hear hear! 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 > >----- 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. > > > > >==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >How to unsubscribe from Digest Mode. Send a message to >CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-D-request@rootsweb.com that contains >(in the Subject line and body of the message) the command >-- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. > > > >