As reported by The Globe and Mail (and here), CTV, Toronto Star, Macleans and others, the Canadian federal government (or probably more accurately, the Prime Minister’s Office) is planning to amend Canada’s Copyright Act so that the government can freely use any “news” content for any of its political advertising without the permission of the copyright holder(s).
“News” is in quotes because it’s only vaguely defined as being any published content that features any politician acting in their capacity as a politician or anyone who might be seeking a political position, or relates to any political issue. News content can include video, photographs, text, audio and music.
“Published” seems to be defined as being published, broadcast or otherwise made available, in any media, to the public. This includes any TV news broadcast or any other news program, news radio programs, newspapers, news periodicals, and news web sites including everyone’s favourite news site, Youtube.
This proposed copyright change would allow all registered political parties, all politicians and all political candidates, in all levels of government, across the country, to freely help themselves to copyrighted news content. (I suspect no other politician is asking for this change but rather the federal government is trying to diffuse the blame.)
This will affect not only Canadian photographers but also foreign photographers. And not just news photographers but any photographer who has a published picture that includes any politician or relates to any political issue.
There’s no mention of dates. So the new law might target all news content no matter when it was produced, as long as the government can get its hands on it.
Make no mistake, the government could use an existing Fair Dealing clause (Section 29.2) where applicable. But the fact that it’s going to the trouble of creating a special new amendment, and plans to hide it inside a budget bill, shows that its intended use of copyrighted news content is not going to be fair.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Dear Prime Minister
With regard to your proposed amendment to The Copyright Act, may I offer six thoughts for your consideration (in no particular order):
1) With all due respect, are you crazy?!
2) Although news photos are often printed on trees :-) , they do not grow on trees. A good portion of news photos in Canada, as in many other countries, are produced by freelance photographers.
Let me refresh your memory: freelance news photographers are self-employed, one-person businesses. They are the very definition of “small business”. By the way, most photographers of any kind are self-employed.
If this proposed amendment passes, it will mean that any political party, any politician and any candidate will be able to freely help themselves to our photos for use on their websites, brochures, newsletters and any other promotional material. This will cost photographers like myself a few thousand dollars per year in lost licensing fees. Thank you very much!
3) Accountants run in your family so maybe you’ll get a kick out of this one.
According to Statistics Canada, using 2011 data, the average Canadian annually earns about $43,000. (By the way, that breaks down to $48,100 for men and $32,100 for women. When are you going to fix that wage gap?)
By comparison, the average Canadian artist earns about $23,500 per year (in this case, “artist” does include some types of photographers). For reference, the average 2014 annual Canadian minimum wage is about $21,674.
Canada has no wage data specifically for freelance photographers but the USA does. The two countries are reasonably similar so let’s use the US data to get an indication of what’s going on here in Canada.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (using 2013 data), there are 54,830 “employed” photographers (i.e. this does not include freelancers). The mean annual pay for these employed photographers was USD $37,190.
The same Bureau of Labor Statistics said in May 2012 that there were 136,300 professional photographers in the US. This number includes both staff photographers and self-employed photographers. The median annual wage was USD $28,490.
Let’s combine those two sets of numbers (and ignore the one-year date difference):
136,300 total photographers – 54,830 employed = 81,470 freelance photographers
If 54,830 employed photographers average $37,190 and the total average for all photographers is $28,490, then this means that the 81,470 freelancers must annually earn:
[($28,490)(136,300) – ($37,190)(54,830)] / 81,470 = USD $22,633
This rough calculation generally agrees with the Canadian data from earlier with regard to artist earnings. This suggests that the average Canadian freelance photographer tends to earn about one half the national average and with no benefits or pension.
Now let’s look at what MPs earn:
Canadian MPs earn a base salary of $163,700. That’s about four times the national average, plus various benefits and pension. You, Mr. Prime Minister, earn a base of $327,400 plus benefits, plus pension, plus house, plus….
So this proposed amendment means that a group of plus-$163,700/year earners want to steal from a group of $22,633/year earners.
By the way, the pay raise that you and your colleagues gave yourselves earlier this year will amount to an extra $1.17M per year. That money could’ve paid for a lot of photos.
Ask freelance news photographers when they last had a pay raise. I’ll give you a hint: it was before you were elected party leader. In fact, most freelance news photographs have seen their pay rates go down as the news media industry falters.
4) You’re a bit of a history buff so hopefully you’ll appreciate this.
The Canadian Copyright Act was originally modelled on the British Copyright Act of 1911. As such, ever since its inception in 1921, our Copyright Act has always included a clause which contains a very special exemption (shown in italics):
13.(3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical.
That exact same clause in the 1911 British Copyright Act was encouraged by a British journalist turned politician. He later went on to become a two-term British Prime Minister. You probably can recall his name: Winston Churchill.
Like you, Churchill was a writer and a history buff. In fact, he won the 1953 Nobel Prize for literature. So you have something to aspire towards in your retirement :-)
Churchill insisted on this clause because he knew the importance of a journalist “owning” (or at least controlling) the words they wrote. The clause means that, although the employer may own the copyright, a journalist has the right to the context and meaning of words they write. Should these words be reused in a different manner, the author’s meaning and intention may be lost or distorted.
This clause is equally applicable to photojournalists who communicate with pictures.
As a politician, you know very well what it’s like to be quoted out of context. (Photo)journalists feel exactly the same way about their work.
If your proposed amendment passes, not only will it contradict the intention of the Copyright Act (and that of Winston Churchill), it may also infringe photographers’ Moral Rights. In fact, your own document makes mention of this.
5) Then there are the ethical and moral issues involved with stealing news photos and repurposing them for partisan politics. Do you really believe that’s how news photography should be used? Be very careful how you answer this.
The sole reason why you want to appropriate news content is that you know the public trusts this material. That trust is based upon the public knowing that the news media is independent and impartial.
Most news photographers in the country adhere to a strict code of ethics or code of conduct. For examples: the NPPA, The Canadian Press, Canadian Association of Journalists, Toronto Star, Reuters, the CBC and Postmedia.
A breach of ethics or conduct can be a firing offence for a photographer. So we take this stuff very seriously. The public rightfully demands that we do.
Sadly though, your government doesn’t seem to know much about ethics or morals. So instead, let’s talk about something you do know. Let’s talk hockey. Or more specifically, let’s talk about your hockey book which was published almost exactly one year ago.
Why was the book copyrighted?
6) See #1 again.
No one disputes the need for Fair Dealing. The news media benefit from it every single day. So do schools, libraries and even John and Jane Public. But it’s called “Fair Dealing” for a reason.
Existing law benefits most people most of the time. This proposed amendment won’t. It will benefit only one small group – politicians trying to get (re)elected. Is that close to the definition of “self-serving”?
You have a chance right now to stand up for Canadians (both the public and the thousands of folks who work for our country’s news media) and show that you respect their intelligence and their work.
Or you could show contempt for all and continue on your inward spiral. If you choose this option, don’t blame yourself too much. Any psychologist will say that you (and those in the PMO) are exhibiting classic fear for power symptoms. The more power one has, the more they fear the loss of that power, so they seek even more power. And the spiral continues. It’s fear, not power, that corrupts.
Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker once said in the House of Commons, “I do not say that everything I did was right, but what I do say, Mr. Speaker, is that what I did was honest.”
Everyone knows that this proposed copyright amendment is not right. Can you tell us if it’s honest?
The puck is in your end, Mr. Harper.
Great post. Rick Mercer’s October 14th rant just covered this topic too, calling it outright theft and saying that the Cons should have to explain why their stealing is ok.