{"id":265316,"date":"2017-07-13T10:31:32","date_gmt":"2017-07-13T14:31:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/issues\/reviewing-copyright-check-glossary\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T21:41:37","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T01:41:37","slug":"reviewing-copyright-check-glossary","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2017\/07\/reviewing-copyright-check-glossary\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewing copyright? Check the glossary."},"content":{"rendered":"

Before Canada dives into its mandated review of the Copyright Act<\/em>, it would be helpful to refresh our understanding of some key terms essential to understanding copyright.<\/p>\n

Balance<\/strong><\/p>\n

Copyright, we\u2019re often told, is all about balance. We are apparently looking for perfect equilibrium between opposing groups: rights holders and users.<\/p>\n

Who are the real people we\u2019re trying to balance? One is a discrete group of cultural professionals who have created works in a precarious economy marked by risky entrepreneurship and constant innovation. The other is a limitless population of potential consumers stretching forward throughout time. The user group is overwhelmingly larger than the creator group. In fact, it even includes all of the individual members of the creator group in its vast numbers.<\/p>\n

The suggestion that these two groups are somehow on an equal footing is false, especially now that digital technology has made access to creative works practically universal. The tiniest exception to the rights and control of creators can cause immediate and disproportionate devastation to their interests while privileging users beyond their actual needs. Digital file-sharing technology is the case in point for that phenomenon.<\/p>\n

Copyright law was never designed to provide an even split of rights for users. That is a misleading premise. Instead, copyright was conceived to give cultural workers control of their creations and to provide the opportunity for remuneration in exchange for contributions to the larger culture. In French, copyright is known as \u201cdroit d\u2019auteur\u201d \u2014 the right of the author. It was made for rights holders. That\u2019s the purpose of copyright, and we must let it serve that purpose.<\/p>\n

Respect<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to feel respected in a conversation that always seems to be about how one\u2019s personal rights are too strong and don\u2019t have quite enough exceptions and loopholes carved through them.<\/p>\n

I wish I had a dollar for every time I\u2019ve heard or read the four words \u201cI respect copyright, but\u2026\u201d What follows the \u201cbut\u201d is usually some version of these lines: The work is too expensive. There are too many rules to follow. I can\u2019t immediately and freely do what I want with the work.<\/em><\/p>\n

Respect for the rights of precarious workers should not be contingent on whether someone really, really desires immediate, free, unpermitted access to their work. Respect should be the norm and the goal of cultural interaction around copyright. That norm is built with firm laws and simple, affordable licensing regulations.<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s authors and publishers have just won a landmark Federal Court decision asserting our rights in the educational space (Access Copyright v. York University)<\/a><\/u>, but already prominent \u201cfree culture\u201d advocates are counseling educators to appeal this decision and stick to their guns on a wildly expanded (and now completely discredited) definition of educational fair dealing. No group of cultural workers can afford to endlessly assert rights through costly and time-consuming litigation. That process also damages education (were students and teachers helped in the four years York defended its copying practices?). The upcoming copyright review is the government\u2019s opportunity to make sure fair and respectful licensing of work is at the core of all industrial uses like educational course packs and online course management systems.<\/p>\n

The writings of Chidi Oguamanam<\/a> and Andrea Bear Nicholas<\/a> make it clear, as well, that Western law has much work to do in incorporating and respecting Indigenous traditions of creativity into copyright. There can be no honest review of Canada\u2019s Copyright Act<\/em> in 2017 without centralizing these concerns and making the necessary changes.<\/p>\n

Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

There\u2019s a very good reason the owners of copyright in cultural works are referred to as \u201crights\u201d holders. The ability to own and earn income from one\u2019s cultural contributions and creative work is recognized by the United Nations as a universally declared human right. The two-part article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> (UDHR) states:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n