, AIR 1977 SC 1443
↑ Halsbury's Laws of India (Intellectual Property) > Halsbury's Laws of India (Intellectual Property) > [185] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY-I > 1. COPYRIGHT > (2) BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COPYRIGHT LAW > B. ORIGINALITY > [185.020] Fixation in material form.
↑ As to the meaning of ‘literary work’. See, University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 at 608; Jagdish Prasad Gupta v Parmeshwar Prasad Singh AIR 1966 Pat 33; Satsang v Kiron Chandra Mukhopadhyay AIR 1972 Cal 533; Agarwala Publishing House Khurja v Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad AIR 1967 All 91.
↑ Canadian Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42), section 27(1) and 3(1)
↑ Eros-Equipe de recherche operationnelle en sante Inc v Conseillers en gestion et informatique C.G.I. Inc (2004), 35 CPR (4th 105 at para 113
1 2 Statement of Royalties to Be Collected by SOCAN, NRCC and CSI in Respect of Multi-Channel Subscription Satellite Radio Services [2009] CBD No 4 at para 102
↑ Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427
↑ Canadian Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42), section 2: see definition of "original literary, dramatic and artistic work"
↑ David Vaver, Intellectual Property Law, 2nd Edition, Irwin Law: Toronto, 2011. See "Fixation" at pg 107.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
