p2pnet - rss feed: Canada’s Robertson Decision
p2pnet.net News:- The Supreme Court of Canada released its much anticipated Robertson v Thomson decision this morning - here is a quick take.
The Canadian version of the US Tasini case, at issue was the rights of freelance writers and the use of their work in electronic databases.
Much like the US case (which clearly had an impact on this case), the court was split. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled in favour of Heather Robertson, finding that the reproduction of the freelance articles into a searchable database was not covered by the copyright held by the publishers (whose rights were limited to the compilation of works that comprise the newspaper).
At one level, the split in the court simply reflects a different view on the nature of a converting the content in a newspaper into a database. The majority (written by Justices LeBel and Fish) thinks that the use is very different and thus no longer part of the publisher’s copyright. From this perspective, information such as date, page placement, etc. is merely “historical data”.
The dissent, written by Justice Abella (joined by Chief Justice McLachlin, Binnie, and Charron) argues that the database involves a substantial reproduction of the original compilation and that therefore “the publisher’s entitlement under our media neutral Copyright Act is able to adjust the form of its work to suit the exigencies of new media technologies.”
At a deeper level, however, the case may signal some differing perspectives about copyright law.
Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
October 13th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
So which decision is better for the freelance writers?
and
Which decision is better for the general public?
October 13th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Sorry but you have it backwards. The only decison that counts is what is best for the copyright holders.