Canadian Copyright Law

Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 – protects the rights of the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, recordings and broadcasts. Copyrighted material can only be copied with the copyright owner’s permission, which includes books, music, photographs, drawings, diagrams, etc;

Canada and the United States are noted for their alternative attitudes toward authority and law. While the United States is more self-centered, who values independence and achievements of one’s self, Canada depends on

Canada and the United States of America are two neighboring countries who besides the border share numerous other key aspects. Though similar in beliefs and culture the two countries are far from alike. Their legal structure particularly the penal system is one of most significant boundaries between Canada and the United States. Though not perfect, it's absolutely clear that Canada has the far more superior legal system.

In my opinion, the most important law that Canada has is Fundamental Freedoms. According to The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Fundamental Freedoms, are a group of laws

The U.S.’ negative dominance has been so damaging to Canadian culture that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, also known as the CRTC has had to step in and implement laws under the 1991 Broadcasting Act of Canada (Branch, Legislative Services). The CRTC says, “One of our goals is to ensure that Canadian broadcasting content meets the needs and interests of Canadians by delivering compelling, high-quality Canadian-made creative content from diverse sources on a variety of platforms (“Content Made by Canadians,” 2016). The role of the CRTC is to ensure that the United States, being the mega country that it is does not overshadow Canadian talent and does not limit the opportunities that Canadians may have when

“There is a fundamental connection between human rights and peace on Earth when everyone’s rights are respected.” This is an inspirational quote stated by human rights activist John Humphrey. Human rights have been a growing movement for Canada and throughout the years it has developed throughout the nation. Canada has demonstrated a positive commitment to protecting LGBT rights. Also, Canada has demonstrated a positive commitment to protecting gender rights. Finally, Canada has demonstrated a positive commitment to protecting rights of ethnic minority from. Overall, Canada has presented a positive commitment to protecting human rights from 1912-2010.

I believe the dispute in protecting Canadian culture was genuine and was the driving force to keep American publishers out, 100%. Along with all other competitors in the publishing world. I don’t think this is an isolated incident in trying to give Canadian owned industries first dibs at driving a specific industry within their country. The Canadian government’s efforts to maintain their modest Publishing industry run by its people and with Canadian content are good steps in trying to preserve their culture.

History of law offers us an understanding how the law evolves and change with time and place. When we try to interpret the various roots of Canadian law, different questions arise-Why the laws illegal in the past are legal now? Can we understand the past and the current law based on the traditional roots of law, such as a statute, case law, custom, and books of authority? Alternatively, there is something else one has to look into to interpret the roots of Canadian law adequately. What can we imagine about the future laws in Canada? Will it be the same as we face it today or will switch with time? Does a careful examination of the social, political, economic sources of Canadian law help us understand the current and the past, most specifically,

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE US-CANADIAN MAGAZINE DISPUTE WAS MOTIVATED BY GENUINE DESIRE TO PROTECT CANADIAN CULTURE?

Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.

The U.S.-Canadian magazine dispute was undoubtedly motivated by Canadian protectionism of their own culture. The source of the problem was Sports Illustrated Canada, a split-run magazine publisher, was producing material in the United States and sending it electronically to Canada so it could be printed as a Canadian periodical. The fact that Sports Illustrated Canada was rendered as Canadian rather than American allowed the periodical to offer tax deductions to Canadian advertisers, in turn taking away from the potential advertisement revenue available for other Canadian periodicals. The only reason this became a problem was because the originally Canadian periodicals couldn’t compete with the prices offered by the American magazines that

In Canadian history it is quite evident we are influenced heavily by the much stronger nations around us. Therefore our own content in Canada is sometimes overshadowed by other cultures, specifically with regards to the United States who have a big influence on our cultural industries. Pierre Trudeau expressed the feeling Canadians have with this co-existence, "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly or temperate the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." Some may argue that Canada should not continue to develop regulations to protect its cultural industries. However, I will argue that Canada should continue to develop some regulations to protect its cultural industries. It is

1. To what extent do you think the U.S.Canadian magazine dispute was motivated by genuine desires to protect Canadian culture? I think the motivation of protecting any domestic cultural value of any country must be respected to protect their own personal rights. In addition, the values of cultural development without implications of any foreign country impose including Canadian cultural value. We have seen the conflicted between Canadian magazines against the foreign trades for many years that struggling to protect their own value because of dominant foreign development. This is one of our generational systemic cultural impacts that overtaking and dominate against other without considerations.

I suspect that the real motive of the Canadian government was not to protect Canadian culture in this dispute with the US. But rather, it seemed to concern more with political and economic factors. As appeared in the article, the Canadian government finally gave in and went on to settle the dispute (The Levin Institute, [1]). To me, that seems somewhat irrational to suddenly give up on one’s culture like they did, when the US threated to retaliate with trade barriers. As a speculation, I believe the dispute was motived by political and economic concerns. The Canadian government was attempting to defend the local media from a total domination by foreign media since it implies that Canadian businesses will be paying foreign corporations to have their products and services advertised on a magazine, even when local magazines have the capacity to provide the same type of service. Simply put, the concern seems to be related to the higher outflows of capital.

Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas . Originality is the threshold standard of requirement of copyright. The case Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 expounded the three essential elements (labour, skill and judgment ) of originality. The court adapted to sweat of brow test with no element of creativity require to make the work original. Copyright can be granted if a work is created through the effort of an individual despite the work containing statement of facts and no creative input by an author.