OTTAWA – The federal government should update the rules regarding first ownership of cinematographic works; maintain the definition of “sound recording” in the Copyright Act; and amend the legislation to ensure that the radio-royalty exemption only applies to “small, independent broadcasters,” according to a House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act presented to Parliament on Monday.
Last month’s report by the House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on remuneration models for Canadian artists and creative industries took a different approach to the three issues, even though both reports were spurred by the opportunity to alter the Copyright Act.
On the debate over whether first ownership of a film or television program should be attributed to the screenwriter and director or the producer, the Industry committee said ascribing such a designation “to specific types of creator risks producing too rigid a rule that cannot adapt to the diverse circumstances in which cinematographic works are created,” and recommended that Ottawa “look to other policy rationales to attribute first ownership of copyright over cinematographic works.”
By contrast, the Heritage committee report called on the federal government to amend the Copyright Act “to deem the screenwriter and director the co-owners of copyright and co-authors of a television or cinematographic work.”
The Industry committee also diverged from its Heritage counterpart on the meaning of sound recording in recommending that the current definition under the Copyright Act be maintained.
In its Shifting Paradigms report, the Heritage committee recommended amending the copyright legislation to allow music used in TV and movie soundtracks be eligible for public-performance remuneration.
The Industry committee rejected the fear raised by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and the Movie Theatre Association of Canada that extending the sound-recording definition to include cinematographic works would result in a double-payment system to musicians and vocalists for both the production and presentation of a TV show or film.
However, the Industry committee said it “fears that performers would receive little (if any) payment up front for the integration of a sound recording in a cinematographic work, but would instead be asked to [receive] later royalties—provided the cinematographic work is profitable or even released. The committee is wary of recommending any measure that would compromise payments to performers, especially at a time when Canadian musicians and singers are among the few members of the music industry who do not benefit from this industry’s growing revenues.”
The Industry committee also called on the federal government to amend the Copyright Act to ensure that the radio-royalty exemption only applies to small, independent broadcasters using slightly different wording by the Heritage committee in its recommendation that the exemption only pertain to “independent and/or community-based radio stations.”
CAB copyright committee chair Susan Wheeler told Cartt.ca last month that she was unsure as to what the Heritage committee meant by “independent” radio stations.
The Industry committee provided more clarity on eligibility for the royalty exemption, suggesting that it “could only be available to broadcasters whose total revenues do not exceed a specified amount, or the exempted revenues would progressively diminish as the revenues of a broadcaster or the size of its operations increase.”
“Parent and subsidiary entities should be taken into account when determining the would-be beneficiary’s total revenues or the extent of its operations to avoid that large enterprises take advantage of the exemption by operating multiple wireless transmission systems,” says the committee’s Statutory Review of the Copyright Act report.
“The committee endorses any approach that would remove this exemption for organizations that make a profit and do not, as community and campus radio stations do, primarily serve a non-commercial purpose.”
You can read the Industry committee’s 152-page report here.
There’s no guarantee the federal government will act on the recommendations found in this report…
