News

29 August 2011

New on the CARCC website – see works by CARCC affiliates!

The list of artists represented by CARCC (Representation section) on this website now features links to our affiliates’ websites. Click on a highlighted name to view the artist’s website. CARCC affiliates who want their links added to their names should email their link to CARCC at carcc@carcc.ca.

February 22, 2011

Open letter to Jon Tupper, President, Board of Directors and John McAvity, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Canadian Museums Association

Dear John McAvity and Jon Tupper,

It was very revealing to listen to the presentations made by yourselves to the Standing Committee on Copyright Reform on February 15.  I saw very long-standing grudges and misconceptions expressed, as well as one small glimmer of hope in those presentations, and I want to address these. Your presentations were public – they can be viewed on the Parliamentary video feed by anyone at

http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=7348 

Your presentations take place in the second hour of this session, so some patience is required to see the whole thing.

Like the hearings, this letter is public.  It will be posted on www.carcc.ca under News, and other places.  I would like to address a few of your points.

I am the director of CARCC, Canadian Artists Representation Copyright Collective, one of those artists’ collectives that you disparaged as ineffective.  We are not without our problems, but the museum community, rather that accepting us as a service that facilitates copyright, seems in large part to be primed to do everything it can to circumvent us.  One of our reasons for being is to make getting permissions for uses of copyrighted works easier for museums.  We list our affiliates on our internet site.  We provide instructions on how to request a licence.  Some museums (bless them!) do check our site when they are dealing with an artist, but most do not.  Rather they wait until the artist goes out on a limb and tells them to contact CARCC (or SODRAC).  Many times there is an undercurrent of intimidation – it has been said often that it is best that the artist not get CARCC involved, because the museum might well turn against them.  I have heard this also from artists whose dealers do not want them to get CARCC involved.  This is how deeply the aversion to copyright, and to paying for it, have rooted into your culture.   You perfectly expressed that aversion in your address to the Committee.

You repeated the views expressed, I am sure, in 1988, when your community lost the battle against the addition of the exhibition right to the Copyright Act. The argument is that museums should have the right to exhibit, reproduce, or do whatever they want with works that they own.  I have been around a long time, and I have heard all those arguments.  They are old, and tired, and they serve no purpose other than to make life exceeding difficult for artists who understand that they own their copyrights and that there is a law, the Copyright Act, that should go far to facilitate civilized uses of their works, that will allow them to be paid for those uses and to know what happens to their works.  There is no ‘museum right’ – you lost that battle.  Furthermore, things have changed for the worse in the museum community, as museums seem to now expect artists to give their works for nothing.  Not only is there no payment for them for these acquisitions, the receiving museums seem to make every effort to extract the copyright for nothing as well.  This is unfair, to say the least.

I was heartened to hear Carole Lavallée (MPP, Bloc québécois) make a spirited defence of ‘droit d’auteur’ – the broad range of rights that the Copyright Act does, in truth, embrace, even in English.  The exhibition right is one of those.  You expressed the idea that the exhibition right is unique to Canada in the copyright world, and that it does not work.  We beg to differ.  It does work – we see the artist-run centres of Canada, extremely underfunded, understaffed, striving to pay the artists who are the lifeblood of their activity, as they are of yours.  The artist-run centres embraced the exhibition right well before it ever passed into law.  I remember the ANNPAC meeting where we reached consensus over the issue after two days (Francine Périnet was the chair). Québec, not without its own struggles, seems to have embraced the idea that supporting their creators is a cultural priority.  We wish that the CMA would hold such a meeting, where the museums are brought to an understanding that artists must be paid. We would like to see you view this is a priority, not an afterthought, that it must be done even if it is a hardship for the institutions.  Throw a fundraising party, do something!

Your institutions have had some 23 years to address the exhibition right – in their exhibiting practises and their permanent collections.  How many really have done that?  That would make an interesting survey.  How many send letters to their artist-donors that ask for all kinds of copyright, with no offer of compensation or even communication about what is being done with their works?  How many exhibition contracts have clauses in them that take broad permissions for uses of copyright without any such offers?  Certainly, the artist can negotiate, or call in CARCC, but what are the factors that do not invite such actions?  How does one convince the museum community that communicating with artists and paying them for the use of their works is beneficial?

To be fair, despite all your regrets about the existence of the exhibition right and the lack of exceptions for museums, as well as your refusal to support its application to all copyrighted works and not just those made after a certain date in 1988, your association did, about four years ago, agree with the artists’ professional associations, RAAV and CARFAC, on what the fees for exhibition in museums should be.  This was not a binding agreement, but it has helped to some extent to reduce the negotiating around exhibition contracts.  Your association balked at agreement on payment for the exhibition of works from permanent collections, and the negotiating and leveraging goes on there.  These sorts of agreements must be pursued.

I thought your take on the Artists Resale Right proposed by CARFAC and RAAV lacks merit and again showed your anti-artist bias.  Should we gain ARR, museums might have to pay a very small premium for the few works that are acquired on the secondary market, a very slight impact.  And in the 59 countries that already have the right enshrined, there has been little effect on ‘fragile’ art markets.  I beg to differ – a lot is known about ‘droit-de-suite’ and it is a benefit to artists.  This is something that would cost you little to support, and your support might buy you some goodwill.

I should point out that the position you take on so-called ‘orphan works’ is completely misunderstood in the Canadian context, or perhaps you were indulging in more smoke and mirrors.  Canadian users of copyright works for which a rightsholder cannot be found can apply for a licence through the Copyright Board of Canada.  The part of that that you obviously don’t like is that in order to use those works you are expected to pay a royalty, as you would with an artist, and the Copyright Board cannot be leveraged, circumvented, or convinced that a museum needs yet more charity. 

Jon Tupper, in response to a question about what museums cannot presently do, you pointed out that it would be really great if museum websites could post reproductions of works online, making collections ‘accessible’ to the general public.  You suggested that this would be of great educational value.  It is untrue that museums cannot presently do that.  They most certainly can, if they bother to raise the money to pay the artists.  I don’t know of any artist who would refuse to allow such a reproduction of their work if an adequate offer of compensation were made.  CARCC, and its parent CARFAC, are open to suggestions of how this might be done and we invite dialogue. 

The worst part of your response, Jon Tupper, was your thinking that an education exception for fair dealing would allow you all to make these online collections catalogues.  I think you can expect challenges if that should ever come to pass.  I am amazed at what people at these hearings generally think might be embraced by an education exception for fair dealing.  Good luck with proving ‘fairness’ because depriving artists of copyright income is anything but fair.

On that note, I should point out what I see as the glimmer of hope in all of what you both said.  Mr. Tupper, you quickly alluded to replacing the exhibition right with a fund, similar to the Public Lending Right fund that pays creators for the lending of books in libraries.  Such a fund would compensate artists for the exhibition of their works in museums, and possibly other uses as well.  I think this is a wonderful solution to the problem, except that impetus for such a fund would in fact be the exhibition right and the Copyright Act in general.  There is no need to eliminate the exhibition right, rather the fund would be a strategy for making the right work fairly across the board, for everyone, because there would be very little need for negotiation.  I hope the discussion of such a fund will be a topic of debate in the very near future, and that we can work together to make it work.  The opposition between artists and museums needs a truce, not more battles.  Perhaps the establishment of the fund might represent a sea change in the attitudes of too many Canadian museums to artists’ copyright, for the better.

Yours truly,

Janice Seline
Executive Director

CARCC, Canadian Artists Representation Copyright Collective Inc.

November, 2010

CARCC supports CARFAC’s and RAAV’s efforts to bring the Artists’ Resale Right into the Canadian Copyright Act

The copyright reform bill, C-32, passes over an opportunity to bring Canada up to par with 59 other countries that have included an Artists’ Resale Right (droit-de-suite) in their copyright legislation. The Artists’ Resale Right is a right to a percentage of sales of an artists’ works when the works are resold. ARR benefits, in particular, older artists who may have sold works at a low price when they were starting out, and who see their works being sold, for example, at auction or among collectors and dealers, for much more. First Nations artists who sell to dealers, who then take the works away to bigger markets and re-sell them, would certainly benefit from ARR.

Because Canadian legislation does not include ARR presently, Canadian artists cannot collect ARR royalties from countries such as France and the UK where the royalties are collected, because without legislation there is no reciprocity.

CARFAC/RAAV needs your help! To read more about ARR in English, and to help support CARFAC’s work to have it included in the Canadian Copyright Act, please use this link:

http://www.carfac.ca/2010/10/1047/

CARCC soutient les efforts du CARFAC et du RAAV de faire inclure le droite-de-suite dans la Loi canadienne sur le droit d’auteur
Le droit de suite n’est pas inclus dans le projet de loi C-32 qui vise à moderniser le droit d’auteur. CARFAC tente de convaincre les députés qu’il devrait être une priorité et nous espérons l’avoir ajouté. Plusieurs personnes profitent quand une œuvre d’art est revendu - mais pas l’artiste. Le droit de suite permettant aux artistes visuels de partager ces profits comme ils le font dans 59 autres pays à travers le monde.Le droit de suite permettrait aux artistes de percevoir un pourcentage du produit de la revente de leurs œuvres. Il est fréquent qu’une œuvre n’atteigne pas sa pleine valeur lors de la vente initiale. En effet, cette valeur croît au fur et à mesure de la consolidation de la réputation de l’artiste. Par exemple, Marcel Barbeau, artiste réputé, signataire du Refus Global et récipiendaire du Prix du Gouverneur général, a donné à un ami une œuvre qui a été revendue pour plus de 86 000 dollars. Les artistes autochtones et âgés, en particulier, sont perdants en regard des immenses profits réalisés grâce à leur travail sur le marché secondaire. Bon nombre d’artistes vivant dans des collectivités isolées du Nord continuent de vivre dans la pauvreté alors que la valeur de leurs œuvres augmente radicalement sur le marché.

De plus, les artistes canadiens ne peuvent pas bénéficier des redevances percés pour la revente de leurs oeuvres dans des pays comme la France ou le Royaume-Uni qui ont le droit-de-suite parce que, sans la loi, le Canada n’a aucune reciprocité avec ces pays.

CARFAC et l RAAV ont besoin de votre aide! Pour de plus amples renseignements en français sur le droit-de-suite, et les outils de soutient, suivez ce lien :

http://www.carfac.ca/2010/10/1047/lang-pref/fr/

Take action against Bill C-32 – Agir contre le projet de loi C-32

Take action against Bill C-32 – Agir contre le projet de loi C-32 Here is a website with survey and letter-writing tools to help you communicate your disapproval of Bill C-32, an act to modernize copyright. The Bill is moving along at an alarming place and it is important to express yourself to the politicians responsible. See www.copyrightgetitright.ca for information and tools in English. Sign the petition, write to the MPs from this site.

Voici un site web qui contient des outils de communication qui peuvent vous aider à exprimer vos opinions contre le projet de loi C-32, une acte pour la modernisation de la loi sur le droit d’auteur. Le projet de loi est en voie d’être approuvé rapidement, en dépit de toute objection, et il est très important d’ajouter votre voix au débat. Voir www.cultureequitable.org pour les informations et les outils en français. Signez la pétition, écrivez aux Membres du Parlement à partir de ce site web.

September, 2010

Marcel Barbeau supports RAAV and CARFAC in their demands for modifications to Bill C-32: Artists are invited to speak out publicly

Well-known artist Marcel Barbeau, a signer of the Refus Global manifesto, wrote to share his experience with us and tell us that he supports our campaign against Bill C-32. In his e-mail, he states, “Our work and our copyright are our only pension fund, and they want to take it away from us. At the same time, culture bureaucrats and lawyers are being paid handsomely to extort from us what we deserve.” The 85-year-old Barbeau has decided to stand up against these changes, which will only exacerbate the insecurity with which artists live.

Among the many issues involved in reform of the Copyright Act is the resale right on artworks, which, unfortunately, was not included in the bill. The resale right would enable artists, especially older ones, to receive a small percentage of the amount for which their works are resold. In Europe, this percentage varies between 3% and 5%. The resale right exists in 59 countries around the world, including England, France, and Australia. The inclusion of this right in our copyright legislation has been a concern for Barbeau since 1977:

One of the works I produced in 1956, which I had given to a friend in 1956 or 1957, was sold by his heir at auction in 2008 for a little more than $86,000. I did not receive one cent from this sale, and I certainly need it much more than he does. Since I gave friends almost all of the works that I made in my youth that I did not destroy, or sold the pieces for very, very little, I can make just about no money from a career that cost me a great deal. Others are getting rich on my works, while my situation remains very insecure at 85 years of age. ... My only major purchase by the Canada Council for the Arts enriched a dealer who stole the proceeds of this sale from me.

The example of Marcel Barbeau sheds light on the injustice of this situation. In this particular case, Barbeau should have received more than $4,000 from the resale. He is also concerned with the question of reproduction rights in educational institutions and the exhibition right:

The use of reproduction rights by institutions worries me as well. Why do schools, universities, museums, and other users agree to pay salaries or major honoraria – which we can’t even dream of at the end of our careers – to all of their employees and contractors, including those whom they use to limit and block application of copyright, and stubbornly refuse to pay copyright to artists whose works are the foundation of these institutions? Moreover, these rights should be extended to artists deceased for more than 50 years and the funds collected should be paid into copyright collective societies and redistributed to all professional artists or into a pension fund. This way, users will not be induced to neglect living artists so that they can save money.

This money would make it possible to create real pension funds for artists, like those that exist in France. Because I lived there for about fifteen years, I receive today an amount almost as large from my French pension plan as from both of my pension plans in Canada, where I produced and exhibited my works for 65 years.

It seems particularly despicable to exclude works produced before 1988 from the exhibition right. Many of these works were given away or sold at a very low price at the time. They were produced with no governmental assistance under extremely poor conditions. We lost our health, our families, our lives, and we receive no pension, as we never earned an income high enough to contribute into the funds. At least, this is the case for artists who never had the privilege of a profitable occupation.

Barbeau ends his e-mail by offering his help:
I would [therefore] like to support the institution of the resale right, the complete maintenance of reproduction rights, and the extension of the exhibition rights to works made before 1988. What can I do?

How to make your objection to this bill known
Like Marcel Barbeau, write to us, give us your support – we need voices, many voices. This battle is yours: it is your rights that are threatened. Help us defend you!

You may also contact your member of Parliament, whichever party he or she represents, to tell him or her how important it is:

1- To include the resale right in the bill
2- To end discrimination against older artists in application of the exhibition right
3- To ensure the protection of copyright in the digital world and of the resulting income for artists and creators

Joanna Piro, Projects and Communications Manager
joannapiro@raav.org

August, 2010

CARFAC - RAAV Recommendations on Bill C-32,
Regarding the Visual Arts and the Digital Environment

Bill C-32 and Visual Artists Questions and answers

In June, the Harper government tabled a bill aimed at “modernizing copyright” in Canada: Bill C-32. The scope of the proposed changes will have consequences for the professional practice of the visual arts in the digital age, particularly for artists’ income. Here, in the form of questions and answers, is some clear information on the context and consequences of this bill.

What does Bill C-32 address?
The bill is intended to adapt the Copyright Act to the capacities of the digital age and mass-communications networks, including the Internet. It is also intended to bring the statute into line with Canada’s international commitments regarding protection of intellectual property.

Is this the first attempt to modify the Copyright Act?
This is the third attempt since 2005; the first two failed due to the fall of the government, which triggered elections. This time, the bill should go through the complete process since there does not seem to be an election on the horizon and the government is being pressured from all sides. The current government wishes to have the bill adopted by this fall or early 2011.

What are the main issues raised by this bill??
Artists in all fields want more copyright protection on the Internet and in the use of digital tools, as well as more substantial economic returns. However, some citizens’ movements consider the Internet a zone that must remain free of all constraints and where the question of copyright should rarely be raised.

Between artists and users, whose side has the current government taken?
In fact, Bill C-32 wants to provide Web users with the greatest possible freedom, in use of both digital technologies and artistic and cultural content on the Internet. It institutes some constraints, including forbidding the bypassing of technical protection measures and use without permission, and for commercial purposes, of works copied or downloaded from the Internet. In none of these cases are the artists whose rights are being appropriated compensated. In doing this, the Conservative government has clearly taken the side of users, both individuals and organizations.

What is the logic behind this governmental position?
Above all, the minority Conservative government wants to please the electorate, especially young people, by reducing expenditures on education. To increase its popularity, the government is literally expropriating the rights of creative artists. By giving users what they want on the Internet and in the use of digital devices, and by instituting an exception for the education sector, it attains both objectives. It says to one and all, you may do what you like with what you find on the Internet as long as it is not protected by a technical protection measure and as long as you are not using it for commercial purposes.

Is the government of Canada free to act as it wishes with regard to copyright?
Canada is a signatory to a number of international treaties, including the Berne Convention, concerning intellectual property. It is thus committed to protecting copyright. However, Canada’s international partners consider Canada much too lax with regard to protection of intellectual property in the digital age. We know that many illegal copies of films and music are made here, and the large international cultural conglomerates, particularly in the United States, are exerting pressure for the Canadian statute to be more stringently applied, or even strengthened.

Is the United States the only country pressuring Canada?
Canada has begun negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Community, and the agreement will be concluded, if possible, in 2011; however, the European partners also require better copyright protection in the digital age. They are also asking that the Artist Resale Right be instituted in Canada, since this right is applied in Europe.

For visual artists, what are the main risks of this bill?
The bill enshrines the right of citizens using the Internet to download, copy, and transfer onto various digital devices all images that they find on the Internet. It gives them the right to alter them, use them in satire or parody, and integrate them, in whole or in part, into a new “work” or document, then to redistribute it on the Internet. The only conditions imposed are:

• Not to bypass a technical protection measure
• Not to make commercial use of the images

The bill also gives educational institutions the right to use works in whatever way they like, as long as it is an educational, non-commercial use, and they are no longer required to pay copyright royalties to anyone. Visual Artists who receive ACCESS Copyright or COPIBEC cheques may see this income disappear if the bill is not amended.

Is there anything good for visual artists in the bill?
One single clause clearly concerns the visual arts: recognition of copyright for photographers, portrait artists, and printmakers. But Bill C-32 takes away with the other hand by adding that a person who commissions photographs or a portrait, for a wedding for example, has the right to make as many copies as he or she wishes for relatives or friends, as long as the copies are not sold. If the photographer wishes to include payment for copies in the contract, the person who ordered the photographs may simply answer that he or she has the right to make copies and does not have to pay for them.

What is missing from the bill for visual artists?
Two important things are missing from the bill:

• The inclusion of the Artist Resale Right on the resale of art works
• The end of discrimination against older artists

What? There is discrimination against older artists in the Copyright Act?
Yes. In fact, there are two types of discrimination: first, discrimination based on age, since works produced before 8 June 1988, which are necessarily made by older artists, are excluded from the application of the Exhibition Right; second, discrimination based on art discipline, since this exclusion applies only to the Visual Arts. This is unacceptable discrimination against artists who are approaching retirement age, or who are already at that age, and who will need this income.

What is the Resale Right on artworks?
It is a royalty that applies in the form of a small percentage of the resale value of an artwork. In other words, after a work is sold a first time by an artist, this royalty is applied on all subsequent sales made by an art dealer or auction house. It is usually set at between 2% and 5%, which is relatively small, but it may add up to a large sum, depending on how well the artist is known and the value that his or her works have acquired.

Why should the Resale Right be adopted in Canada?
Because it is an act of justice toward Canadian visual artists. Works often increase in value over time and through acquisitions and subsequent sales. But only dealers and resellers benefit from this increase, while the artists who made the effort to become better known and improve their art receive nothing. Older and Aboriginal artists would be the main beneficiaries of this royalty, which incidentally, would cost the government nothing. This would enable more Canadian artists to benefit from the resale of their works in any of the 59 countries that have adopted the Resale Right, including Australia, England, and all of the countries in Europe.

What are CARFAC and RAAV’s positions on Bill C-32?
CARFAC and RAAV are well aware of how artists could benefit from the immense possibilities of digital technologies, including, obviously, those linked to the Internet. CARFAC and RAAV are also aware of the desire of citizens and Web users to find out about Canada and Quebec visual artists and view their works. The more these artists and works are known and appreciated, the better will be their chances of making a more decent income. This is why CARFAC and RAAV are in favour of broad accessibility to works for Web users, but this accessibility must also be fair to artists.

What does fairness for artists mean on the Internet and in the digital age?
In the context of the Internet and the digital age, fairness for artists means the preservation of their right to authorize the putting on line, copying, and use, for any reason at all, of their works by individuals and businesses, whether it is for profit or not. Fairness also means receiving fair compensation for the various types of use – private, institutional, or commercial.

What if a student wants to illustrate a school project with the image of a painting that she has downloaded from an artist’s Web site, or of which she has taken a digital photograph on the street or in a museum?
When it comes to the use of works by individuals, whatever their age, for a purpose that is not commercial but for strictly private use between them and their friends or, for example, for a school project, it is important first of all to mention the work’s title and creator. This is the first way of acting fairly. The second way of acting fairly is not to distort or crop the work but to use it in its entirety. And the third way of acting fairly is to agree that a small percentage of compensation should be included in the purchase price of any device that can capture, copy, transmit, or distribute images that belong to artists. That is how a student can act fairly toward artists.

But isn’t this a tax?
No. It is not an extra tax but a personal contribution to the survival of Canadian artistic creation. If we want a vibrant and internationally recognized culture, if we want artists to be able to earn a living from their art, we all have to contribute – businesses, public institutions, and individuals.

What about fair treatment of artists by schools and libraries?
It must be understood that the education sector is both an essential public service and an industry from which many people make a living. Numerous individuals (teachers, administrators, support staff, etc.) and businesses of all sorts draw revenue from it, in the form of salaries and the sale of products or services. Why should artists be the only ones not to be remunerated for their work? A creator’s copyright is his or her income. For teaching institutions and libraries, the fair way to treat artists would be to negotiate and sign collective use licences for digital works, just like the ones that they already sign for photocopying. Through these agreements, for a low cost they will be able to use works for their activities, while compensating creators for these uses. It is simple and, above all, fair. The other way of dealing with creators fairly is to teach students to respect the originality of a work and the copyright that protects it and not to encourage, in any way, a culture of copying or plagiarism.

To conclude, can the main demands of CARFAC and RAAV be summarized?
CARFAC and RAAV want the following for visual artists:

• That the Artist Resale Right be introduced into the Copyright Act ;
• That discrimination against older artists be ended ;
• That photographers, portrait artists, and printmakers be able to benefit from the economic spin-offs of the use of their works ;
• That the new exceptions dealing with parody, satire, and education be defined and limited ;
• That the private copy regime be extended to all digital devices and that artists from all disciplines be able to benefit from them ;
• Finally, that Internet service providers become artists’ partners in the protection of their works against illegal uses, and that they contribute through a collective royalty to the vitality of Canadian artistic creation.

Les arts visuels et l’univers numérique :
recommandations concernant le projet de loi C-32.

Le projet de loi C-32 et les artistes en arts visuels Des questions et des réponses

Le gouvernement Harper a déposé au mois de juin dernier un projet de loi visant à « moderniser le droit d’auteur » au Canada : le projet de loi C-32.  La portée des changements proposés aura des conséquences sur la pratique professionnelle des arts visuels à l’ère du numérique, tout particulièrement sur les revenus en découlant. Voici, sous forme de questions et réponses, un peu plus d’éclairage sur le contexte et les conséquences de ce projet de loi.

De quoi parle le projet de loi C-32 ?
Le projet de loi entend adapter la Loi sur le droit d’auteur aux capacités de l’univers numérique et des réseaux de communications de masse, dont l’Internet. Il entend aussi arrimer la loi avec les engagements internationaux du Canada en matière de protection de la propriété intellectuelle.

Est-ce la première tentative de modifier la Loi sur le droit d’auteur ?
Depuis 2005, nous en sommes à la 3e tentative; les deux premières ont avorté en raison de la chute du gouvernement et du déclenchement d’élections. Cette fois devrait être la bonne puisqu’il ne semble pas y avoir d’élections dans l’air et que des pressions s’exercent de toute part sur le gouvernement. Le gouvernement actuel désire faire adopter son projet de loi dès cet automne ou au début de 2011.

Quels sont les enjeux principaux que soulève ce projet de loi ?
L’ensemble des milieux artistiques désire plus de protection du droit d’auteur sur l’Internet et dans l’utilisation des outils numériques, de même que des retombées économiques plus substantielles. Toutefois, certains mouvements citoyens considèrent l’Internet comme une zone qui doit demeurer libre de toute contrainte et où la question du droit d’auteur ne devrait pratiquement pas être évoquée.

Entre les artistes et les utilisateurs, quel parti le gouvernement actuel a-t-il pris ?
En fait, le projet de loi C-32 veut accorder aux internautes la plus grande liberté possible, aussi bien dans l’utilisation des technologies numériques que dans celle des contenus artistiques et culturels sur l’Internet. Il instaure certaines contraintes, dont l’interdiction de contourner des mesures de protection technologiques et d’utiliser sans autorisation, et à des fins commerciales, des oeuvres copiées ou téléchargées depuis l’Internet. Et tout cela sans aucune compensation pour les artistes dont on exproprie littéralement les droits. Ce faisant, le gouvernement conservateur à clairement pris parti en faveur des utilisateurs, qu’ils soient des individus ou des organismes.

Quelle est la logique derrière cette position gouvernementale ?
D’une part, le gouvernement conservateur minoritaire veut plaire à l’électorat, surtout les jeunes, tout en réduisant ses dépenses en matière d’éducation. Pour s’attirer une certaine popularité, le gouvernement exproprie littéralement les créateurs artistiques de leurs droits. En donnant ce qu’ils veulent aux utilisateurs de l’Internet et des appareils numériques, et en instaurant une exception pour le domaine de l’éducation, il atteint ces deux objectifs. Il dit aux uns et aux autres : vous pouvez faire ce que vous voulez avec ce que vous trouvez sur l’Internet tant que ce n’est pas protégé par une mesure de protection technique et tant que ce n’est pas à des fins commerciales.

Le gouvernement du Canada est-il libre d’agir comme il l’entend à l’égard du droit d’auteur ?
Le Canada est signataire de plusieurs traités internationaux, dont la Convention de Berne, qui portent sur la propriété intellectuelle. Il s’est donc engagé à protéger le droit d’auteur. Cependant, les partenaires internationaux du Canada le considèrent beaucoup trop laxiste en ce qui a trait à la protection de la propriété intellectuelle à l’ère du numérique. On sait qu’il se fait beaucoup de copies illégales de films et de musique au pays, et les grands conglomérats culturels internationaux, en particuliers ceux des États-Unis, font des pressions pour que la loi canadienne soit mieux appliquée, voire renforcée.

Les États-Unis sont-ils les seuls à faire pression sur le Canada ?
Le Canada a entamé des négociations sur un accord de libre-échange avec la Communauté européenne, accord qu’il entend conclure dès que possible en 2011; or, les partenaires européens exigent eux-aussi une meilleure protection du droit d’auteur à l’ère du numérique. Ils demandent aussi que le droit de suite sur la revente des oeuvres d’art soit instauré au Canada, car ce droit est appliqué en Europe.

Pour les artistes en arts visuels, quel sont les principaux risques de ce projet de loi ?
Le projet de loi consacre le droit du citoyen internaute de télécharger, copier, transférer sur divers appareils numériques toutes les images qu’il trouve sur l’Internet. Il lui donne le droit de le transformer, d’en faire une satire ou une parodie, de l’intégrer en tout ou en partie dans une nouvelle « oeuvre » ou document, puis de le rediffuser sur Internet. Les seules conditions qui lui sont imposées sont :

• de ne pas contourner une mesure de protection technique;
• de ne pas en faire une utilisation commerciale.

Le projet de loi accorde aussi aux institutions d’éducation le droit d’utiliser les oeuvres de la façon qu’elles le veulent, tant qu’il s’agit d’une utilisation pédagogique et non-commerciale, sans qu’il n’y ait plus besoin de payer de redevances de droit d’auteur à quiconque. Les artistes en arts visuels qui reçoivent des chèques de COPIBEC ou d’Access Copyright pourraient voir disparaître ce revenu si ce projet de loi n’est pas corrigé.

Y a-t-il quelque chose de bon pour les arts visuels dans ce projet de loi ?
Une seule clause concerne clairement les arts visuels : c’est la reconnaissance du droit d’auteur pour les photographes, portraitistes et dessinateurs. Mais, C-32 réduit ce gain en ajoutant qu’une personne qui a commandé des photos ou un portrait, pour un mariage par exemple, a le droit de faire autant de copies qu’elle veut pour sa parenté ou ses amis, pourvu que ce ne soit pas pour les vendre. Si le photographe désire inclure au contrat le paiement des copies, la personne qui fait la commande peut simplement répondre qu’elle a le droit de le faire et qu’elle n’a pas à payer pour copier les photos...

Qu’est-ce qui manque à ce projet de loi pour les artistes du domaine des arts visuels ?
Deux choses importantes manquent à ce projet de loi :

• l’inclusion du droit de suite sur la revente des oeuvres
• et la fin de la discrimination contre les artistes plus âgés.

Quoi ? Une discrimination contre les artistes âgés dans la Loi sur le droit d’auteur ?
Oui. En fait on peut parler d’une double discrimination : d’abord, une discrimination fondée l’âge, puisque les artistes plus âgés qui ont produit des oeuvres d’art avant le 8 juin 1988 voient ces oeuvres exclues de l’application du droit d’exposition. Ensuite une discrimination fondée sur la discipline artistique, puisque cette exclusion ne s’applique qu’aux arts visuels. Donc une discrimination inacceptable à l’encontre d’artistes qui approchent de la retraite, ou y sont déjà, et qui auraient bien besoin de ces revenus.

Qu’est-ce que le Droit de suite sur la revente d’oeuvres d’art ?
Il s’agit d’un droit d’auteur qui s’applique sous forme d’un léger pourcentage de la valeur de revente d’une oeuvre d’art. Autrement dit, après que l’oeuvre ait été vendue une première fois par l’artiste, ce droit s’applique sur toutes les reventes subséquentes effectuées par un marchand d’art ou une maison d’encans.  Il s’établit généralement entre 2 et 5 %, ce qui est relativement peu, mais cela peut tout de même représenter des sommes importantes selon la renommée de l’artiste et la valeur qu’ont prise ses oeuvres.

Pourquoi adopter le Droit de suite au Canada ?
Parce qu’il s’agit d’un acte de justice envers les artistes en arts visuels d’ici. Les oeuvres prennent souvent de la valeur avec le temps et au fur et à mesure des acquisitions et des reventes dont elles font l’objet. Mais seuls les marchands et revendeurs en bénéficient, alors que l’artiste qui a fait des efforts pour étendre sa renommée et perfectionner son art ne reçoit rien. Les artistes plus âgés et les artistes autochtones seraient les principaux bénéficiaires de ce droit qui, incidemment, ne coûterait rien au gouvernement. Cela permettrait de plus aux artistes d’ici de bénéficier de la revente de leurs oeuvres dans l’un ou l’autre des 59 pays qui ont adopté le droit de suite, dont l’Australie, l’Angleterre et l’ensemble des pays d’Europe.

Quelle sont les positions de CARFAC et du RAAV par rapport au projet de loi C-32 ?
CARFAC et le RAAV ne peuvet faire autrement que de prendre acte des immenses possibilités des technologies numériques dont peuvent bénéficier les artistes, et évidemment de celles qui sont liées à l’Internet. Ils prennent acte aussi du désir des citoyens et internautes de voir et de connaître les artistes en arts visuels canadiens et québécois ainsi que leurs oeuvres. Plus les oeuvres des artistes d’ici seront connues et appréciés, et meilleures seront leurs chances d’en tirer un revenu plus décent. C’est pourquoi CARFAC et le RAAV sont favorables à une grande accessibilité des oeuvres par les internautes, mais cette accessibilité devrait se faire de façon équitable pour les artistes.

Comment se traduit l’équité pour les artistes sur l’Internet et dans l’univers numérique ?
Dans le contexte de l’Internet et de l’univers numérique, l’équité pour les artistes se traduit  par la préservation de leur droit d’autoriser la mise en ligne, la copie et l’utilisation, pour quelque raison que ce soit, de leurs oeuvres par une personne ou une entreprise, que ce soit à but lucratif ou non.  L’équité, c’est aussi de recevoir une juste compensation pour les divers types d’utilisation, privées, institutionnelles ou commerciales.

Et si c’est un étudiant qui veut illustrer un travail scolaire avec l’image d’un tableau qu’il a téléchargée à partir du site Internet d’un artiste, ou dont il a pris une photo numérique dans la rue ou dans un musée ?
Pour ce qui est de l’utilisation d’oeuvres par un individu, quel que soit son âge, dans un but qui n’est pas commercial mais pour un usage strictement privé entre lui et ses proches, ou pour un travail scolaire par exemple, il importe d’abord de mentionner le titre de l’oeuvre et le nom de l’auteur. C’est une première façon d’agir équitablement. Une deuxième façon d’agir équitablement, c’est ensuite de ne pas déformer ou découper l’oeuvre mais de l’utiliser dans son intégralité. Enfin, la troisième façon d’agir équitablement, c’est d’accepter qu’un petit pourcentage de compensation soit inclus dans le prix d’achat de tout appareil permettant de capter, copier, transmettre ou diffuser une image empruntée à des artistes. C’est ainsi qu’un édudiant peut agir équitablement envers les artistes.

Mais n’est-ce pas encore une taxe ?
Non. Il ne s’agit pas là d’une taxe supplémentaire mais bien d’une contribution personnelle à la survie de la création artistique d’ici. Si on veut une culture vivante et internationalement reconnue, si on veut que les artistes puissent vivre de leur art, il faut que tous y contribuent, aussi bien les entreprises et institutions publiques que les citoyens.

Qu’en est-il du traitement équitable des artistes par les écoles et les bibliothèques ?
Il faut comprendre que le milieu éducationnel est à la fois un service public essentiel et une industrie qui fait vivre beaucoup de monde. De nombreux individus (enseignants, administrateurs, employés de soutien...) et des entreprises de toutes sortes, en tirent leurs revenus, que ce soit en salaires ou en vente de produits ou de services. Pourquoi les artistes seraient-ils les seuls à ne pas être rémunérés pour leur travail ? Le salaire d’un créateur, c’est son droit d’auteur. Pour les institutions d’enseignement ou les bibliothèques, la façon équitable de traiter les artistes consiste à négocier et signer des licences collectives d’utilisation des oeuvres numériques, tout comme elles en signent déjà pour les photocopies. Par ces ententes, elles s’assurent à un coût modique, de pouvoir utiliser les oeuvres dans le cadre de leurs activités, tout en compensant les créateurs pour ces utilisations. Simple et surtout équitable. L’autre façon de traiter les créateurs de façon équitable, c’est d’enseigner aux étudiants le respect de l’originalité d’une oeuvre et des droits d’auteurs qui la protègent; de ne pas encourager de quelque façon que ce soit une culture de copie ou de plagiat.

Pour terminer, peut-on résumer les principales demandes de CARFAC et du RAAV ?
CARFAC et le RAAV désire pour les artistes en arts visuels :

• que soit introduit le Droit de suite dans la Loi sur le droit d’auteur;
• que cesse la discrimination à l’encontre des artistes plus âgés; 
• que les photographes, portraitistes et dessinateurs puissent bénéficier des retombées économiques de l’utilisation de leurs oeuvres ;
• qu’on définisse et restreigne les nouvelles exceptions portant sur la parodie, la satire et l’éducation;
• qu’on étende le régime de la copie privée à tous les appareils numériques et que les artistes de toutes les disciplines puissent en bénéficier;
• et enfin, que les fournisseurs de services Internet deviennent partenaires des artistes dans la protection de leurs oeuvres contre les utilisations illégales, et qu’Ils contribuent par une redevance collective à la vitalité de la création artistique d’ici.

March 30, 2010
The New Era in Reprography: Payback, or Changes to Access Copyright’s Royalty

For many years, since 1996, CARCC has distributed Access Copyright royalties to CARCC affiliates.  Access Copyright is a rather large Canadian organization that issues blanket licences allowing users, mainly organizations like governments, universities, schools, libraries, and corporations, to photocopy or scan material that is published in print. Using by photocopy or scan is known as reprography, and it is part of the reproduction rights outlined in the Copyright Act.  Printed matter is copyrighted – the rightsholders might include publishers, designers, writers, and visual artists.  The royalties that Access Copyright collects are distributed to rightsholders in several ways. There are payments for uses that have been identified, either by the users or because someone applied for a licence to copy specific works, or payments to foreign rightsholder organizations. One third of the royalties, however, are associated with non-title specific licenses and are paid out to rightsholders who have shown that they have a copyright for works that have been published in print.  It is impossible to fully track what printed matter is photocopied, so rightsholders are paid an annual royalty calculated by formula.  The news is that the formula has changed.

It used to be that a proportion of the royalties collected by Access Copyright were allocated annually to a pool for payments to unidentified rightsholders – the pool is called the Repertoire.  The Repertoire was divided between creators and publishers, based on basic percentages, and the creators’ portion was simply divided equally among those who had assigned rights to Access Copyright.  The creators who signed up for the royalty were mainly writers and signing up was a fairly complex process.   CARFAC and CARCC had approached Access Copyright in the 1990s about including visual artists among the payees.  There have been agreements between CARCC and Access Copyright that acknowledged CARCC affiliates as rightsholders, and allowed CARCC to distribute Access Copyright royalties to CARCC affiliates.  CARCC has an assignment of rights from its affiliates which enables it to collect royalties on their behalf, so signing up directly with Access Copyright was not necessary.  The relationship became more complex around 2007 as CARCC affiliates were required to prove that they had works published in print.

In an effort to make the Repertoire distribution fairer, as other reprographic rights organizations, including Copibec in Quebec, have done, Access Copyright has adopted a new and much more complex formula for determining the amount of each creator’s Repertoire royalty.  The new formula divides writers and visual artists into separate creator groups.  The writers’ royalty is calculated based on the number of pages they have in print, and other factors, including the age of the work.  The visual artists’ royalty is based on the number of images each rightsholder has published in print, as well as other factors that include the age of the publication.  The more images or pages a creator has published, the more will be their share of the Repertoire.  Writers who are also visual artists (or vice versa) will share in both the writers’ and visual artists’ amounts.  Each eligible creator will be entitled to a base amount, and the amounts related to numbers of publications will be added to that.

The eligibility criteria have also changed.  As before, a creator must provide proof that he or she has one work published in print by providing a photocopy of the publication in order to establish basic eligibility.  A second order of registration has been added – creators are now asked to count the number of publications and the number of images (or pages, for writers) published in each year between 1989 and 2008, and to sign a declaration that their count is truthful and that they are a rightsholder in the publications.  Access Copyright will audit the submissions.  Creators may use Access Copyright’s online system to do the declaration.  The submissions should be updated as creators publish more material.  It should be noted that all declared publications should bear an ISBN or ISSN number  - this means that the smaller, more ephemeral types of publication that are prevalent in the visual arts do not count.  Access Copyright has decided that images that appear in advertisements will not count either.  Do not include these in your own counts of works when you submit them.

There will be a publicity campaign by Access Copyright advertising the new system, called Payback, to visual artists.  If you are already receiving the royalty through CARCC you should follow the instructions in the package that was recently mailed.  If you are a new CARCC affiliate you will have received information concerning your eligibility already from CARCC.  You do not need to sign up again with Access Copyright.  If you have questions about the royalty, please do get in touch with me at CARCC, either by telephone or email.

It remains to be seen how much individual creators will receive in 2010.  The amounts could vary significantly from the royalties paid in the past – some people will get more and some people will get less.  That is one question that I cannot answer!  We shall see what the future brings.

Janice Seline
Executive Director
CARCC
carcc@carcc.ca
Toll free 1-866-502-2722
Ottawa 613-232-3818

June 2008
Class Action Settlement Could Mean Royalties for Visual Artists

There have been notices in the newspapers advising artists and other creators that they may be eligible to receive royalties related to the settlement of a class action suit known as Robertson v. Thomson.  Journalist Heather Robertson initiated the suit in 1996, challenging the publication of her writing on websites without her permission.  The suit became a class action representing writers, photographers, visual artists, illustrators, editors and others – creators who hold copyright – against several media giants.  The list of magazines and newspapers that have been reproduced on the internet is comprehensive, and includes a number of art-related publications. Artists should review their own archives to see if there is anything of theirs that might be included.  The deadline to submit a claim is January 18 2010.  Please find all the information about the case, the lists of publications, the instructions for submitting a claim, and the necessary forms at: 

Janice Seline, Executive Director CARCC

Print This Page