Brian, If this article is online do you happen to have a URL for it? Mary Anne On 1 Nov 2004 at 21:49, gilchrists wrote: > There is an extensive article about this whole subject in today's > Toronto Star. It seems that yes indeed that as the legislation > currently stands the photographer will hold the copyright and those > who paid for their services will have to seek any releases - in fact > copyright ownership might be built into the small print of any > contracts. > > Also, the legislation might also be retro-active! It seems to have the > potential to become a researcher and archivist's nightmare! > > This is absolutely absurd and immediate action must be taken by > contacting the Members of Parliament ... > > Cheers! > J. Brian Gilchrist

I thank you very much for your reply to my email. (sent by your assistant). It stated that you were going to do further research on the subject of Canada's Post 1901 historical Census. I appreciate the fact that you replied but please keep your promise you will follow up with a reply when this is completed. I do hope you realize how important it is to preserve our heritage. We have destroyed so much of it already which is not very good for future generations. I have forwarded your reply to our Co-Chairpersons so that they can record it on our site. You can monitor your response by going to the following site which will be a green "fence" until we hear from you again: http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index6.htm I must congratulate you on your written English being that it is your 3rd language. I admire people that have command of so many languages (both spoken and written). I, personally, have 3 too but my two are verbal only. Once again, thank you for taking time to answer my email. (Miss) Adele Turner North Vancouver, B C -----Original Message----- From: Faille, Meili - Député [mailto:FaillM@parl.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 5:20 PM To: Adele Turner Subject: RE: Reply requested re: Post 1901 Historical Census Ms Adele Turner, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail about Post 1901 Historical Census. As this is not my area of expertise and I'm not yet familiar with the who's who in the various departments, I would like you to grant me more time to do research on this subject. Some of my constituents are specialist in history and genealogy and they have mentioned some changes to release of census information. Also, as English is my third language, I would like to have more time to better understand the problem. I don't want to misleed you with an inappropriate answer. I will get back to you in another e-mail. Sincerely yours, Meili Faille Députée de Vaudreuil-Soulanges Porte parole du Bloc Québécois en matière de citoyenneté et d'immigration et auprès des groupes ethnoculturels Bureau à Ottawa Édifice de l'Ouest, Bureau 451 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6 Téléphone: (613)957-3744 Télécopieur: (613)952-0874 Bureau de la circonscription 476, Avenue Saint-Charles, Bureau 200 Vaudreuil-Dorion (Québec) J7V 2N6 Téléphone: (450)510-2305; 1-866-323-8518 (sans frais) Télécopieur: (450)510-2383 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- De : Adele Turner [mailto:ajturner@shaw.ca] Envoyé : 31 octobre 2004 16:26 À : Faille, Meili - Député Objet : Reply requested re: Post 1901 Historical Census Mr. Meili Faille: First of all, please accept my congratulations and best wishes for winning the seat in your riding. Please do all Canadians proud while serving our country and to finally take a personal stand on whether you desire to preserve Canadian history or not. Don't forget, you are answerable to ALL Canadians not just to those in your riding....when you vote in the House of Commons, you vote for all Canadians and your vote effects us all. I need to know HOW YOU stand on the Post 1901 Historic Census? Do you support its preservation or its destruction? I sure hope in the future that it will not be typical of your office to ignore correspondence sent to you or worse still by sending a "thank you letter…then stating I have passed on your concerns to Mr. Emerson whose responsibility this belongs or to whomever is your critic". I HAVE written to them all. If I eventually do, probably it will be another "thank you for your letter and advising us of your concerns." PLEASE DON’T PASS THE BUCK AGAIN. I just want your answer to my question. It can’t be that difficult to do take a stand. My goal, as a member of the Canada (Save Our) Census Committee, is to draw your attention to the Chief Statistician’s refusal to release control for the 1911 Census records to the National Archivist. According to law, the 1911 Census should have been released June 1, 2003 and to date this has not happened. Legally, the Chief Statistician should immediately transfer all national treasures such as the 92-year-old Canadian Census to the control of the National Archivist for safekeeping and not destroyed as Dr. Ivan Fellegi wishes. You may or not be aware that for the past seven or so years, there has been a public campaign by genealogists and historians have been seeking to regain the public access to Historic Census records after 1901 that has been improperly, (and believed illegally), withheld from public access by Canada's Chief Statistician, Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi. The campaign has sought to regain the same unrestricted access to records after 1906 that has been available for 240 years of Census records up to that time. We have made submissions and provided more than 65,000 petition signatures in an effort to voice our concerns for all who are searching for their historic family information. A history of our struggles with the Chief Statistician is well documented on our website, www.globalgenealogy.com/Census. Included here are findings of an Expert Panel, and the results of cross-Canada Town Hall meetings, which all show agreement that there was misinterpretation on the part of the Chief Statistician with relation to the instructions given to Enumerators. Our law presently states that release of Census data must occur 92 years after collection. During the last session of Parliament there was an attempt to push through Bill S-13, supposedly to ‘correct’ a deficiency, (a deficiency only perceived by the Chief Statistician). Thankfully Parliament closed down in time to prevent passage, which ultimately would have done nothing to correct anything, except add an additional 20 more unnecessary years to the release time, and provide the Chief Statistician with more control. Most other countries in the world vary in release date from 70 to 100 years. Canadian taxpayers fund a Heritage Ministry, and what is more meaningful to our heritage and history than knowing and understanding our origins and ancestry, to say nothing of valuable medical information to be found. Mr. Wayne Easter has stated thus "In this age when criticism is leveled at our educational institutions for not making Canadian history courses readily available to our students, this attempt by Stats Can to further remove Canadians from their recorded historical roots must not be allowed to happen". The only resolution acceptable must be the same unrestricted public access for records after 1906, as is presently available for the existing 240 years of records up to that date. Access to these records is currently permitted under The Access to Information and Privacy Acts, and no legislative changes should be necessary for us to view these or any future records. What is required is a government which will live up to the pre-election promises the Prime Minister made of less interference by bureaucrats, and as well would require the Chief Statistician to obey the laws of the land. To date we have not had such a government. After all, the Chief Statistician does not have the legal right to enact or propose laws. His is an appointed position. Perhaps he has served his usefulness plus he has passed his legal retirement age when it is compulsory for all Canadians to retire. We would request that you introduce a Government Bill which would add to the Statistics Act, a single clause similar to the following: "Original schedules of Census or authentic copies thereof shall, not later than thirty (30) years following collection, be transferred to the care and control of the National Archivist for subsequent public access in accordance with provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, and Regulations attached thereto." In closing, I hope to hear in the near future that an "original" promise voted into law by government will finally be kept. Over the years, so many promises have been made to the Canadian people have been broken by government. A couple of the broken promises made by government are the discontinuation of the GST plus the Income Tax that was to be discontinued after WWI. Neither promise was ever kept when they got voted into office. And those are but two unkept promises. So PLEASE don’t give me the same old rhetoric about the Right to Privacy. My Dad at age 90 years wasn’t even born when the 1911 Census was conducted. So whose Right to Privacy are you pretending to preserve? It certainly isn’t my Dad’s. So please help us correct this potentially tragic destruction to Canada's past and its history. I would really appreciate receiving confirmation by email whether you support our cause or not so that we can post your reply on our website. Thanking you in advance for your PROMPT reply to this email Yours respectfully, (Miss) Adele J. Turner Canada Census Committee Member – Save our Census #67 - 1947 Purcell Way North Vancouver, BC V7J 3H4 604-987-5137 ajturner@shaw.ca

There is an extensive article about this whole subject in today's Toronto Star. It seems that yes indeed that as the legislation currently stands the photographer will hold the copyright and those who paid for their services will have to seek any releases - in fact copyright ownership might be built into the small print of any contracts. Also, the legislation might also be retro-active! It seems to have the potential to become a researcher and archivist's nightmare! This is absolutely absurd and immediate action must be taken by contacting the Members of Parliament ... Cheers! J. Brian Gilchrist ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shirley" <salane@eastlink.ca> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 2004 Nov 01 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] I question how any photographer can copyright any picture that was commissioned and paid for by an individual. If it is one taken by a photographer as art that is one thing but something he is hired to do for someone else is quite another matter Shirley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Muriel M. Davidson" <muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] > Hello Robbie:- > > Many thanks about Bill S-9 -- should anyone be searching > past photos, etc., he or she may be alright as I do not > honestly believe laws can be dated back to years ago. > I read something about it and am happy you mentioned it. > > The sale of digital cameras should really go up -- if the > photographers want to copyright everything, even the face of > a newborn baby -- it will be better to do this ourselves. > > Muriel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> > To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:26 PM > Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed > [off > topic] > > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I > believe >> it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to >> influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill >> before >> the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner > of >> a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family >> portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the >> photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family >> histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, >> would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's >> copyright. >> This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below >> in >> the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >> [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace >> J.McLean >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM >> To: Wallace J.McLean >> Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >> Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed >> >> >> >> >> The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and >> Technology are: >> >> Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca >> >> They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to >> copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. >> >> >> Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where >> Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in >> photographs: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? >> SourceId=80458 >> >> >> She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: >> >> I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings >> of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million >> photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, >> just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in >> provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the >> country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, >> envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part >> of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show >> us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. >> >> The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright >> protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications >> for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian >> culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private >> member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in >> that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional >> photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the >> issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving >> out other important considerations, considerations that are important >> to us. >> >> Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers >> and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate >> interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I >> can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the >> archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by >> professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction >> of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the >> historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of >> the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you >> and me, non-professional photographers. >> >> Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I >> represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and >> make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary >> Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, >> a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what >> archivists do; it's what I do. >> >> These photos are an integral and important part of our national >> heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright >> protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives >> can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a >> bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And >> I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, >> or even the medium term. >> >> There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken >> by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph >> is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door >> neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of >> the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are >> a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took >> the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is >> therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our >> researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get >> permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable >> historical research becomes impossible. >> >> >> * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS >> ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * >> >> Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): >> >> >> >> The same questions are much more difficult and complex when >> examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for >> providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no >> information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let >> alone when that person died. >> >> CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting >> solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving >> different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs >> taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative >> solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe >> the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we >> think it addresses only part of the problem. >> >> I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had >> a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this >> end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to >> identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need >> a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional >> photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast >> photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial >> value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. >> >> I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy >> analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do >> this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and >> work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable >> solutions. >> >> Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that >> was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will >> not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this >> legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. >> >> I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of >> professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, >> and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do >> this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be >> considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the >> archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, >> preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in >> the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this >> country. >> >> My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the >> responsible departments that policy options be identified on the >> ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs >> that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the >> economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of >> all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual >> history of our country while expecting that these will be available in >> future generations. >> >> The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need >> for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part >> of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright >> legislation for photographs has important implications for public >> policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one >> constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be >> considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on >> these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity >> for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy >> issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a >> pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the >> debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus >> on these important issues. >> >> Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is >> an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential >> element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants >> a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not >> extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite >> period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. >> At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall >> into the public domain. >> >> In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the >> public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as >> protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. >> >> >> As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain >> who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years >> after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for >> today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows >> when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who >> took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're >> in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's >> what we're saying. >> >> We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is >> there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide >> access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what >> the term of protection is. >> >> This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a >> little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the >> dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. >> >> There's a problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, >> who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, >> or the other thing. >> >> I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, >> about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different >> kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in >> one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all >> sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I >> can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater >> because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this >> problem. >> >> Here are the committee documents: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 >> >> >> >> >> >> The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. >> Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca >> and in the message area, type >> >> unsubscribe arcan-l >> >> then send the message. >> >> PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE >> ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004 >> >> >> ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >> Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at >> http://globalgazette.net >> > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to > CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains > (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command > -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text.

I have sent a reminder to Marc Godbout, MP for Ottawa Orleans as I have received no reply to my letter of August 8th. Great way for a new MP to make an impression. Muriel and Gordon - more signatures collected in Salt Lake City are on their way tomorrow. Patty McGregor

I have to ask , does anyone know what is the position / status of The National Library & Archives of Canada on this Bill ... I would think that they would be fighting this bill with every resource that they have.. ??? Maybe we should be emailing Ian Wilson at National Archives ? Alf from Vancouver ISLAND, B.C.

To all -- The number of those who are in agreement with census release is now up to 188 -- Gordon likely has spent the whole day at the computer as it takes a great deal of time to do the posting. Ontario still has the distinction of being the only province with a RED X -- I have tried -- but no answer. Still a great deal of work and many are newcomers -- some were appointed but still should reply. Manitoba is still ONE short of being 100% GOLD as is Nova Scotia and Yukon -- we hope Steven Fletcher answers soon. He has the distinction of being the first quadraplegic in the House of Commons --- he will have first-hand knowledge of being disabled but able to be very useful when that topic is discussed. Only ONE needed to make Prince Edward Island 100% GOLD. Saskatchewan only has ONE Fence and ONE ?? to change. A great deal of work necessary in Quebec but I hope it is beng done -- not just by one person or two, but the WHOLE Quebec committee. For a glowing scoreboard, start at British Columbia!! http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index6.htm This is only the House of Commons!! Several have been copied in, just to let them know the Canada Census Committee is real and active. Please check YOUR province and send notes to ones who are not yet sporting the glowing GOLD tick!!! Your note and any reply must come to Gordon Watts and/or myself. As in show business -- years ago -- BREAK A LEG!!! Muriel M. Davidson muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee Brampton, ON

I thank you very much for your reply to my email Mr. Koto (sent by your assistant). It stated that you support the preservation of Canada's historical documents. I have forwarded your reply to our Co-Chairpersons so that they can record it on our site. You can monitor your response by going to the following site: http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index6.htm You can also go to this same site and download petitions (House of Commons & Senate) if you wish to support this with a signature. I must congratulate you on your written English being that it is your 5th language. I admire people that have command of so many languages (both spoken and written). I, personally, have 3 but two of them are verbal only. Once again, thank you for your support. (Miss) Adele Turner North Vancouver, B C -----Original Message----- From: Kotto, Maka - Assistant 1 [mailto:KottoM0@parl.gc.ca]On Behalf Of Kotto, Maka - Député Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:49 AM To: Adele Turner Subject: RE: Historical Census - Post 1901 Miss Turner, For me, the culture is very important. People have the right and the obligation to understand their past. We have to know where we came from if we want to know where we go. I realize how deeply we have to educate others on the importance of the culture for the preservation of our identity. So you can count on my vote if the matter come on the floor of this parlement. Yours, Maka Kotto MP P.S. Sorry if I make some mistake in English. You have to know this my fifth language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- De : Adele Turner [mailto:ajturner@shaw.ca] Envoyé : 31 octobre 2004 16:29 À : Kotto, Maka - Député Objet : Historical Census - Post 1901 Mr. Maka Kotto: First of all, please accept my congratulations and best wishes for winning the seat in your riding. Please do all Canadians proud while serving our country and to finally take a personal stand on whether you desire to preserve Canadian history or not. Don't forget, you are answerable to ALL Canadians not just to those in your riding....when you vote in the House of Commons, you vote for all Canadians and your vote effects us all. I need to know HOW YOU stand on the Post 1901 Historic Census? Do you support its preservation or its destruction? I sure hope in the future that it will not be typical of your office to ignore correspondence sent to you or worse still by sending a "thank you letter…then stating I have passed on your concerns to Mr. Emerson whose responsibility this belongs or to whomever is your critic". I HAVE written to them all. If I eventually do, probably it will be another "thank you for your letter and advising us of your concerns." PLEASE DON’T PASS THE BUCK AGAIN. I just want your answer to my question. It can’t be that difficult to do take a stand. My goal, as a member of the Canada (Save Our) Census Committee, is to draw your attention to the Chief Statistician’s refusal to release control for the 1911 Census records to the National Archivist. According to law, the 1911 Census should have been released June 1, 2003 and to date this has not happened. Legally, the Chief Statistician should immediately transfer all national treasures such as the 92-year-old Canadian Census to the control of the National Archivist for safekeeping and not destroyed as Dr. Ivan Fellegi wishes. You may or not be aware that for the past seven or so years, there has been a public campaign by genealogists and historians have been seeking to regain the public access to Historic Census records after 1901 that has been improperly, (and believed illegally), withheld from public access by Canada's Chief Statistician, Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi. The campaign has sought to regain the same unrestricted access to records after 1906 that has been available for 240 years of Census records up to that time. We have made submissions and provided more than 65,000 petition signatures in an effort to voice our concerns for all who are searching for their historic family information. A history of our struggles with the Chief Statistician is well documented on our website, www.globalgenealogy.com/Census. Included here are findings of an Expert Panel, and the results of cross-Canada Town Hall meetings, which all show agreement that there was misinterpretation on the part of the Chief Statistician with relation to the instructions given to Enumerators. Our law presently states that release of Census data must occur 92 years after collection. During the last session of Parliament there was an attempt to push through Bill S-13, supposedly to ‘correct’ a deficiency, (a deficiency only perceived by the Chief Statistician). Thankfully Parliament closed down in time to prevent passage, which ultimately would have done nothing to correct anything, except add an additional 20 more unnecessary years to the release time, and provide the Chief Statistician with more control. Most other countries in the world vary in release date from 70 to 100 years. Canadian taxpayers fund a Heritage Ministry, and what is more meaningful to our heritage and history than knowing and understanding our origins and ancestry, to say nothing of valuable medical information to be found. Mr. Wayne Easter has stated thus "In this age when criticism is leveled at our educational institutions for not making Canadian history courses readily available to our students, this attempt by Stats Can to further remove Canadians from their recorded historical roots must not be allowed to happen". The only resolution acceptable must be the same unrestricted public access for records after 1906, as is presently available for the existing 240 years of records up to that date. Access to these records is currently permitted under The Access to Information and Privacy Acts, and no legislative changes should be necessary for us to view these or any future records. What is required is a government which will live up to the pre-election promises the Prime Minister made of less interference by bureaucrats, and as well would require the Chief Statistician to obey the laws of the land. To date we have not had such a government. After all, the Chief Statistician does not have the legal right to enact or propose laws. His is an appointed position. Perhaps he has served his usefulness plus he has passed his legal retirement age when it is compulsory for all Canadians to retire. We would request that you introduce a Government Bill which would add to the Statistics Act, a single clause similar to the following: "Original schedules of Census or authentic copies thereof shall, not later than thirty (30) years following collection, be transferred to the care and control of the National Archivist for subsequent public access in accordance with provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, and Regulations attached thereto." In closing, I hope to hear in the near future that an "original" promise voted into law by government will finally be kept. Over the years, so many promises have been made to the Canadian people have been broken by government. A couple of the broken promises made by government are the discontinuation of the GST plus the Income Tax that was to be discontinued after WWI. Neither promise was ever kept when they got voted into office. And those are but two unkept promises. So PLEASE don’t give me the same old rhetoric about the Right to Privacy. My Dad at age 90 years wasn’t even born when the 1911 Census was conducted. So whose Right to Privacy are you pretending to preserve? It certainly isn’t my Dad’s. So please help us correct this potentially tragic destruction to Canada's past and its history. I would really appreciate receiving confirmation by email whether you support our cause or not so that we can post your reply on our website. Thanking you in advance for your PROMPT reply to this email Yours respectfully, (Miss) Adele J. Turner Canada Census Committee Member – Save our Census #67 - 1947 Purcell Way North Vancouver, BC V7J 3H4 604-987-5137 ajturner@shaw.ca

I stand corrected, Lois!!! From now on, we need to have a family history of every snapshot we take. Will it also cover paintings with site online http://www.lyndencowan.com/ My daughter does have a "copyright" statement there. Using her as an example, what else should people do -- if Bill S-9 goes through. Muriel M. Davidson muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee == ----- Original Message ----- From: Lois Sparling To: Muriel M. Davidson Cc: CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] Sorry to burst your bubble, Muriel, but legislation can be retro-active. Also, this Bill will not just cover photographs by professional photographs, but family snap shots, too. Imagine having to prove who took the picture and then proving that you inherited the rights to it (assuming you did) in order to have a copy made at London Drugs or wherever. Lois Sparling Muriel M. Davidson wrote: Hello Robbie:- Many thanks about Bill S-9 -- should anyone be searching past photos, etc., he or she may be alright as I do not honestly believe laws can be dated back to years ago. I read something about it and am happy you mentioned it. The sale of digital cameras should really go up -- if the photographers want to copyright everything, even the face of a newborn baby -- it will be better to do this ourselves. Muriel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] Hello everyone, I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I believe it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill before the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner of a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's copyright. This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below in the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. Thanks, Rob ======= -----Original Message----- From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace J.McLean Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM To: Wallace J.McLean Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and Technology are: Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in photographs: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80458 She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving out other important considerations, considerations that are important to us. Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you and me, non-professional photographers. Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what archivists do; it's what I do. These photos are an integral and important part of our national heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, or even the medium term. There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable historical research becomes impossible. * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): The same questions are much more difficult and complex when examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let alone when that person died. CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we think it addresses only part of the problem. I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable solutions. Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this country. My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the responsible departments that policy options be identified on the ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual history of our country while expecting that these will be available in future generations. The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright legislation for photographs has important implications for public policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus on these important issues. Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall into the public domain. In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's what we're saying. We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what the term of protection is. This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. There's a problem. I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this problem. Here are the committee documents: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837

Greetings All. I have not yet had time to look at this Bill but given some time I will. Copyright is nothing new for professional photographers. They have had such rights for as long as I can remember although I cannot at this time say what the copyright is or for how long it lasts. For those who might doubt this, have a look at the back of your wedding photos, or on the back of any studio portrait that you might have and you will likely see a stamp stating that it is copyrighted by the studio that took them. I have seen situations where the local photo shop would refuse to make prints from a positive picture because it had such a stamp on it. Without having looked at the legislation I do not see this having much affect on family photos that you have in your possession but should they end up in any provincial or federal archives that is likely where problems will arise. Unlike the closing or restricting of sources of information because of privacy paranoia, I would suspect that the motive that has inspired any copyright changes here is greed, pure and simple. If professional photographers wish to increase copyright they should be required to stamp each and every photograph they produce with the date the picture was taken, the name of the photographer and the name of the studio in which it was taken. The onus should be on the photographer to prove where, when and by whom the picture was taken. Failing that, public use of the photos should be fair game - particularly when they are obviously old and held within archives. Happy Hunting. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] Hello everyone, I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I believe it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill before the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner of a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's copyright. This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below in the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. Thanks, Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace J.McLean Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM To: Wallace J.McLean Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and Technology are: Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in photographs: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? SourceId=80458 She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving out other important considerations, considerations that are important to us. Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you and me, non-professional photographers. Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what archivists do; it's what I do. These photos are an integral and important part of our national heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, or even the medium term. There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable historical research becomes impossible. * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): The same questions are much more difficult and complex when examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let alone when that person died. CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we think it addresses only part of the problem. I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable solutions. Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this country. My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the responsible departments that policy options be identified on the ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual history of our country while expecting that these will be available in future generations. The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright legislation for photographs has important implications for public policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus on these important issues. Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall into the public domain. In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's what we're saying. We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what the term of protection is. This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. There's a problem. Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, or the other thing. I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this problem. Here are the committee documents: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca and in the message area, type unsubscribe arcan-l then send the message. PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004 ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at http://globalgazette.net

Greetings All With the addition today of several new Gold Ticks we are now up to 189 responses from MPs that are supportive of access to Post 1901 Census records. We have now passed the number of 188 which is what we had before the Federal election. Following the election we had dropped to 139 so we have regained 50 Gold Ticks since then. Please keep your responses from MPs coming. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. Watts gordon_watts@telus.net Co-chair Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, BC http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census en francais http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f Permission to forward without notice is granted

Sorry to burst your bubble, Muriel, but legislation can be retro-active. Also, this Bill will not just cover photographs by professional photographs, but family snap shots, too. Imagine having to prove who took the picture and then proving that you inherited the rights to it (assuming you did) in order to have a copy made at London Drugs or wherever. Lois Sparling Muriel M. Davidson wrote: >Hello Robbie:- > >Many thanks about Bill S-9 -- should anyone be searching >past photos, etc., he or she may be alright as I do not >honestly believe laws can be dated back to years ago. >I read something about it and am happy you mentioned it. > >The sale of digital cameras should really go up -- if the >photographers want to copyright everything, even the face of >a newborn baby -- it will be better to do this ourselves. > >Muriel >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> >To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:26 PM >Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off >topic] > > > > >>Hello everyone, >> >>I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I >> >> >believe > > >>it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to >>influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill before >>the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner >> >> >of > > >>a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family >>portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the >>photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family >>histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, >>would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's copyright. >>This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below in >>the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. >> >>Thanks, >>Rob >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >>[mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace >>J.McLean >>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM >>To: Wallace J.McLean >>Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >>Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed >> >> >> >> >>The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and >>Technology are: >> >> Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca >> >>They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to >>copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. >> >> >>Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where >>Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in >>photographs: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? >>SourceId=80458 >> >> >>She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: >> >> I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings >>of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million >>photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, >>just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in >>provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the >>country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, >>envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part >>of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show >>us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. >> >> The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright >>protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications >>for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian >>culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private >>member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in >>that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional >>photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the >>issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving >>out other important considerations, considerations that are important >>to us. >> >> Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers >>and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate >>interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I >>can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the >>archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by >>professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction >>of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the >>historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of >>the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you >>and me, non-professional photographers. >> >> Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I >>represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and >>make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary >>Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, >>a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what >>archivists do; it's what I do. >> >> These photos are an integral and important part of our national >>heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright >>protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives >>can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a >>bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And >>I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, >>or even the medium term. >> >> There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken >>by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph >>is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door >>neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of >>the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are >>a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took >>the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is >>therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our >>researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get >>permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable >>historical research becomes impossible. >> >> >>* * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS >>ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * >> >>Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): >> >> >> >> The same questions are much more difficult and complex when >>examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for >>providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no >>information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let >>alone when that person died. >> >> CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting >>solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving >>different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs >>taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative >>solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe >>the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we >>think it addresses only part of the problem. >> >> I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had >>a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this >>end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to >>identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need >>a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional >>photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast >>photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial >>value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. >> >> I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy >>analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do >>this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and >>work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable >>solutions. >> >> Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that >>was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will >>not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this >>legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. >> >> I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of >>professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, >>and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do >>this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be >>considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the >>archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, >>preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in >>the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this >>country. >> >> My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the >>responsible departments that policy options be identified on the >>ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs >>that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the >>economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of >>all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual >>history of our country while expecting that these will be available in >>future generations. >> >> The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need >>for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part >>of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright >>legislation for photographs has important implications for public >>policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one >>constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be >>considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on >>these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity >>for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy >>issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a >>pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the >>debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus >>on these important issues. >> >> Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is >>an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential >>element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants >>a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not >>extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite >>period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. >>At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall >>into the public domain. >> >> In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the >>public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as >>protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. >> >> >> As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain >>who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years >>after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for >>today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows >>when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who >>took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're >>in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's >>what we're saying. >> >> We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is >>there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide >>access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what >>the term of protection is. >> >> This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a >>little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the >>dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. >> >> There's a problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, >>who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, >>or the other thing. >> >> I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, >>about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different >>kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in >>one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all >>sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I >>can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater >>because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this >>problem. >> >>Here are the committee documents: >> >>http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 >> >>http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 >> >> >> >> >> >>The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. >>Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca >>and in the message area, type >> >>unsubscribe arcan-l >> >>then send the message. >> >>PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE >>ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA >>--- >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004 >> >> >>==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >>Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at >> http://globalgazette.net >> >> >> > > >==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to >CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains >(in the Subject line and body of the message) the command >-- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. > > > >

Well, you may question it Shirley but that is entirely what professional photographers' groups have lobbied for. The news agencies have "counter-lobbied" to protect their rights: they will continue to own copyright in photos created by freelancers through their contractual agreements. But no one is lobbying for ordinary Canadians or researchers, except archivists. The parliamentary committees have viewed it mostly from a perspective of "privacy" for individuals, saying they are still protected under privacy legislation, not considering that individuals may want to use their commissioned photos in family histories, genealogical web-sites, family newsletters, e-mail, etc. Here are the Parliamentary links for those interested: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80458 -----Original Message----- From: Shirley [mailto:salane@eastlink.ca] Sent: November 1, 2004 3:48 PM To: CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] I question how any photographer can copyright any picture that was commissioned and paid for by an individual. If it is one taken by a photographer as art that is one thing but something he is hired to do for someone else is quite another matter Shirley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Muriel M. Davidson" <muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] > Hello Robbie:- > > Many thanks about Bill S-9 -- should anyone be searching > past photos, etc., he or she may be alright as I do not > honestly believe laws can be dated back to years ago. > I read something about it and am happy you mentioned it. > > The sale of digital cameras should really go up -- if the > photographers want to copyright everything, even the face of > a newborn baby -- it will be better to do this ourselves. > > Muriel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> > To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:26 PM > Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed > [off > topic] > > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I > believe >> it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to >> influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill >> before >> the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner > of >> a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family >> portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the >> photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family >> histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, >> would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's >> copyright. >> This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below >> in >> the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >> [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace >> J.McLean >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM >> To: Wallace J.McLean >> Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >> Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed >> >> >> >> >> The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and >> Technology are: >> >> Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca >> >> They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to >> copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. >> >> >> Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where >> Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in >> photographs: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? >> SourceId=80458 >> >> >> She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: >> >> I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings >> of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million >> photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, >> just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in >> provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the >> country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, >> envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part >> of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show >> us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. >> >> The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright >> protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications >> for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian >> culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private >> member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in >> that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional >> photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the >> issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving >> out other important considerations, considerations that are important >> to us. >> >> Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers >> and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate >> interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I >> can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the >> archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by >> professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction >> of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the >> historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of >> the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you >> and me, non-professional photographers. >> >> Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I >> represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and >> make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary >> Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, >> a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what >> archivists do; it's what I do. >> >> These photos are an integral and important part of our national >> heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright >> protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives >> can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a >> bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And >> I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, >> or even the medium term. >> >> There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken >> by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph >> is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door >> neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of >> the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are >> a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took >> the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is >> therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our >> researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get >> permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable >> historical research becomes impossible. >> >> >> * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS >> ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * >> >> Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): >> >> >> >> The same questions are much more difficult and complex when >> examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for >> providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no >> information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let >> alone when that person died. >> >> CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting >> solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving >> different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs >> taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative >> solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe >> the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we >> think it addresses only part of the problem. >> >> I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had >> a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this >> end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to >> identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need >> a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional >> photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast >> photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial >> value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. >> >> I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy >> analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do >> this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and >> work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable >> solutions. >> >> Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that >> was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will >> not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this >> legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. >> >> I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of >> professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, >> and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do >> this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be >> considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the >> archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, >> preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in >> the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this >> country. >> >> My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the >> responsible departments that policy options be identified on the >> ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs >> that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the >> economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of >> all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual >> history of our country while expecting that these will be available in >> future generations. >> >> The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need >> for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part >> of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright >> legislation for photographs has important implications for public >> policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one >> constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be >> considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on >> these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity >> for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy >> issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a >> pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the >> debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus >> on these important issues. >> >> Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is >> an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential >> element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants >> a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not >> extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite >> period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. >> At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall >> into the public domain. >> >> In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the >> public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as >> protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. >> >> >> As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain >> who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years >> after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for >> today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows >> when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who >> took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're >> in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's >> what we're saying. >> >> We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is >> there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide >> access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what >> the term of protection is. >> >> This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a >> little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the >> dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. >> >> There's a problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, >> who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, >> or the other thing. >> >> I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, >> about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different >> kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in >> one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all >> sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I >> can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater >> because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this >> problem. >> >> Here are the committee documents: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 >> >> >> >> >> >> The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. >> Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca >> and in the message area, type >> >> unsubscribe arcan-l >> >> then send the message. >> >> PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE >> ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004 >> >> >> ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >> Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at >> http://globalgazette.net >> > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to > CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains > (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command > -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004

I question how any photographer can copyright any picture that was commissioned and paid for by an individual. If it is one taken by a photographer as art that is one thing but something he is hired to do for someone else is quite another matter Shirley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Muriel M. Davidson" <muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] > Hello Robbie:- > > Many thanks about Bill S-9 -- should anyone be searching > past photos, etc., he or she may be alright as I do not > honestly believe laws can be dated back to years ago. > I read something about it and am happy you mentioned it. > > The sale of digital cameras should really go up -- if the > photographers want to copyright everything, even the face of > a newborn baby -- it will be better to do this ourselves. > > Muriel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> > To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:26 PM > Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed > [off > topic] > > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I > believe >> it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to >> influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill >> before >> the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner > of >> a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family >> portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the >> photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family >> histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, >> would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's >> copyright. >> This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below >> in >> the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >> [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace >> J.McLean >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM >> To: Wallace J.McLean >> Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca >> Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed >> >> >> >> >> The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and >> Technology are: >> >> Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca >> LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca >> Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca >> >> They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to >> copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. >> >> >> Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where >> Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in >> photographs: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? >> SourceId=80458 >> >> >> She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: >> >> I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings >> of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million >> photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, >> just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in >> provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the >> country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, >> envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part >> of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show >> us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. >> >> The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright >> protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications >> for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian >> culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private >> member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in >> that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional >> photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the >> issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving >> out other important considerations, considerations that are important >> to us. >> >> Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers >> and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate >> interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I >> can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the >> archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by >> professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction >> of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the >> historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of >> the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you >> and me, non-professional photographers. >> >> Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I >> represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and >> make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary >> Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, >> a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what >> archivists do; it's what I do. >> >> These photos are an integral and important part of our national >> heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright >> protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives >> can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a >> bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And >> I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, >> or even the medium term. >> >> There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken >> by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph >> is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door >> neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of >> the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are >> a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took >> the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is >> therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our >> researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get >> permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable >> historical research becomes impossible. >> >> >> * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS >> ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * >> >> Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): >> >> >> >> The same questions are much more difficult and complex when >> examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for >> providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no >> information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let >> alone when that person died. >> >> CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting >> solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving >> different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs >> taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative >> solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe >> the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we >> think it addresses only part of the problem. >> >> I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had >> a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this >> end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to >> identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need >> a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional >> photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast >> photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial >> value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. >> >> I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy >> analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do >> this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and >> work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable >> solutions. >> >> Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that >> was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will >> not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this >> legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. >> >> I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of >> professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, >> and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do >> this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be >> considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the >> archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, >> preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in >> the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this >> country. >> >> My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the >> responsible departments that policy options be identified on the >> ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs >> that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the >> economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of >> all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual >> history of our country while expecting that these will be available in >> future generations. >> >> The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need >> for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part >> of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright >> legislation for photographs has important implications for public >> policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one >> constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be >> considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on >> these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity >> for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy >> issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a >> pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the >> debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus >> on these important issues. >> >> Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is >> an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential >> element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants >> a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not >> extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite >> period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. >> At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall >> into the public domain. >> >> In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the >> public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as >> protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. >> >> >> As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain >> who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years >> after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for >> today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows >> when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who >> took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're >> in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's >> what we're saying. >> >> We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is >> there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide >> access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what >> the term of protection is. >> >> This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a >> little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the >> dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. >> >> There's a problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, >> who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, >> or the other thing. >> >> I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, >> about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different >> kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in >> one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all >> sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I >> can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater >> because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this >> problem. >> >> Here are the committee documents: >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 >> >> http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 >> >> >> >> >> >> The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. >> Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca >> and in the message area, type >> >> unsubscribe arcan-l >> >> then send the message. >> >> PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE >> ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004 >> >> >> ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >> Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at >> http://globalgazette.net >> > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to > CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains > (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command > -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. >

Hello Robbie:- Many thanks about Bill S-9 -- should anyone be searching past photos, etc., he or she may be alright as I do not honestly believe laws can be dated back to years ago. I read something about it and am happy you mentioned it. The sale of digital cameras should really go up -- if the photographers want to copyright everything, even the face of a newborn baby -- it will be better to do this ourselves. Muriel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robber" <robber@rogers.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: [CCC] Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed [off topic] > Hello everyone, > > I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I believe > it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to > influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill before > the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner of > a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family > portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the > photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family > histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, > would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's copyright. > This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below in > the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. > > Thanks, > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca > [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace > J.McLean > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM > To: Wallace J.McLean > Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca > Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed > > > > > The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and > Technology are: > > Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca > Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca > Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca > Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca > Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca > Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca > Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca > Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca > LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca > Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca > Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca > Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca > > They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to > copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. > > > Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where > Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in > photographs: > > http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? > SourceId=80458 > > > She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: > > I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings > of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million > photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, > just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in > provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the > country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, > envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part > of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show > us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. > > The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright > protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications > for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian > culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private > member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in > that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional > photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the > issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving > out other important considerations, considerations that are important > to us. > > Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers > and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate > interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I > can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the > archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by > professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction > of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the > historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of > the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you > and me, non-professional photographers. > > Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I > represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and > make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary > Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, > a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what > archivists do; it's what I do. > > These photos are an integral and important part of our national > heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright > protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives > can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a > bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And > I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, > or even the medium term. > > There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken > by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph > is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door > neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of > the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are > a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took > the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is > therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our > researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get > permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable > historical research becomes impossible. > > > * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS > ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * > > Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): > > > > The same questions are much more difficult and complex when > examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for > providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no > information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let > alone when that person died. > > CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting > solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving > different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs > taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative > solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe > the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we > think it addresses only part of the problem. > > I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had > a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this > end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to > identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need > a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional > photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast > photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial > value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. > > I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy > analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do > this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and > work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable > solutions. > > Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that > was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will > not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this > legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. > > I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of > professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, > and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do > this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be > considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the > archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, > preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in > the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this > country. > > My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the > responsible departments that policy options be identified on the > ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs > that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the > economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of > all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual > history of our country while expecting that these will be available in > future generations. > > The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need > for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part > of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright > legislation for photographs has important implications for public > policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one > constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be > considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on > these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity > for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy > issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a > pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the > debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus > on these important issues. > > Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is > an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential > element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants > a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not > extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite > period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. > At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall > into the public domain. > > In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the > public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as > protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. > > > As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain > who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years > after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for > today: "Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows > when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who > took it." It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're > in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's > what we're saying. > > We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is > there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide > access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what > the term of protection is. > > This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a > little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the > dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. > > There's a problem. > > > > > > > Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, > who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, > or the other thing. > > I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, > about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different > kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in > one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all > sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I > can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater > because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this > problem. > > Here are the committee documents: > > http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 > > http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 > > > > > > The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. > Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca > and in the message area, type > > unsubscribe arcan-l > > then send the message. > > PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE > ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004 > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at > http://globalgazette.net >

Hello everyone, I am forwarding the e-mail below although it is off-topic because I believe it will be of interest to genealogists who are engaged in trying to influence the government on the census issue. It relates to a bill before the Senate now that will re-assign copyright from the owner/commissioner of a photograph to the photographer. It would mean that copyright in family portraits, baby pictures, wedding pictures, etc. would reside with the photographer and not the family. Thus, use of the photographs in family histories, publications, genealogy web sites, or distribution by e-mail, would all be illegal, ie. an infringement of the photographer's copyright. This is a simplification of the bill but more detail is available below in the original e-mail from Wallace McLean. Thanks, Rob -----Original Message----- From: owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca [mailto:owner-arcan-l@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca]On Behalf Of Wallace J.McLean Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:56 PM To: Wallace J.McLean Cc: ARCAN-L@majordomo.srv.ualberta.ca Subject: Re: Copyright in Photos -- Bill S-9 -- URGENT action needed The members of the Senate Committe on Social Affairs, Science and Technology are: Kirby, Michael Chair - Lib. kirbymjl@sen.parl.gc.ca Keon, Wilbert Joseph Deputy-Chair - C keonw@sen.parl.gc.ca Callbeck, Catherine S. - Lib. callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca Cochrane, Ethel M. - C cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca Cook, Joan - Lib. cookj@sen.parl.gc.ca Fairbairn, Joyce - Lib. fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca Gill, Aurélien - Lib. gilla@sen.parl.gc.ca Johnson, Janis G. - C johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca LeBreton, Marjory - C lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca Morin, Yves - Lib. moriny@sen.parl.gc.ca Pépin, Lucie - Lib. pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn - Lib. counsm@sen.parl.gc.ca They are under the impression that Bill S-9 and its changes to copyright in photography are benign and uncontroversial. Here's the committee hearing from last spring, in the House, where Nancy Marelli delivered the archival concerns re copyright in photographs: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? SourceId=80458 She said in part -- and this is absolutely fantastic, dynamite stuff: I'm here because there are millions of photographs in the holdings of archival institutions across Canada. There are more than 21 million photos in the National Library and National Archives of Canada alone, just a short walk down the street. There are millions more in provincial, municipal, university, and other archives across the country, and even more in family archives, in shoe boxes, photo albums, envelopes, and small paper bags. These photographs are an integral part of the heritage and culture of Canadian society. They tell us and show us who we are, what we do, and where we come from. The recommendations members of Parliament will make on copyright protection for photographs will have immediate economic implications for professional photographers, but they will also affect Canadian culture and heritage. The status report discusses Bill S-16, a private member's bill in the Senate. The amendments to the Copyright Act in that bill reflect the needs and interests of professional photographers. We believe the bill and the status report outline the issues in a very narrow way, addressing specific problems but leaving out other important considerations, considerations that are important to us. Committee members have heard the view of professional photographers and will hear that of newspapers. They have important and legitimate interests the committee needs to hear, and we agree with that. What I can bring to you this afternoon is quite a different perspective: the archival point of view. Archival holdings contain photographs by professional photographers, but these represent only a small fraction of the photographs taken in this country and a small fraction of the historical photographs found in Canadian archives. The vast majority of the photographs in our archives are taken by ordinary people like you and me, non-professional photographers. Let me tell you a little bit about my world. The stakeholders I represent are the people who are entrusted to collect, preserve, and make available for historical research photographs taken by ordinary Canadians as well as by professional photographers ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, and even more years after a photo is taken. This is what archivists do; it's what I do. These photos are an integral and important part of our national heritage. Any recommendations the committee makes concerning copyright protection for photographs must ensure that the photographs in archives can be used for research and study purposes and don't descend into a bureaucratic black hole where they are not accessible to Canadians. And I'm talking about over the long term, not the short term, necessarily, or even the medium term. There are many copyright problems with archival photographs taken by ordinary Canadians. Most often, the person who took the photograph is unknown. Your uncle Joe, your cousin Sally, and your next-door neighbour don't sign their photographs. I don't know who took most of the photographs in my own family albums, particularly the ones that are a little bit older than I am. Without the information about who took the photograph, it is impossible to locate the copyright owner. It is therefore impossible to get permission for or to give permission to our researchers to use the photograph. If a researcher cannot get permission to use the photo, it sits in copyright limbo, and valuable historical research becomes impossible. * * * THIS SAME MESSAGE HAS TO GET THROUGH TO THAT LIST OF SENATORS ABOVE. And it has to be done on or before next Tuesday. * * * Some more of what Nancy had to say (again, this is dynamite stuff): The same questions are much more difficult and complex when examined from the point of view of an archivist responsible for providing access to millions of photographs for which there is no information about who owns the copyright and who took the photo, let alone when that person died. CIPPIC, who we just heard from, has put forward an interesting solution to address some of the issues I'm raising. They suggest giving different copyright protection to domestic and commercial photographs taken by professional photographers. We think it's an innovative solution, although, as it stands, as we have seen it, we don't believe the suggestion is workable or practical for the long term. As well, we think it addresses only part of the problem. I don't have legislation to suggest to the committee. I wish I had a magic wand that could fix all of this for all of us sitting at this end of the table, but I don't. What I do suggest is that we need to identify solutions other than those found in the status report. We need a copyright law that protects the economic interests of professional photographers and at the same time provides access to the vast photographic collections that have historical rather than commercial value. That's probably most of the photographs taken in this country. I don't know what the possible solutions are. I do know that policy analysts in the Departments of Heritage and Industry are trained to do this work. We're ready and willing, and in fact eager, to sit down and work with them and with other stakeholders to come up with viable solutions. Going forward with amendments based on a private member's bill that was drafted to address the problems of professional photographers will not meet the needs of all the stakeholders affected by this legislation. This would not serve Canadians well. I want to be very clear that I think the economic interests of professional photographers and other creators have to be considered, and have to be considered very seriously. We are fully prepared to do this. However, the interests of other stakeholders also need to be considered. This means including the interests of researchers and the archives and archivists who are responsible for acquiring, storing, preserving, and making available the documentary heritage contained in the many millions of photographs in archival collections across this country. My suggestion to the committee is that it recommend to the responsible departments that policy options be identified on the ownership, authorship, and term of copyright protection for photographs that consider all the stakeholder interests affected, including the economic interests of professional photographers and the interests of all the ordinary citizens who take photographs and record the visual history of our country while expecting that these will be available in future generations. The archival community believes very strongly that there is a need for serious policy analysis and public discussion as an integral part of the process for change in copyright legislation. Copyright legislation for photographs has important implications for public policy, affecting all Canadians within our society, not just one constituency or another. There are Canadians who would not be considered traditional stakeholders who want a voice in the debate on these public policy issues. The process should include an opportunity for full and open discussion and exploration of the public policy issues by a wide representation of Canadian society rather than a pressure-cooker atmosphere where powerful lobbyists dominate the debate. We believe this approach can help build true public consensus on these important issues. Finally, I would like to leave with the committee what we think is an important guiding principle: a robust public domain is an essential element of an informed and participatory society. Copyright law grants a limited monopoly to copyright owners. Copyright protection does not extend beyond original expression, nor does it last for an indefinite period of time. Facts and ideas remain outside the scope of copyright. At the end of a specified period of time, even protected works fall into the public domain. In the view of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists, safeguarding the public domain and keeping it robust is as fundamentally important as protecting the rights of individual and corporate owners of copyright. As you said yourself, the logistical issue of trying to ascertain who the rights holder is, and is this person dead or alive, 50 years after the fact.... It sounds so simple when you're doing it for today: “Yes, this photographer has a business; yes, he or she knows when the photographs were taken and knows who the photographer was who took it.” It's very straightforward. But 50 years down the line you're in a very different situation and you are in a never-never land. That's what we're saying. We have people who show up at our door, and the photograph is there; it's in front of them. We have it and we're willing to provide access to it, but we have no idea who the copyright holder is and what the term of protection is. This is a complicated issue. It's not just a question of fixing a little bit here and a little bit there. You're putting a finger in the dike and you're exploding the ground behind you. There's a problem. Ms. Nancy Marrelli: I just want to disagree with Monsieur Cornellier, who has said several times that it is simpler to simply do this, that, or the other thing. I think the problem is that you're talking, Monsieur Cornellier, about a very particular body of photographs. There are many different kinds of photographs out there in Canada, and I think what's simple in one situation is not always simple in another. I think we all sympathize with the problem you've brought up--certainly I do--but I can't say it's okay to sort of throw out the baby with the bathwater because you have a problem. We have to find a better fix to this problem. Here are the committee documents: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80836 http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=80837 The way to unsubscribe from the list is as follows. Send a message to majordomo@ualberta.ca and in the message area, type unsubscribe arcan-l then send the message. PLEASE DO NOT SEND AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE ADDRESSED TO ARCAN-L@MAJORDOMO.UALBERTA.CA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004

CREST House of Commons Chambre des Communes Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 October 22, 2004 Dear Mrs. Davidson: Thank you for your letter expressing your support for the release of post-1901 records. I appreciate knowing your views on this issue and am pleased to be given the opportunity of providing you with our position. The Conservative Party supports the preservation of census records and the transfer of these records to the national Archives for public release. We believe that keeping the records confidential for the historical 92-year period is an adequate length of time, and that is generally consistent with the practice in Britain and the United States, where records are kept confidential for 100 and 72 years respectively. Thank you again for taking the time to communicate with me. Yours sincerely, {signature] Russ Hiebert, M.P. South Surrey-White Rock - Cloverdale

CREST The Honourable L'honorable Bill Graham, P.C.,Q.C. Bill Graham, c.p., c.r. M.P. for Toronto Centre députe de Toronto Centre Oct. 29, 2004 Dear Mrs. Davidson:- Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning access to census data. I appreciate hearing from you and being made aware of your views. Since my appointment as Minister of National Defence, I have been privileged to take part in deliberations with the Prime Minister and other ministers of the Cabinet, and to speak for our Government in matters of national defence. In our parliamentary tradition, however, this privilege is accompanied by a corresponding responsibility to defer to other ministers on questions of Government policies within their own portfolios. As this issue you raise falls within the responsibilities of the Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence to his office for consideration. I will contact you again once I have received a reply directly from the Minister. Many thanks once again for having taken the time to write. Sincerely, [Signature] Bill Graham, P.C., M.P. Toronto Centre

I would encourage everyone to check their email regularly tomorrow after 2:00pm. Jeff Paul Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Lorna Milne Ph: (613) 947-9744 Cell: (613) 715-2965

To all -- I must be getting old and confused, but I thought the one in charge of census records was the Hon. David Emerson. However, the following is a letter from Paul Zed, MP to Liza Frulla, Minister of Canadian Heritage. I agree the latter might have been the more appropriate person to care for census -- "Industry" generally means work. PLease check http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Cen163.htm Muriel M. Davidson muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee ================== October 18, 2004 Dear Mrs. Davidson:- Thank you for your letter in which you congratulate me on my election to the House of Commons and outline your concerns regarding the release of census information. I appreciate you taking the time to write. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Honourable Liza Frulla, Minister of Canadian Heritage for her reply. Thank you again for writing. Kind regards, Paul Zed - MP Saint John, NewBrunswick ====== October 20, 2004 Honourable Liza Frulla, P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, 12th Floor 15 Eddy Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5 Dear Minister Frulla: I have forwarded to you a copy of a letter from Ms. Muriel Davidson, Co-Chair of the Canada Census Committee. In this letter, Ms. Davidson voices her concern regarding the release of census information. I would be thankful if you would reply directly to Ms. Davidson. King regards, Paul Zed C.C.: Muriel Davidson

To Mr. Dave Batters; Mr. Ralph Goodale; Mr. Andrew Scheer:- Manitoba is only ONE away from having a 100% GOLD scoreboard, Nova Scotia and Yukon have already achieved this -- so let's try and have the Saskatchewan one also be GOLD, rather than Green and Blue. http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Score2.htm#SK Personal message boards appear under the name at the left. Many family researchers, who may also belong to genealogical societies, have been tracing his or her family trees, and waiting rather impatiently for the release of the 1911 census records. It is my understanding there is nothing to prevent this, no problem with Privacy Laws -- remember, this is 2004, and with a 92-year period before release, we are all rather impatient. The 1911 census should have been released June 1, 2003 except the Chief Statistician desired to keep it, rather than transfer all records to the Library and Archives Canada. I know the policy of the Conservative and NDP parties and sincerely hope these are followed. To Ralph Goodale, possibly it would be wise to confer with David Emerson, Minister of Industry -- we hope you will reply this year. Many politicians believe he or she only have to respond to his or her constituent (this is not always done), but any work, speech or vote done in the House of Commons affects all Canadians. Muriel M. Davidson muriel_davidson@sympatico.ca Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee