It’s hardly surprising that politicians and members of the press often find themselves at odds with one another, as the two have a long history of conflicting priorities and mandates. Yet the two entities occupy complementary and at times oppositional roles in serving the public good. The recent debate surrounding leaked information about possible copyright reforms brings this tension to the surface. It also raises the question of who is left to serve the public interest when politicians and the Press openly conflict.
Politicians and members of the political press galleries each play fundamental roles in Canadian democracy. Politicians are elected or appointed to serve on behalf of the electorate and craft laws and policies “for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada” (VI.91). Meanwhile, as the stewards of the historic “Fourth Estate”, the members of the press are entrusted to fulfill their “watchdog mandate” to hold elected representatives and civil servants to account. Contestation often simmers beneath the surface if and when these respective mandates collide. However, each group is ostensibly supposed to serve the public good and the citizens of the state.
On 8 October, CTV News reported on the leak of an internal Cabinet document suggesting a “New Copyright Exception for Political Advertising”. This document, reported to be a presentation from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages Shelley Glover, sought Cabinet authority “to amend the Copyright Act to create an exception for the use of ‘news’ in political advertisements without the authorization of the rights holder” in order to provide “greater certainty for ‘political actors’ who want to use copyright content in their advertisements” (presentation Slide 8). This report caused a stir as opposition and Government MPs took their respective sides while members of the press used their positions to comment on the appropriateness of the proposed exception. Maclean’s Paul Wells nicely summarized the situation, asking “The Tories and the TV networks: Who is censoring whom?”.
During Question Period on 9 October, the Hon. Ralph Goodale (MP, Wascana, Lib.) described the move as a “scheme authorizing the swiping of television news programs for use in political attack ads” (14:24) and “expropriation without compensation. [The proposal] degrades integrity and freedom of the press” (14:26). Minister Glover, meanwhile, responded by citing Canada’s fair dealing copyright exceptions and the “public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings. Major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians” (14.26).
Minister Glover’s fair dealing assertion counters Mr. Goodale’s claims of “expropriation without compensation”. While the proposed exception would make it legal for “political actors” to use “news” footage or content without compensation or consent, these uses might already be protected under existing Canadian law. As I described in an earlier IPilogue post, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has affirmed that fair dealing exceptions are “properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act” (2004 SCC 13(3a) para.48). The measure of the phrase “integral part”, however, is not entirely clear.
Under the Copyright Act, Canada’s fair dealing exceptions are restricted to the purposes of “research, private study, education, parody or satire” (Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42. Sec.29). The SCC has affirmed that these exceptions “must be given a large and liberal interpretation” (2004 SCC 13(3a) para.51) and, it could be argued that the user generated content amendments and exceptions in the Copyright Modernization Act (S.C. 2012, c. 20) allow for the use of copyright materials for other purposes. To date, though, political uses of copyright-protected materials via fair dealing exceptions have not been fully tested. Importantly, the SCC finds that “fair dealing” should not appropriate content in order to compete with the material interests of the rights holder: “if the reproduced work is likely to compete with the market of the original work, this may suggest that the dealing is not fair” (3(vi) para.59). Though this “is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair”, the fact that the use of “news” materials in political advertisements is unlikely to compete with the work of the press in reporting and selling their content suggests that fair dealing exceptions would apply in such situations.
The Government’s proposal to amend the Copyright Act for political advertising generated criticism from members of the press, as reported by Canadian Press’ Jennifer Ditchburn. In his weekly “Rant” on the Rick Mercer Report for the CBC, Rick Mercer equated the move to “stealing” (0:59) and mistakenly said that “there are no exceptions” (1:15) for legally using copyright-protected content. Meanwhile, Don Martin, the host of CTV’s PowerPlay, argued “any government which asserts unlimited access to the airwaves for propaganda purposes is more than into chronic copyright infringement. In some academic opinion, that could be seen as flirting with fascism”. Other media organizations were more measured in their responses. An editorial in The Globe and Mail points out that “media don’t like to see their footage and other copyright-protected content in partisan ads, especially the negative type, since viewers might be left with the impression that a media outlet is complicit with a political party”. The Globe’s concern is balanced by the recognition that “there will be people who see it as a boon for free expression. Why shouldn’t people make unfettered use of news images and clips of public figures in order to advance their points of view and denounce those of others? Isn’t the news a public good?”
In an interview with the Canadian Press, David Lametti, Associate Professor of Law at McGill University and a founding member of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), welcomed the idea of an exception for political discourse on the grounds that it could help spur political debate. Professor Lametti, whose Twitter biography describes himself as an “Aspiring Liberal Candidate in LaSalle-Émard-Verdun”, stated that “political discourse is to be valued above all other kinds of discourse, and it’s up to political parties to make their claims and they use whatever elements they can use legally. And if this helps to foster political debate in Canada, then that’s good.”
While it may be aimed at protecting the “public good”, the “New Copyright Exception for Political Advertising” does seem needlessly restrictive. By prioritizing “political actors” over members of the general public, the proposed course of action deprives the public of a useful tool for engaging in political debates. During the 9 October Question Period, MP Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) argued that the exceptions under question appear to be “legislation that is only in [the Government’s] interest” (14:52). In response, Minister Glover cited a post from the legal scholar Michael Geist to defend the Government’s position (14:53). A vocal and public commentator on Canadian copyright, Professor Geist applied the SCC’s reasoning to the proposed exception to argue that “copyright law should not be used to stifle legitimate speech …[and]… attempts to use copyright to claim absolute rights over the use of a portion of a video clip is surely counter to basic principles of fair dealing (in Canada) or fair use”. His reasoning goes further, however. In a subsequent post – as well as in the one cited by Minister Glover – Professor Geist echoes Ms. Latendresse’s concerns about the narrowness of the exception under consideration, arguing that “the creation of an exception that only allows a select few to benefit is not a provision that can be defended on freedom of political speech grounds”.
Attempts to update the Copyright Act’s fair dealing exceptions should keep public interest concerns in mind. A narrowly framed exception applying to only official “political actors” does not serve the best interest of all Canadians. It would be more beneficial to include “political speech” as a separate category alongside research, private study, education, parody or satire in order to better clarify how all Canadians can use copyrighted content to express their feelings about elected officials.
Thankfully, this debate seems to have cooled for now. As Professor Geist reports, the proposed exception was not part of the latest Budget Implementation Bill. With a legislated review of copyright law scheduled for 2017, it will be important to reaffirm that Canada’s copyright law and its fair dealing exceptions are designed to serve all members of the Canadian public— and not just politicians and/or the press.
Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor and a PhD Candidate in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at York University.