Re: Educational exemptions

Oksana Dykyj (oksana@vax2.concordia.ca)
Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:42:22 -0800 (PST)

At 10:29 AM 2/8/02 -0800, Stephen wrote:

> Writing from a country without the immense educational exemptions
>enjoyed in the U.S., I have to ask whether (post-secondary) "education" has
>ever been defined strictly as what transpires during a credit course in a
>classroom.

As a fellow Canadian, I have to admit that we envy the relative clarity of
the U.S. law compared to the Canadian one. Here as some responses to your
devil's advocate thoughts. Education is however not defined in the
Copyright Law nor should it, whether it is pre-school, elementary,
secondary or post-secondary, or even continuing.

> Last October we had an open forum to discuss the terrorist attacks,
>with short contributions from faculty of our political science/economics
>and humanities departments. The subject was of fundamental interest to
>everyone, and I would go so far as to say vital.
> We did not show a video, but if we had, I would assume no one would
>disagree that this would qualify as an educational experience at an
>educational institution. I do believe the teachers were teaching. But
>while the audience was primarily students, no one got credit for attending.

According to the Canadian Law you did nothing that was illegal, however,
had you shown a video that was not copyright-cleared for public
performance, you would have infringed the law.

29.5 It is not an infringement of copyright for an
educational institution or a person
acting under its
authority to do the following acts if
they are done on the
premises of an educational institution
for educational or
training purposes and not for profit,
before an audience
consisting primarily of students of the
educational
institution, instructors acting under the
authority of the
educational institution or any person who
is directly
responsible for setting a curriculum for
the educational
institution:
(IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO INCLUDE FRIENDS, PARENTS, OR SUPPORT STAFF INTO
THIS GROUP)
(a) the live performance in public,
primarily by students
of the educational institution, of a work;
(THIS MEANS THE STUDENTS COULD HAVE PERFORMED A PIECE OF MUSIC FOR INSTANCE)

(b) the performance in public of a
sound recording or of
a work or performer's performance that
is embodied in
a sound recording; and
(OR, THEY COULD HAVE LISTENED TO A CD -- A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ONE)

(c) the performance in public of a work
or other
subject-matter at the time of its
communication to the
public by telecommunication.
(OR, THE STUDENTS COULD HAVE WATCHED A LIVE TV BROADCAST, OR LISTENED TO
LIVE RADIO)
1997, c. 24, s. 18.

Off-air taping and showing of videos is a whole other thing, covered in
other sections of the law.

> If you don't think any teaching took place on that occasion, then my
>argument ends right here. But if you can accept that situation, why would
>other examples be less valid just because they do not deal with topics of
>pressing urgency. Why would non-compulsory exposure to slides about a trip
>to Peru, or a tour of a gallery, or a video on any subject be considered
>non-educational; i.e. not part of the student's education while attending
>an institution.

Educational experiences are not being disputed by the laws. If the person
who took the slides is showing his/her own slides then as copyright holders
they can do what they want. The gallery is exhibiting works that they
presumably have permission to exhibit, and visiting the gallery is not an
infringement. A video viewed by a student for private study or research is
covered by Fair Dealing in Canada, however a public performance is not. The
Canadian Copyright Act states that "any fair dealing with any work for the
purposes of private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper
summary, if the sources and the author's name, if given the source, are
mentioned, is not a violation of copyright". The key word here is "private"
as opposed to public. To quote Lesley Ellen Harris' CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW:
"If the performance takes place in a non-domestic setting, it may be
considered a "public" performance whether or not an admission fee is
charged, whether the performance is incidental to the main purpose of an
event, or whether there is a small or large audience. In fact, there need
not be an audience listening to the performance, as long as the performance
is meant for an audience".

Oksana

> Stephen Davies
> Mount Royal College, Calgary
> former Olympic city (woohoo!)
> mailto:SDavies@mtroyal.ca
>
>P.S. is anyone else getting
>pestered for rabbit ears. I've
>had a curious rash of these
>requests at work. Hmmmm.

__________________________________________________________________________
Oksana Dykyj voice: 514-848-3443
Head, Visual Media Resources fax: 514-848-3441
Faculty of Fine Arts
Concordia University
H-335, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W,
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H3G 1M8
__________________________________________________________________________