Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Assns of Canada

Last updated
Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Assns of Canada
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: December 7, 2011
Judgment: July 12, 2012
Citations Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
Prior historyAppeal from the Federal Court of Appeal, 2011 FCA 292
RulingAppeal dismissed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byLeBel J.

Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Assns of Canada, 2012 SCC 38, is a Supreme Court of Canada case that confirmed that pre-existing sound recordings accompanying a cinematographic work are part of a soundtrack and are therefore excluded from equitable remuneration under the Copyright Act of Canada. [1] The decision was unanimous decided by the court on July 12, 2012.

Contents

Background and facts

Re:Sound is a collective society authorized by the Copyright Board of Canada ("Board") to collect equitable remuneration pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act for the performance in or communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings of musical works. [2]

The case arose due to two proposed tariffs (Tariffs 7 & 9) filed by Re:Sound under s. 67.1(1) of the Copyright Act (the "Act"). Tariff 7 proposed an entitlement for royalties to Re:Sound for the use of sound recordings embodied in a movie by motion picture theatres and other establishments exhibiting movie. Tariff 9 targeted the use of sound recordings in programs broadcast by commercial over the air, pay, specialty and other television services. [3] Re:Sound is entitled to collect tariffs on behalf of performers and makers of sound recordings when their recordings are performed in public or communicated to the public telecommunication under s. 19(1) of the Act. [4]

The respondents argued that the proposed tariffs must fail because the Act's definition of "sound recording" explicitly excludes soundtracks of cinematographic works. [5]

Re:Sound submitted that the definition of "sound recording" does not exclude a pre-existing sound recording that is incorporated into a soundtrack. Rather, it argued, the purpose of the exclusion was to create a hybrid right that combined visual and audio features to create new rights in a "cinematographic work". [6]

Issue

The issue in the appeal was whether pre-existing sound recordings incorporated into a soundtrack fall within the meaning of the undefined term "soundtrack" used in the definition of "sound recording" in s. 2 of the Act? [7]

Holding

The court unanimously agreed with the lower courts and the Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada that "soundtrack" includes pre-existing sound recordings and that such recordings are excluded from the definition of "sound recording" when they accompany a cinematographic work.

Analysis by the court

The court stated that there was no legislative intent to exclude pre-existing sound recordings from the definition of "soundtrack" and thus Re:Sound was not entitled to equitable remuneration under s. 19(1) of the Act. [8]

Statutory interpretation

The relevant sections of the Act read:

"2. In this Act, . . . "sound recording" means a recording, fixed in any material form, consisting of sounds, whether or not of a performance of a work, but excludes any soundtrack of a cinematographic work where it accompanies the cinematographic work;" [9]

"19.(1) Where a sound recording has been published, the performer and maker are entitled, subject to section 20, to be paid equitable remuneration for its performance in public or its communication to the public by telecommunication, except for any retransmission.

(2) For the purpose of providing the remuneration mentioned in subsection (1), a person who performs a published sound recording in public or communicates it to the public by telecommunication is liable to pay royalties

(a)in the case of a sound recording of a musical work, to the collective society authorized under Part VII to collect them; . . ." [9] [emphasis added]

LeBel J, writing for the court, stated that the exclusion in the definition of sound recording for "any soundtrack of a cinematographic work" would be superfluous if a "soundtrack" was considered a "sound recording" when it accompanies a cinematographic work. [10] It follows that such a soundtrack does not trigger the application of s. 19(1) because it is not a "sound recording" as defined in the Act.

For a soundtrack to be eligible for exclusion from equitable remuneration under s. 19(1) it must accompany the cinematographic work. Therefore, if a pre-existing recording is extracted from the cinematographic work (such as in the case of a CD soundtrack for a film) the pre-existing recording regains its ability to trigger s. 19(1) equitable remuneration. [11]

Comparative law and international rules

The court held foreign statutory definitions of "sound recording" which include the concept of "aggregate of sounds" were sufficiently different, leading to little persuasive weight of cases from foreign jurisdictions. [12]

Re:Sound also argued that the Act is incompatible with the Rome Convention on the basis of Article 10 which provides that "[p]roducers of phonograms shall enjoy the right to authorise or prohibit the direct or indirect reproduction of their phonograms". [11] The court states that the definition of "phonogram" in the Rome Convention includes only "specific aural fixations of sounds" and thus once the sound recording accompanies a cinematographic work it is no longer governed by Article 10. If the sound recording were extracted from the cinematographic work, it would once again be protected, which is consistent with Article 10. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soundtrack</span> Recorded sound accompanying a production such as a film

A soundtrack is recorded sound accompanying and synchronised to the images of a book, drama, motion picture, radio program, television program, or video game; colloquially, a commercially released soundtrack album of music as featured in the soundtrack of a film, video, or television presentation; or the physical area of a film that contains the synchronised recorded sound.

A copyright collective is a non-governmental body created by copyright law or private agreement which licenses copyrighted works on behalf of the authors and engages in collective rights management. Copyright societies track all the events and venues where copyrighted works are used and ensure that the copyright holders listed with the society are remunerated for such usage. The copyright society publishes its own tariff scheme on its websites and collects a nominal administrative fee on every transaction.

Sound design is the art and practice of creating soundtracks for a variety of needs. It involves specifying, acquiring or creating auditory elements using audio production techniques and tools. It is employed in a variety of disciplines including filmmaking, television production, video game development, theatre, sound recording and reproduction, live performance, sound art, post-production, radio, new media and musical instrument development. Sound design commonly involves performing and editing of previously composed or recorded audio, such as sound effects and dialogue for the purposes of the medium, but it can also involve creating sounds from scratch through synthesizers. A sound designer is one who practices sound design.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright law of Canada</span> Canadian statutes controlling copyright

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 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.

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.

<i>Provincial Court Judges Assn of New Brunswick v New Brunswick (Minister of Justice)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Provincial Court Judges' Assn of New Brunswick v New Brunswick ; Ontario Judges Assn v Ontario ; Bodner v Alberta; Conférence des juges du Québec v Quebec (AG); Minc v Quebec (AG) [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court attempted to resolve questions about judicial independence left over from the landmark Provincial Judges Reference (1997). The Court found that government remuneration of provincial court judges that is lower than what an independent salary commission recommended can be justified. A broader perspective should be taken whether overall conditions of judicial independence have been met and some deference to the government is needed.

<i>Beauregard v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Beauregard v Canada [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial independence. Notably, the Court found that judicial independence is based partly on an unwritten constitution, and that some institutional independence is needed so that judges can guard the Constitution of Canada. These findings were repeated, with far-reaching consequences, in the Provincial Judges Reference (1997).

Japanese copyright laws consist of two parts: "Author's Rights" and "Neighbouring Rights". As such, "copyright" is a convenient collective term rather than a single concept in Japan. Japan was a party to the original Berne convention in 1899, so its copyright law is in sync with most international regulations. The 1899 law protected copyrighted works for 30 years after the author's death. Law changes promulgated in 1970 extended the duration to 50 years. However, in 2004 Japan further extended the copyright term to 70 years for cinematographic works; for films released before 1971, the copyright term also spans 38 years after the director's death.

Articles related to the field of motion pictures include:

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.

Collection administration of copyrights describes the use in Canadian law of collective societies to manage licenses for copyrighted material belonging to more than one copyright owner. These collective societies are responsible for granting permission to use the works they manage and setting out what conditions users of their works must follow. Examples of collective societies in Canada include: Christian Video Licensing International and the Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency

<i>Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Bell Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36, is a leading Canadian case on the application of fair dealing under s. 29 of the Copyright Act. It pertained to the use of previews of musical works on online music services that sell digital files of musical works.

<i>Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)</i> 2016 Supreme Court of Canada case

Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 SCC 12 is a case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" for the purpose of s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

<i>Entertainment Software Assn v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<i>Cinar Corp v Robinson</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Cinar Corp v Robinson is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the field of copyright law, which has impact in many key aspects of it, including:

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG), 2014 SCC 40 is a significant case from the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian administrative law, focusing on whether the standard of review framework set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick applies to decisions of the Governor in Council of Canada (i.e., the Cabinet of Canada), and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.

<i>York University v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

York University v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2021 SCC 32 is a major decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matters of the effectiveness of copyright collectives and of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law.

References

  1. Smart & Biggar - Case Summary
  2. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 4
  3. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 5
  4. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 28
  5. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 6
  6. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 7
  7. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 25
  8. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 12
  9. 1 2 Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 30
  10. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at para 35
  11. 1 2 Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at paras 38-39
  12. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at paras 44-45
  13. Re:Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada 2012 SCC 38 at paras 48-50