A Table explaining the recent Supreme Court pentology. Note that the court decision was based on the old copyright law. So it is clear that universities have for decades interpreted fair dealing much too warily and conservatively. The Supreme Court has ruled that fair dealing must be interpreted liberally.
The new Bill C-11 which will come into force shortly is much more open and less restrictive in interpreting fair dealing
Fair dealing
Before: WRONG After: RIGHT
Previous accepted wisdom (in too many cases) |
Supreme Court decision |
Making class copies for students is not research and therefore not fair dealing |
Making class copies for students is a type of private research and so is fair dealing |
Fair dealing does not apply when the content is required as part of a course rather than optional for supplementary reading. |
Fair dealing applies whether or not content is required, optional or supplementary. The distinction is not relevant to fair dealing. |
Copies cannot be placed in course packs or on library reserve. |
Yes they can under fair dealing. |
Users can only make a single copy of a work for their own personal use. |
Teachers can make as many copies of a work as there are students in their course. The number of copies are not necessarily a factor in fair dealing. |
Guidelines for 10% of a work or even 5% of some works were used. |
Fair dealing allows a reasonable amount of a work to be copied. What is reasonable must be interpreted liberally not conservatively as in the past. |
Fair dealing only refers to published works. |
Fair dealing applies to ALL works. |
Destroying copies of digital works (“digital book burning”) after use supports fair dealing. |
Destroying copies is not a criterion for judging whether a work is fair or not. |
Different rules for paper and digital copies. |
In fair dealing the law MUST be technologically neutral. There is no difference in fair dealing based on the technology being used. |
Only allowing one copy on reserve for many students. |
Many copies can be made for student use. |
Library reserve cannot substitute for purchasing books. |
The Supreme Court ruled that using a portion of a work should NOT force the institution to buy the whole book. |
Overly restrictive and unnecessary requirement for faculty and students |
No longer needed as the courts have ruled that we should take a liberal interpretation of fair dealing. |
Course content is only fair dealing until the end of a course after which the copy must be destroyed. |
Fair dealing is not necessarily limited by time. |
|
|
Furthermore, in the new law,(C-11) statutory damages for copyright infringement will be limited to a maximum $5 000 or the actual financial damage caused. The copyright owner would have to prove the financial damage.
The Landing is a social site for Athabasca University staff, students and invited guests. It is a space where they can share, communicate and connect with anyone or everyone.
Unless you are logged in, you will only be able to see the fraction of posts on the site that have been made public. Right now you are not logged in.
If you have an Athabasca University login ID, use your standard username and password to access this site.
We welcome comments on public posts from members of the public. Please note, however, that all comments made on public posts must be moderated by their owners before they become visible on the site. The owner of the post (and no one else) has to do that.
If you want the full range of features and you have a login ID, log in using the links at the top of the page or at https://landing.athabascau.ca/login (logins are secure and encrypted)
Posts made here are the responsibility of their owners and may not reflect the views of Athabasca University.