Compulsory Licence for the Republication of a Work of a Deceased Author – Some Comments on Repealed Section 15 of the Canadian Copyright Act

COMPULSORYLICENCEFORTHEREPUBLICATIONOFAWORKOFADECESASED
AUTHORSOMECOMMENTSONREPEALEDSECTION15OFTHECANADIAN
COPYRIGHTACT

by
LaurentCarrière
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Textofsection
1.0RelatedSections
2.0RelatedRegulations
3.0PriorLegislation
3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
3.2LegislativeHistory
3.2.1S.C.1921,c.24,s.12.
3.2.2R.S.C.1927,c.32,s.13.
3.2.3R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.13.
3.2.4R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.13.
3.3Transitional
3.4ProposedLegislation
4.0Purpose.
5.0Commentary.
5.1History.
5.2Construction.
5.3Conditions.
5.3.1General.
5.3.2Author.
5.3.3Work
5.3.4InitialDiffusionoftheWork.
5.3.5AttitudeoftheCopyrightOwner
5.3.6DeprivationofthePublic
5.4Mechanics
5.4.1″Acomplaint”
5.4.2Timing
5.4.3″Maybeordered”





























































©LaurentCarrière,1994..
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisoneoftheseniorpartnerswiththelawfirm
LEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andwiththepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.This
materialwaspartofacommentonsection15oftheCanadianCopyrightAct”WhereOwner
ofCopyrightCompelledtoGrantaLicencetoReproduce”,intiallypublishedRobic-Léger’s
CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated(Toronto,Carswell,1993).Asthesectionhasbeen
repealed,thecommentaryisnolongerinthisbookbuthasbeenkeptonourwebsitead
futurammemoriam!Publication127.

5
.4.4Terms
5.4.5AContract
5.5Appeal
6.0CaseLaw
6.1CaseLaw-Canada
6.2CaseLaw-France
7.0ListofCases
7.1ListofCases-Canada
7.2ListofCases-France
8.0Authors
8.1Authors-Canada
8.1.1CopyrightIssues
8.1.2AdministrativeIssues
8.2Authors-UnitedKingdom
8.3Authors-France
9.0ComparativeLegislation
9.1ComparativeLegislation-UnitedKingdom
9.1.1LiteraryCopyrightAct,1842,section5:
9.1.2CopyrightAct,1911,section4:
9.2ComparativeLegislation-France
9.2.1CopyrightAct,1957,section20:
9.2.2Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle,1992,section,L.121-3:
9.3ComparativeLegislation-India
9.3.1CopyrightAct,1957,section31
10.0Varia
10.1HousesofCommonsDebates—UnitedKingdom(1910.07.26)SydneyBuxtonM.P.
(PresidentoftheBoardofTrade),atp.1949:
10.2HousesofCommonsDebates-UnitedKingdom(1911.04.07)SydneyBuxtonM.P.
(PresidentoftheBoardofTrade),M.P.atpp.2602-2603:
10.3HousesofCommonsDebates—UnitedKingdom(1911.04.07)AugustineBirrell
M.P.,atpp.2648-2649:
10.4HousesofCommonsDebates—UnitedKingdom(1911.04.07)ArthurJ.Balfour
M.P.,atpp.2653-55:

R
EPEALED
COMPULSORYLICENCES

WHEREOWNEROFCOPYRIGHTCOMPELLED
TOGRANTLICENCETOREPRODUCE
15.Where,atanytimeafterthedeathofthe
authorofaliterary,dramaticormusical
workthathasbeenpublishedorperformed
inpublic,acomplaintifmadetothe
GovernorinCouncilthattheownerofthe
copyrightintheworkhasrefusedto
republishortoallowtherepublicationofthe
workorhasrefusedtoallowthe
performanceinpublicofthework,andthat
byreasonofthatrefusaltheworkiswithheld
fromthepublic,theownerofthecopyright
maybeorderedtograntalicenceto
reproducetheworkorperformtheworkin
public,asthecasemaybe,onsuchterms
andsubjecttosuchconditionsasthe
GovernorinCouncilmaythinkfit.

A
BROGÉ
LICENCESOBLIGATOIRES

LORSQUELETITULAIREDUDROITD’AUTEUR
ESTSOMMÉD’AUTORISERLA
REPRODUCTION
15.Lorsque,àunmomentquelconque
aprèslamortdel’auteurd’uneœuvre
littéraire,dramatiqueoumusicale,déjà
publiéeouexécutéeoureprésentée
publiquement,ilestprésentéau
gouverneurenconseiluneplainteportant
queletitulairedudroitd’auteursurl’œuvre
arefusédelapublierànouveau,oud’en
permettreunenouvellepublication,ou
bienqu’ilarefuséd’enpermettre
l’exécutionoulareprésentationpublique,
ensortequelepublicenestprivé,le
titulairedudroitd’auteurpeutêtresommé
d’accorderunelicencedereproduire
l’oeuvre,del’exécuteroudela
représenterenpublic,selonlecas,aux
conditionsjugéesconvenablesparle
gouverneurenconseil.

R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.15;repealedbyS.C.1993,c.44,s.61

§1.0RelatedSections
Section2—Definitions:“dramaticwork”,“literarywork”,“musicalwork”,
“performance”;section3—Definitionof“copyright”;section4—Definitionof
“publication”;section13—Ownershipofcopyright;section14—Limitation
whereauthoristhefirstownerofcopyright;section25—Licencedeemedas
contract;section26—FeespaidtoMinister;section62—Rulesandregulations.

§2.0RelatedRegulations

None.

§3.0PriorLegislation
§3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation

Section12from1924.01.01to1928.01.31;section13from1928.02.01to
1988.12.11;section15from1988.12.12to1993.12.31.
§3.2LegislativeHistory
§3.2.1S.C.1921,c.24,s.12.

COMPULSORYLICENSES

WHENOWNEROFCOPYRIGHTCOMPELLED
TOGRANTLICENSETOREPRODUCE
12.If,atanytimeafterthedeathofthe
authorofaliterary,dramatic,ormusical
workwhichhasbeenpublishedor
performedinpublic,acomplaintismade
totheGovernorinCouncilthattheowner
ofthecopyrightintheworkhasrefusedto
republishortoallowtherepublicationof
theworkorhasrefusedtoallowthe
performanceinpublicofthework,and
thatbyreasonofsuchrefusaltheworkis
withheldfromthepublic,theownerofthe
copyrightmaybeorderedtogranta
licensetoreproducetheworkorperform
theworkinpublic,asthecasemaybe,on
suchtermsandsubjecttosuchconditions
astheGovernorinCouncilmaythinkfit.

LICENCESOBLIGATOIRES

LORSQUELETITULAIREDUDROITD’AUTEUR
ESTSOMMÉD’AUTORISERLAREPRODUCTION
12
.Lorsque,àunmomentquelconque
aprèslamortdel’auteurd’uneœuvre
littéraire,dramatiqueoumusicale,déjà
publiéeouexécutéeoureprésentée
publiquement,ilestprésentéauGouverneur
enconseiluneplainteconstatantquele
titulairedudroitd’auteursurl’œuvrea
refusédelapublierànouveau,oud’en
permettreunenouvellepublication,oubien
qu’ilarefuséd’enpermettrel’exécutionou
lareprésentationpublique,ensortequele
publicenestprivé,letitulairedudroit
d’auteurpourraêtresomméd’accorder
unelicencedereproduirel’oeuvre,de
l’exécuteroudelareprésenterenpublic,
selonlecas,auxtermesetsousles
conditionsjugéesconvenablesparle
Gouverneurenconseil.

§3.2.2R.S.C.1927,c.32,s.13.

COMPULSORYLICENSES

WHENOWNEROFCOPYRIGHTCOMPELLED
TOGRANTLICENSETOREPRODUCE
13.If,atanytimeafterthedeathofthe
authorofaliterary,dramatic,ormusical
workwhichhasbeenpublishedor
performedinpublic,acomplaintismadeto
theGovernorinCouncilthattheownerof
thecopyrightintheworkhasrefusedto
republishortoallowtherepublicationofthe
workorhasrefusedtoallowthe
LICENCESOBLIGATOIRES

LORSQUELETITULAIREDUDROITD’AUTEUR
ESTSOMMÉD’AUTOR
ISERLAREPRODUCTION
13
.Lorsque,àunmomentquelconque
aprèslamortdel’auteurd’uneœuvre
littéraire,dramatiqueoumusicale,déjà
publiéeouexécutéeoureprésentée
publiquement,ilestprésentéaugouverneur
ensonconseiluneplainteconstatantquele
titulairedudroitd’auteursurl’œuvrea
refusédelapublierànouveau,oud’en
permettreunenouvellepublication,oubien

p
erformanceinpublicofthework,andthat
byreasonofsuchrefusaltheworkis
withheldfromthepublic,theownerofthe
copyrightmaybeorderedtogranta
licensetoreproducetheworkorperform
theworkinpublic,asthecasemaybe,on
suchtermsandsubjecttosuchconditions
astheGovernorinCouncilmaythinkfit.

qu’ilarefuséd’enpermettrel’exécutionou
lareprésentationpublique,ensortequele
publicenestprivé,letitulairedudroit
d’auteurpourraêtresomméd’accorder
unelicencedereproduirel’oeuvre,de
l’exécuteroudelareprésenterenpublic,
selonlecas,auxtermesetsousles
conditionsjugéesconvenablesparle
gouverneurensonconseil.

§3.2.3R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.13.

COMPULSORYLICENSES

WHENOWNEROFCOPYRIGHTCOMPELLED
TOGRANTLICENCETOREPRODUCE
13.Where,atanytimeafterthedeathof
theauthorofaliterary,dramatic,ormusical
workthathasbeenpublishedorperformed
inpublic,acomplaintismadetothe
GovernorinCouncilthattheownerofthe
copyrightintheworkhasrefusedto
republishortoallowtherepublicationofthe
workorhasrefusedtoallowthe
performanceinpublicofthework,andthat
byreasonofsuchrefusaltheworkis
withheldfromthepublic,theownerofthe
copyrightmaybeorderedtogranta
licencetoreproducetheworkorperform
theworkinpublic,asthecasemaybe,on
suchtermsandsubjecttosuchconditions
astheGovernorinCouncilmaythinkfit.

LICENCESOBLIGATOIRES

LORSQUELETITULAIREDUDROITD’AUTEUR
ESTSOMMÉD’AUTORISERLA
REPRODUCTION
13.Lorsque,àunmomentquelconque
aprèslamortdel’auteurd’uneœuvre
littéraire,dramatiqueoumusicale,déjà
publiéeouexécutéeoureprésentée
publiquement,ilestprésentéau
gouverneurenconseiluneplainteportant
queletitulairedudroitd’auteursur
l’œuvrearefusédelapublierànouveau,
oud’enpermettreunenouvelle
publication,oubienqu’ilarefuséd’en
permettrel’exécutionoulareprésentation
publique,ensortequelepublicenest
privé,letitulairedudroitd’auteurpeutêtre
somméd’accorderunelicencede
reproduirel’oeuvre,del’exécuteroudela
représenterenpublic,selonlecas,aux
conditionsjugéesconvenablesparle
gouverneurensonconseil.

§3.2.4R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.13.

COMPULSORYLICENSES

WHENOWNEROFCOPYRIGHTCOMPELLEDTO
GRANTLICENCETOREPRODUCE
13.Where,atanytimeafterthedeathof
LICENCESOBLIGATOIRES

LORSQUELETITULAIREDUDROITD’AUTEURESTSOMMÉD’AUTORISERLAREPRODUCTION

13.Lorsque,àunmomentquelconque
aprèslamortdel’auteurd’uneœuvre

t
heauthorofaliterary,dramatic,ormusical
workthathasbeenpublishedorperformed
inpublic,acomplaintismadetothe
GovernorinCouncilthattheownerofthe
copyrightintheworkhasrefusedto
republishortoallowtherepublicationof
theworkorhasrefusedtoallowthe
performanceinpublicofthework,and
thatbyreasonofsuchrefusaltheworkis
withheldfromthepublic,theownerofthe
copyrightmaybeorderedtogranta
licencetoreproducetheworkorperform
theworkinpublic,asthecasemaybe,on
suchtermsandsubjecttosuchconditions
astheGovernorinCouncilmaythinkfit.

littéraire,dramatiqueoumusicale,déjà
publiéeouexécutéeoureprésentée
publiquement,ilestprésentéaugouverneur
enconseiluneplainteportantquele
titulairedudroitd’auteursurl’œuvrea
refusédelapublierànouveau,oud’en
permettreunenouvellepublication,oubien
qu’ilarefuséd’enpermettrel’exécutionou
lareprésentationpublique,ensortequele
publicenestprivé,letitulairedudroit
d’auteurpeutêtresomméd’accorderune
licencedereproduirel’oeuvre,de
l’exécuteroudelareprésenterenpublic,
selonlecas,auxconditionsjugées
convenablesparlegouverneurenconseil.

§3.3Transitional
None.
§3.4ProposedLegislation
None.
§4.0Purpose
Thissection15establishestheconditionsunderwhichacompulsorylicence
maybeorderedfortherepublicationofaworkofadeceasedauthorwhen
thecopyrightownerfailstodoso.

§5.0Commentary

§5.1History
Section15hasitsrootsinsection4oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911
whichitselforiginatesfromsection5oftheUntiedKingdomCopyrightAct,
1842.ThejudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasthenentitledtolicense
therepublicationofbookswhichthecopyrightownerrefusedtorepublish
afterthedeathoftheauthor.IntheUnitedKingdom,thissectionwas
introducedsinceitwasfound“expedienttoprovideagainstthesuppression
ofbooksofimportancetothepublic”.Thissectionwasprobablyenactedto
avoidthewithholdingsofbookssuchas“TheBroadStoneofHonourorRules

fortheGentlemenofEngland”(1822)ofSirKenelmHenryDigby.SeeUnited
KingdomHouseofCommonsDebatesof1841.02.06,TalfourdM.P.,atpp.354-
355andUnitedKingdomHouseofCommonsDebatesof1842.04.06,Lord
Mahon,atpp.1353-1354.However,sincetheintroductionofthissectioninthe
UntiedKingdom,thereisnorecordofanylicencegrantedthereunder.
Section5oftheBritishCopyrightAct,1842onlyaimedat“books”,while
section4oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911wasenlargedsoasto
encompass“literary,dramaticormusicalwork”,whichwordingwasimported
insection12oftheCanadianCopyrightAct,1921(nowsection15).
In1948,theUnitedKingdombecamepartytotheBrusselsRevision(1948)of
theBerneConventionwhich,byanewwordingofitsArticle7,obligesthe
UnitedKingdomtogivetoprotectedworksaminimumdurationofprotection
of50yearsafterthedeathoftheauthor.Sinceacompulsorylicenceunder
section4oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1911couldbeissuedatany
timeafterthedeathofanauthor,theaforesaidsection4wasdeemedin
conflictwiththeprovisionsofArticle7oftheBrusselsRevision(1948)ofthe
BerneConventionand,asaconsequence,section4wasrepealedbythe
UnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,1956.However,Canadaisnotpartytothe
BrusselsRevision(1948)oftheBerneConventionbutonlytotheRomeRevision
(1928)and,therefore,nosuchmodificationwasnecessary.
§5.2Construction
Sincecompulsorylicencesareexceptionstothegeneralruleoffreedomto
disposeoftheownershipofcopyright,theymustbestrictlyinterpreted.Asto
theconstructionoftheBritishcounterparttothissection,SkoneJameswrote,
atp.87oftheEighthEditionofhisCopingerandSkoneJamesontheLawof
Copyright(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1948):“Asectionwhichineffect
expropriatesthepropertyofanother,itisthought,toreceiveastrict
construction”.
§5.3Conditions
§5.3.1General
Forthissectiontocomeintooperation,severalconditionsaretobemetwith
respecttoa)theauthor,b)thenatureofthework,c)thediffusionofthe
work,d)theattitudeofthecopyrightowner,e)theconsequencesofthe
refusaltomakeavailablethework.

§5.3.2Author
Thetimewhenanapplicationundersection15maybeaskedforis
determinedbythedeathoftheauthorofthecopyrightedworkandnotof
thecopyrightowner.Arequestforsuchcompulsorylicencecanbemadeat
anytimeafterthedeathoftheauthorandthereisnowaitingperiodinthat
regard.
Thenationalityorresidenceoftheauthorhasnobearingunderthissection,
northefactthatthedeceasedauthormightbeanationalofacountryofthe
UnionorwithwhichCanadahasenteredintoaninternationalagreementfor
reciprocalcopyrightprotection.Ofcourse,iftheworkisnotprotected—or
nolongerprotected—undertheCanadianCopyrightAct,section15does
nothavetocomeintooperationsincetheworkwouldalreadybeinthe
publicdomain.
§5.3.3Work
Acompulsorylicencecanonlybegrantedwithrespecttothreespecific
categoriesofworks,namely:(a)literaryworks,(b)dramaticworks,or(c)
musicalworks.
Itdoesnotcoverartisticworks.Itmightnotcoverworkswhicharebothliterary
andartistic(forinstance,“comicstrips”or“artbooks”).Asto“cinematograph
work”,itwoulddependonthequalificationgiventothework,namely
dramaticorartistic:seesubsections2(10)and3(2).
§5.3.4Initialdiffusionofthework
Thissectioncomesintooperationif,withtheconsentofthecopyrightowner,
copiesoftheworkhavebeenreleasedatleastoncetothepublicorifthe
workhasbeenperformedinpublic.Theworkswhichwereneverpublishedor
performedinpublic(i.e.,outsidethefamilycircle)arenotcoveredbythis
section,norarethosewhichwerepublishedorperformedwithoutthe
consentofthecopyrightownersinceitwouldnotconstituteapublicationor
performanceundersubsection4(2)oftheAct.
Theplaceofinitialprintingorpublicperformanceoftheworkisnotrelevant
underthissection.Theworkofthedeceasedauthormayneverhavebeen
printed,publishedorperformedinCanada.

§5.3.5Attitudeofthecopyrightowner
Theremustbearefusalbythecopyrightowner(andnotbytheauthor)to
permitthediffusionofthework.Therefusalsaimedbysection15are:
(a)therefusaltorepublish[bythecopyrightowner],
(b)therefusaltoallowtherepublication[presumablybysomeone
else],and
(c)therefusaltoallowtheperformanceinpublicofthework.
Itwouldappearthatsection15sanctionstherefusaltorepublishortoallowa
publicperformance,andnotthesituationwhereacopyrightownersubjects
itsconsenttoexactingconditions.Thereisnocaselawtoassistindetermining
whetheradisguisedrefusalbythecopyrightownershouldbeconsideredas
arefusaltriggeringofftheapplicationofsection15.Exorbitantclaimsfor
royaltiestobepaidfortherepublicationofthework,ludicrousor
preposterousrequestsastotheformatofthework,orunrealisticdemandsas
tothecastingofapublicperformancemayverywellconcealarefusaland,
infact,havethesameeffectasarefusaltomaketheworkavailabletothe
public.
Thecompulsorylicenceundersection15wouldapparentlynotcomeinto
operationwhenaworkisprintedbutkeptinstock,undistributed;norwhen
thecopiesoftheworkareavailablebutatanout-of-reachprice.
Conversely,thecopyrightownercouldnotescapetheapplicationofthis
sectionbymakingavailablearevisedorupdatededitionofthework,orby
permittinganadaptationofthework.Itistheliterary,dramaticormusical
work,inits(oroneofits)publishedform,whichisaimedatandnota
substitutionthereof.
§5.3.6Deprivationofthepublic
Therefusalbythecopyrightownertoallowthepublicationorthepublic
performanceofitsworkshouldhavetheworkwithheldfromthepublicasa
consequence.Itisinterestingtonotethattheword“withhold”isdefinedin
the1984ThirdRevisedEditionofTheShorterOxfordEnglishDictionaryas“to
keepback;tokeepinone’spossession(whatbelongsto,isdueto,oris
desiredbyanother);torefrainfromgrantingorgiving;todetain;tokeepin
bondage,incustody,orundercontrol”,whichappearstobeverymuchin

linewiththepurposeofthissection,namely“toprovideagainstthe
SuppressionofBooksofImportancetothePublic”.
The“public”isthepublicatlarge,andnotrestrictedtoCanadiansorthe
publicinCanada.Thereisnoneedtoproveanyspecialharmtothepublic
butsimplythat,becauseoftherefusalofthecopyrightowner,theworkisnot
available.Compare,forinstance,withsection32oftheCompetitionAct
(R.S.C.1985,c.C-34;am.R.S.C.1985(4thSupp.),c.10,s.18;S.C.1990,c.37s.
29):
Inanycasewhereusehasbeenmadeoftheexclusiverightsandprivileges
conferredbyacopyrightsoas(…)
(b)torestrainorinjure,unduly,tradeorcommerceinrelationtoanysuch
articleorcommodity,
(c)toprevent,limitorlessen,unduly,themanufactureorproductionofany
sucharticleorcommodityorunreasonablytoenhancethepricethereof
(…).

§5.4Mechanics
Theconcisenessofthissection,whichisnotaccompaniedbyanyrulesof
application,istobecontrastedwiththedetailedprocedureslaiddownfor
othercompulsorylicencesintheAct.Itissuggestedthat,byanalogy,
referencebemadetothegeneralrequirementsfoundintheCopyright
RoyaltySystemRules.
§5.4.1“Acomplaint”
ThecomplaintistobemadetotheGovernorinCouncil.Asprovidedforby
section13oftheConstitutionAct,1982,provisionsinActsofParliament
referringtotheGovernorGeneralinCouncilshallbeconstruedasreferringto
theGovernorGeneralactingforandwiththeadviceandconsentof,andin
conjunctionwith,theQueen’sPrivyCouncilforCanada:seesection35ofthe
InterpretationAct(R.S.C.1985,c.I-21)andGovernorGeneral’sAct(R.S.C.
1985,c.G-9).
AcomplaintofthisnatureshouldbesenttotheClerkofthePrivyCouncil
(whoisalsoSecretarytotheCabinet),whoseaddressis85SparksStreet,
BlackburnBuilding,Ottawa,OntarioK1A0A3.

ThecomplaintmaybemadebyanyoneincludingaCanadian,acitizenofa
membercountryoftheBerneConvention,amemberofacountrywithwhich
Canadahasareciprocalagreement,orevensomeonewhoisnotprotected
undertheCanadianCopyrightAct.Thecomplainantcouldbeanassociation
oracorporation,notonlyanindividual.Thecomplainantdoesnothavetobe
apersonaggrievedbytherefusalofthecopyrightownernordoesthe
complainanthavetojustifyanyspecialinterest,commercial(e.g.,there-
publisher-to-be)orsentimental(e.g.,heirsoftheauthor).
§5.4.2Timing
Therequestforacompulsorylicencecanonlybemadeafterthedeathof
theauthor.Arequestaimedattheworkofadyingauthorwouldappearto
bepremature.
Furthermore,forsuchacompulsorylicencetoberequestedandgrantedin
thecaseofaliterary,dramaticormusicalworkofjointauthorship,allauthors
shouldbedeceased.
§5.4.3“Maybeordered”
ThereisapparentlynoobligationfortheGovernorinCounciltogranta
compulsorylicence.Section15,asdrafted,ispermissive.Thegrantofsucha
licenceisdonebywayofanorderoftheGovernorinCounciltothe
copyrightowner.
§5.4.4Terms
Therearenoguidelinesastotheconditionsunderwhichsuchacompulsory
licencewouldbegranted.However,referencetosection26shouldbemade
astosomeofthetermsandconditionsthattheGovernorinCouncil“may
thinkfit”,namely,anyroyaltiestobepaidtotheMinisterofConsumerand
CorporateAffairs;repaymentbytheMinistertothecopyrightowner;and
markingofthelicensedbook.
§5.4.5Acontract
Theorderedlicenceisdeemedtobeacontractbetweenthere-publisher
andthecopyrightowner:seesubsection25(1).Iftheconditionsofthelicence
arenotfulfilled,itwouldappearthatthecopyrightownerwillhavearightof

actionagainstthelicenseeforcopyrightinfringementand/orpaymentof
royalties,andbeentitledtoaskfortherevocationofthecompulsorylicence:
seesubsection25(3).
Intheeventofinfringementofthecopyrightbyathirdparty,thelicensee
maytakelegalproceedingsinthesamemannerasthecopyrightowner:see
subsection25(2).
Sincetheparticularsofacancellationofacompulsorylicencemaybe
enteredontheRegisterofCopyrights(seesubsection25(4)),itwouldfollow
thatacompulsorylicencecanalsobeenteredonthesaidRegister.[Note
section25wasrepealedon1997-08-31.
§5.5Appeal
Thereisnoprovisionastoanappealfromorarevisionofadecisionmadeby
theGovernorinCouncilpursuanttosection15oftheCopyrightAct.Theonly
recourseopenagainstadecisionoromissionoftheGovernorinCouncilliesin
theextraordinaryremediesprovidedforbysection18oftheFederalCourt
Act(R.S.C.1985,c.F-7;asamendedbyS.C.1990,c.8,s.4)forthegeneral
review,bytheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourt,oftheactionsof“federal
boards”:seeThorne’sHardwareLimitedv.R.,[1983]1S.C.R.106.
Undersubsection2(8)oftheFederalCourtAct,
“federalboard,commissionorothertribunal”meansanybodyorany
personorpersonshaving,exercisingorpurportingtoexercisejurisdictionor
powersconferredbyorunderanActofParliamentorbyorunderanorder
madepursuanttoaprerogativeoftheCrown,otherthananysuchbody
constitutedorestablishedbyorunderalawofaprovinceoranysuch
personorpersonsappointedunderorinaccordancewithalawofa
provinceorundersection96oftheConstitutionAct,1867.
Totheextentthatthe“GovernorinCouncil”,whenactingpursuanttosection
15oftheCopyrightAct,makesanadministrativedecisionorexercisesa
discretionarypower,the“GovernorinCouncil”thenappearstofallwithinthis
definitionofa“federalboard”andwouldbesubjecttothegeneralreview
jurisdictionconferredbysection18oftheFederalCourtActtotheTrial
DivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada:seeSaskatchewanWheatPoolv.
Canada(AttorneyGeneral)(1994),107D.L.R.(4th)190(F.C.T.D.)andNational
Anti-PovertyOrganizationv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral)(1988),[1989]1F.C.
208(F.C.T.D.);rev’d[1989]3F.C.684(F.C.A.).

Inviewofsubsection28(6)oftheFederalCourtAct,thesupervisoryjurisdiction
oftheAppealDivisionoftheFederalCourtisexcludedinrespectofanorder
oradecisionoftheGovernorinCouncil.
§6.0CaseLaw
§6.1Canada

1.LeNordetInc.v.82558CanadaLtée,[1978]C.S.904,DugasJ.(Que.Sup.
Ct.).
Cetteprocédured’acquisitiondeslicencesmécaniquesopèreune
exceptionauprincipegénéraldelapropriétéintellectuelle.Ilfautdonc
exigerdeceluiquiveutfaireunesecondepublicationdel’œuvrequ’ilse
conformeauxexigencesdelaLoidesdroitsd’auteuretdesrèglements
d’application.[atp.906]

2.Roncarelliv.Duplessis,[1959]S.C.R.121,RandJ.(S.C.C.).
“Discretion”necessarilyimpliesgoodfaithindischargingpublicduty,there
isalwaysaperspectivewithinwhichastatuteisintendedtooperate;and
anycleardeparturefromitslinesorobjectsisjustasactionableasfraudor
corruption.[atp.140]

3.InuitTapirisatofCanadav.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),[1980]2S.C.R.
735,EsteyJ.(S.C.C.).
Letitbesaidattheoutsetthatthemerefactthatastatutorypoweris
vestedintheGovernorinCouncildoesnotmeanthatitisbeyondreview.If
thatbodyhasfailedtoobserveaconditionprecedenttotheexerciseof
thatpower,thecourtcandeclarethatsuchpurportedexerciseisanullity.
InWilsonv.EsquimaltandNanaimoRailwayCompany[[1922]1A.C.202],
forexample,thePrivyCouncilconsideredthepositionoftheLieutenant-
GovernorofBritishColumbiaundertheVancouverIslandSettlers’Rights
Act,1904,AmendmentAct,1917,S.B.C.1917,c.71.Theeffectivenessofa
CrownlandgrantissuedbyorderoftheLieutenant-GovernorinCouncil
wascontestedonthegroundsthattheLieutenant-GovernorinCouncilhad
no“reasonableproof”beforethemthatthegranteeshadimprovedthe
landsinquestionoroccupiedthemwithanintentiontoresidethereon.The
CourtofAppealfoundthattherewasnosuchevidenceandhence
declaredtheOrderinCounciltobevoid.ThePrivyCouncilproceededon
thebasisthatbeforetheLieutenant-GovernorinCouncilcouldmakethe
grantinquestion,itmustdeterminethatthestatutorilyprescribedconditions
hadbeenmetbytheapplicantforthegrant.Ashere,theallegationwas
madethattheownersdidnothave“anadequateopportunity”toshow
thattherewasnofactualfoundationforthegrantmadebytheLieutenant-
GovernorinCouncil.ThePrivyCouncilfoundagainstthissubmissionstating
atp.213throughDuffJ.,sittingasamemberoftheBoard:

T
herespondentsweregiventhefullestopportunitytopresentbefore
theLieutenant-GovernorinCouncileverythingtheymighttourge
againsttheviewthatthedepositionsproducedinthemselves
constituted“reasonableproof,”andtheyhadthefullestopportunity
alsoofsupportingtheircontentionthatthedepositionsalone,inthe
absenceofcross-examination,oughtnottobeconsideredsufficient,
andthatfurthertimeshouldbeallowedtoenablethemtoprepare
theircase.Theappointedauthorityfordealingwiththematter,itmust
beremembered,wastheExecutiveGovernmentoftheProvince
directlyanswerabletotheLegislature,andtheirLordshipsagree
withouthesitationwiththemajorityoftheCourtofAppealinholding
astheyexplicitlydecideduponthesamefactsinDunlop’scase,that
theLieutenant-GovernorinCouncilwasnotboundtogovernhimself
bytherulesofprocedureregulatingproceedingsinaCourtofjustice.
Itcannotbesuggestedthatheproceededwithoutanyregardtothe
rightsoftherespondentsandtheprocedurefollowedmustbe
presumed,intheabsenceofsomeconclusivereasontothecontrary,
tohavebeenadoptedinexerciseofhisdiscretionunderthestatute
asapropermodeofdischargingthedutyentrustedtohim.His
decisionstakenintheexerciseofthatdiscretionare,intheirLordships’
opinion,finalandnotreviewableinlegalproceedings.
ThePrivyCouncilalsodeterminedinthecasethatfactualissues,
includingthe“reasonableness”or“sufficiency”oftheevidence,were
exclusivelyfortheLieutenant-Governorwhosedecisionwouldnotbe
reviewablebyacourtiftherewas“someevidenceinsupportofthe
application”(perDuffJ.atp.213).[atpp.748-749]

4.ReWilliamsandAttorneyGeneralforCanada(1983),45O.R.(2d)291,
OslerJ.(Ont.H.C.J.—Div.Ct.).
Inourview,theGovernorinCouncilfallswithinthedefinitionof“federal
board”ins.2oftheFederalCourtAct,R.S.C.1970,c.10(2ndSupp.),butfor
thereasonsgiven,thejurisdictionoftheFederalCourttomakea
declarationrespectingtheCouncilisnotexclusive.[atp.294]

5.Thorne’sHardwareLimitedv.R.,[1983]1S.C.R.106,DicksonJ.(S.C.C.).
DecisionsmadebytheGovernorinCouncilinmattersofpublic
convenienceandgeneralpolicyarefinalandnotreviewableinlegal
proceedings.Although,asIhaveindicated,thepossibilityofstrikingdown
anorderincouncilonjurisdictionalorothercompellinggroundsremains
open,itwouldtakeanegregiouscasetowarrantsuchanaction.Thisisnot
suchacase.[atp.111.][Emphasisadded.]

6.NationalAnti-PovertyOrganizationv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral),[1989]
3F.C.684,StoneJ.(F.C.A.).

T
henatureofthedecisionandofthedecision-makerisnottobe
overlooked.Itiswelltoremindourselvesofthedistinctionthatisapparentin
InuitTapirisat[InuitTapirisatofCanadav.AttorneyGeneralofCanada,
[1980]2S.C.R.735(S.C.C.)]betweentheGovernorinCouncilactingwithin
thestatutorymandateconferredbyParliamentandthevariouspolicy
concernsthatmightleadhimtodoso.Thathemaytakeintoaccountof
suchconcernsismadeclearinthatcase.Theyarealsoidentified,andbear
repeating.Atpage753,EsteyJ.said:

Theexecutivebranchcannotbedeprivedoftherighttoresorttoits
staff,todepartmentalpersonnelconcernedwiththesubjectmatter,
andabovealltothecommentsandadviceofministerialmembersof
theCouncilwhoarebyvirtueoftheirofficeconcernedwithpolicy
issuesarisingbyreasonofthepetitionwhetherthosepoliciesbe
economic,political,commercialorofsomeothernature.

TheinternationalcompetitivepositionofBCI[BellCanadaInternationalInc.]
wasobviouslyapolicymatterwhichtheGovernorinCouncilcouldanddid
takeintoaccount.[atpp.706-707]
§6.2France
1.Gallimardv.Sipriot(1982),115R.I.D.A.164(T.G.I.Paris).

Attenduquelecontrôleaménagéparl’article20apourbutd’écarterles
déviationsquiauraientpoureffetdesubstitueràlavolontédudéfunt
concernantladivulgationpostmortemdesonœuvrelespréférencesde
sesayants-cause,lesquelsnedoiventêtrequelesagentsd’exécutionde
cettevolonté.

Attenduquecesdéviationsauxquelleslelégislateurentendmettre
obstacledoivents’apprécierparréférenceàunevolontéclairement
expriméeparl’auteurdes’opposeràunedivulgationpostmortem;que
c’estencesensquel’article20neretientquel’abus«notoire»,lanotoriété
s’entendantd’unfaitévident,dontlaréalitééchappeàtoutediscussion.

Qu’ils’ensuitquesilavolontédel’auteurn’estpasincontestablemaislaisse
placeaudoute,l’article20nepeutêtremisenœuvre.[atpp.168-169]

§7.0ListofCases
§7.1Canada
1.Roncarelliv.Duplessis,(1951),[1952]1D.L.R.680(Que.Sup.Ct.),[1956]
B.R.447(Que.C.A.);rev’d[1959]16D.L.R(2d)689(S.C.C.).

2.LeNordetInc.v.82558CanadaLtée,[1978]C.S.904(Que.Sup.Ct.—
Interlocutory);judgmentbyconsentonthemerit1979.10.25(Que.Sup.
Ct.).
3.InuitTapirisatofCanadav.Canada(AttorneyGeneral)(1978),[1979]1
F.C.213(subnom.InuitTapirisatv.Leger),87D.L.R.(3d)86(F.C.T.D.);
rev’d(1978),95D.L.R.(3d)665(F.C.A.);rev’d(1980),115D.L.R.(3d)1,33
N.R.304(S.C.C.).
4.Thorne’sHardwareLtd.v.R.(1980),109D.L.R.(3d)94(F.C.T.D.);rev’d
(1980),124D.L.R.(3d)622(F.C.A.);aff’d(1983),143D.L.R.(3d)577
(S.C.C.).
5.Landrevillev.R.(No.3)(1980),111D.L.R.(3d)36(F.C.T.D.)
6.OperationDismantleInc.v.R.(1983),39C.P.C.120(F.C.T.D.);rev’d
(1983),3D.L.R.(4th)193(F.C.A.);aff’d(1985),18D.L.R.(4th)
481(S.C.C.).
7.ReWilliams&AttorneyGeneralforCanada(1983),45O.R.(2d)291(Ont.
H.C.J.—Div.Ct.).
8.NationalAnti-PovertyOrganizationv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral)(1988),
21C.P.R.(3d)305(F.C.T.D.);rev’d(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)440(F.C.A.);
leavetoappealtoS.C.C.refused(1989),28C.P.R.(3d)vi(S.C.C.).
9.SaskatchewanWheatPoolv.Canada(AttorneyGeneral)(1994),107
D.L.R.(4th)190(F.C.T.D.).
§7.2France

1.Gallimardv.Sipriot(1982),115R.I.D.A.164,D.1983.I.R.95(T.G.I.Paris).
2.
Foujitav.ArtConceptionRéalisation(1986),131R.I.D.A.265(T.G.I.
Nanterre);(1987)D.1987,382(C.A.Versailles);(1989),145R.I.D.A.145
(Cass.Civ.);(1990),148R.I.D.A.168(C.A.Rennes).

3.Éditionsdelamanufacturev.VilledeNantes(1991),150R.I.D.A.154
(C.A.Paris).
4.deLeussev.Grosclaude(1966),53R.I.D.A.19(C.A.Paris—1
rechambre,
1966.04.25);(1969),61R.I.D.A.81,[1969]D.S.476(Cassation—1
re
chambre,1969.01.15).

5.Salzedov.Levy(1991),151R.I.D.A.340(T.G.I.Paris—1rechambre,
1991.11.20);(1992),155R.I.D.A.191(C.A.Paris—1
rechambre,
1922.11.24).
§8.0Authors
§8.1Canada
§8.1.1Copyrightissues
1.BONCOMPAIN(Jacques),Ledroitd’auteurauCanada:étudecritique
(Montréal,LeCercledulivredeFrance,1971),atpp.284-285.
2.CONSUMERANDCORPORATEAFFAIRSCANADA,FromGutenbergto
Telidon,AWhitePaperonCopyright(Ottawa,1984),atpp.34-35.
3.DAUB(SallyJ.),InfringementandExemptions,inCopyright:From
BeginningtoEnd(Toronto,CanadianInstitute,1991),atpp.23-25.
4.ÉtudesGénérales,Lanouvelleloicanadiennedu4juin1921surledroit
d’auteur(1921),34LeDroitd’Auteur73.
5.FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyright,1sted.(Toronto,
UniversityofTorontoPress,1944),atpp.304-305.
6.FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,2nded.(TorontoCarswell,1967),atp.305.
7.FRANÇON(André),Ledroitd’auteur—aspectsinternationauxet
comparatifs(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.217-218.
8.KEYES(AndrewA.)etal.,CopyrightinCanada—ProposalsforaRevision
oftheLaw(Ottawa,CCAC,1977),atpp.74-75.
9.LADAS(StephenP.),TheInternationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtistic
Property,2Vol.inHarvardStudiesinInternationalLawNo.3(NewYork,
Macmillan,1938),atpp.900-909.
10.McKEOWN(JohnS.)etal.,Copyright,inCanadianEncyclopaedic
Digest,3rdWesternEdition,(Toronto,Carswell,1991),ch.35,atno.103.
11.PICHETTE(Serge)etal.,Lerégimecanadiendelapropriétéintellectuelle
(Montréal,HEC,1979),atpp.251-254.

12.REPORTOFTHESUB-COMMITTEEONTHEREVISIONOFCOPYRIGHT:A
CharterofRightsforCreators(Ottawa,CCAC,1985),atpp.77-83.
13.SANDWELL(B.K.),TheCanadianCopyrightAct(1921-22),29Queen’s
Quarterly182.
14.VINEBERG(Phillip),TheLawofCopyrightinCanada(1944),4Revuedu
Barreau490,atp.501.
§8.1.2Administrativeissues
1.BEAUDOIN(Gérald-A.),LaconstitutionduCanada(Montréal,Wilson&
Lafleur,1990),atpp.55-63.
2.DUSSAULT(René)etal.,Traitédedroitadministratif,2nded.(Québec,
PUL,1989),Vol.1,atpp.61-69,143-151;Vol.3,pp.194,293,623.
3.GALE(Gordon),ParliamentaryDebatesandStatutoryInterpretation:
SwitchingtheLightorRummagingintheAshcansoftheLegislative
Process(1995),74CanadianBarReview1.
4.HUGHES(RogerT.),FederalCourtofCanadaService(Toronto,
Butterworths,1970),atpp.2329-2479.6.
5.KAUFMAN(DonnaSoble),HowExclusiveis“Exclusive”?AnExamination
ofSection18oftheFederalCourtAct,(1985),16RevuedeDroitde
l’UniversitédeSherbrooke435.
6.LORDON(Paul),CrownLaw(Toronto,Butterworths,1991),atpp.16-18,
34.
7.MACDONALD(R.A.),FederalJudicialReviewJurisdictionunderthe
FederalCourtAct:whenisa“federalboard,commissionorother
tribunal”nota“federalboard,commissionortribunal”?(1981),6
DalhousieLawJournal449.
8.SGAYIAS(David)etal.,FederalCourtPractice1995(Toronto,Carswell,
1994),under§18and§28.
§8.2UnitedKingdom

1.COPINGER(WalterArthur),TheLawofCopyrightinWorksofLiterature
andArt,2nded.(London,StevensandHaynes,1881),atpp.108-111.
2.GREGORY(H.S.)etal.,ReportoftheCopyrightCommittee,(London,
Queen’sPrinter,1952),atpp.6-9,129.
3.HALSBURY(Earlof),TheLawsofEngland(London,Butterworths,1909),at
p.161.
4.MACGILLIVRAY(E.J.),ATreatiseupontheLawofCopyright(London,
Murray,1902),atp.119.
5.ROBERTSON(GeorgeStuart),TheLawofCopyright(Oxford,Clarendon
Press,1912),atpp.49-50.
6.SCRUTTON(ThomasEdward),TheLawofCopyright,4thed.(London,
Clowes,1903),atpp.130-133.
7.SHORTT(John),TheLawrelatingtoWorksofLiteratureandArt:
EmbracingtheLawofCopyright,theLawrelatingtoNewspapers,the
LawrelatingtoContractsbetweenAuthors,Publishers,Printers,andthe
LawofLibel,2nded.(London,Reeves&Turner,1884),atp.99.
8.SKONEJAMES(F.E.)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJamesontheLawof
Copyright,8thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1948),atpp.86-87.
9.SKONEJAMES(F.E.)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJamesontheLawof
Copyright,9thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1958),atpp.102-103.
10.SKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJameson
Copyright,12thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1980),atno.295.

§8.3France
1.COLOMBET(Claude),Propriétélittéraireetartistiqueetdroitsvoisins,4th
ed.(Paris,Dalloz,1988),atnos.259-260.
2.DESBOIS(Henri),Étudesgénérales:Laloifrançaisedu11mars1957
(deuxièmepartie)(1957),70LeDroitd’Auteur213.
3.DESBOIS(Henri),Ledroitd’auteurenFrance,2nded.(Paris,Dalloz,1966),
nos.487-489;Supplement1973,atno.467.

4.DESBOIS(Henri),Propriétélittéraireetartistique(1957),RecueilDalloz360-
361.
5.GAUTIER(Pierre-Yves),Gallimardv.Sipriot:Note(1983),115Revue
internationaledudroitd’auteur171-178.
6.HAYERT(Roger),Contrôleetlimitesdudroitmoraldel’artiste/Controland
limitsofthemoralrightoftheartist(1959),23Revueinternationaledu
droitd’auteur51.
7.JOUBERT(Claude),Laduréedudroitexclusifd’exploitationdesœuvres
posthumesetlesconflitsentrelaloiancienneetlanouvelle/Theduration
ofthesolerightsofexploitationofposthumousworksandtheconflicts
betweentheoldlawandthenewlaw(1964),43Revueinternationaledu
droitd’auteur110.
8.JOUBERT(Claude),Lesconditionsd’applicationdustatutdesœuvres
posthumes/Theconditionsofapplicationofthestatusofposthumous
works(1963),39Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur26.
9.KEREVER(André),Abusdenonusagedudroitd’exploitation(1991),148
Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur107-108.
10.PLAISANT(Robert),Exercicedesdroitsdesauteurs—Droitmoral,in
Propriétélittéraireetartistique—Juris-Classeurs(Paris,Éditions
Techniques,1990),fasc.310,atno.78.
11.RICHARD(Alain),Rapportsurleprojetdeloino2169(1986),127Revue
internationaledudroitd’auteur176,atp.180.
§8.4Australia
1.RICKETSON(Staniforth),TheLawofIntellectualProperty(Melbourne,Law
Book,1984),atnos.8.5-8.8.
2.RICKETSON(Sam),TheCopyrightTerm(1992),23InternationalReviewof
IndustrialPropertyandCopyrightLaw753,atpp.767-768.
§8.5Varia

1.BALAKRISHNAN(S.),ModificationsapportéesàlaLoiindiennesurledroit
d’auteur(1984),97LeDroitd’Auteur114.

2.PONNUSWAMI(Krishnaswami),India,inSTEWART(StephenM.)etal.,
InternationalCopyrightandNeighbouringRights,2nded.(London,
Butterworths,1989),Ch.23India,atno.23.19.
3.RAMAIAH(S.),Lettresdel’Inde(1988),101LeDroitd’Auteur264.
§9.0ComparativeLegislation
§9.1ComparativeLegislation-UnitedKingdom
§9.1.1LiteraryCopyrightAct,1842,section5:
JUDICIALCOMMITTEEOFTHEPRIVYCOUNCILMAYLICENSETHE
REPUBLICATIONOFBOOKSWHICHTHEPROPRIETORREFUSESTOREPUBLISH
AFTERDEATHOFTHEAUTHOr
V.AndwhereasitisexpedienttoprovideagainsttheSuppressionofBooks
ofImportancetothePublic:beitenacted,Thatitshallbelawfulforthe
judicailCommitteeofHerMajestysPrivyCouncil,onCompalintmadeto
themthattheProprietoroftheCopyrightinanyBookafterthedeathofthe
AuthorhasrefusedtorepublishortoallowtheRepublicationofthesame,
andthatbyreasonofsuchrefusalsuchbookmaybewitheldfromthe
Public,tograntaLicencetosuchComplainanttopublishsuchBook,in
suchmannerandsubjecttosuchconditionsastheymaythinkfit,andit
shallbelawfulforsuchComplainanttopublishsuchBookaccordingto
suchLicence.

§9.1.2CopyrightAct,1911,section4:
COMPULSORYLICENCES

4.Ifatanytimeafterthedeathoftheauthorofaliterary,dramaticor
musicalworkwhichhasbeenpublishedorperformedinpublic,acomplaint
ismadetotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilthattheownerof
thecopyrightintheworkhasrefusedtorepublishortoallowthe
republicationoftheworkorhasrefusedtoallowtheperformanceinpublic
ofthework,andthatbyreasonofsuchrefusaltheworkiswithheldfromthe
public,theownerofthecopyrightmaybeorderedtograntalicenceto
reproducetheworkortoperformtheworkinpublic,asthecasemaybe,
onsuchtermsandsubjecttosuchconditionsastheJudicialCommittee
maythinkfit.
§9.2ComparativeLegislation-France
§9.2.1CopyrightAct,1957,section20:

2
0.Encasdabusnotoiredanslusageoulenon-usagedudroitde
divulgationoudesdroitsdexploitationdelapartdesreprésentantsde
lauteurdécédévisésàlarticleprécédent,letribunalcivilpeutordonner
toutemesureappropriée.(…)

§9.2.2Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle,1992,section,L.121-3:
Encasdabusnotoiredanslusageoulenon-usagedudroitdedivulgation
oudesdroitsdexploitationdelapartdesreprésentantsdelauteurdécédé
visésàlarticleL.121-2,letribunaldegrandeinstancepeutordonnertoute
mesureappropriée.(…)

§9.3ComparativeLegislation-India
§9.3.1CopyrightAct,1957,section31
31.Compulsorylicenceinworkswitheldfrompublic.
(1)IfatanytimeduringthetermofcopyrightinanyIndianworkwhichhas
beenpublishedorperformedinpublic,acomplaintismadetothe
CopyrightBoardthattheownerofthecopyrightinthework–
(a)hasrefusedtorepublishorallowtherepublicationoftheworkorhas
refusedtheperformanceinpublicofthework,andbyreasonofsuch
refusaltheworkiswitheldfromthepublic;or
(b)hasrefusedtoallowcommunicationtothepublicbyradio-diffusion
ofsuchwork,orinthecaseofarecordtheworkrecordedinsuchrecord,
ontermswhichthecomplainantconsidersreasonable;
theCopyrightBoard,aftergivingtotheownerofthecopyrightinthework
areasonableopportunityofbeingheardandafterholdingsuchinquiryasit
maydeemnecessary,may,ifitissatisfiedthatthegroundsforsuchrefusal
arenotreasonable,directtheRegistrarofCopyrightstogranttothe
complainantalicencetorepublishthework,toperformtheworkinpublic
orcommunicatetheworktothepublicbyradio-diffusion,asthecasemay
be,subjecttopaymenttotheownerofcopyrightofsuchcompensation
andsubjecttosuchothertermsastheCopyrightBoardmaydetermine;
thereupon,theRegistrarofCopyrightsshallgrantthelicencetothe
complainantinaccordancewiththedirectionsoftheCopyrightBoard,on
paymentofsuchfeeasmaybeprescribed.
Explanation.-Inthissub-section,theexpression”Indianwork”,includes–
(i)anartisticwork,theauthorofwhichisacitizenofIndia;and
(ii)acinematographfilmorarecordmadeormanufacturedinIndia.
(2)Wheretwoormorepersonshavemadeacomplaintundersub-section
(1),thelicenceshallbegrantedtothecomplainantwhointheopinionof
theCopyrightBoardwouldbestservetheinterestsofthegeneralpublic.

§10.0Varia

§10.1HousesofCommonsDebates—UnitedKingdom(1910.07.26)Sydney
BuxtonM.P.(PresidentoftheBoardofTrade),atp.1949:

Butinorderthatthepublicmaybeprotectedfromanypossibleabuse,the
Billwillprovidethatafterthedeathoftheauthor,iftheworkiswithheldfrom
thepublic,ortoohighapriceischargedforcopiesorfortherightto
perform,sothatthereasonablerequirementsofthepublicarenotsatisfied,
alicencemaybegrantedtopublishorperformthework.
§10.2M.P.(PresidentoftheBoardofTrade)atpp.2602-2603:

Thereisonepointtowhichpublicattentionhasbeendrawnbya
distinguishedpublisherandauthor,andthatisanewClausewhichwas
insertedwiththeviewthatifthelengthenedperiodofcopyrightwaslikely
toleadtoabusethereoughttobesomemethod,withpropersafeguards,
bywhichpublicrightsoughttobepreservedifabookwereundulywithheld
fromthepublic.ThatistheClausetowhichreferencehasbeenmade
outside.UnderthatproposaltheComptroller-GeneralofPatentsand
Designscanbemovedtoconsiderthematter,andifheissatisfiedunder
strictconditionsthatthebookisbeingwithheldfromthepublicthenhe
wouldhavethepowertoissuealicenceonrepresentationsmadetohim;
butnotunlesstwenty-fiveyearshadelapsedfromthedateofpublication
afterdeath.(…)

Atallevents,inmyopinion,aclauseofthiskindoughttobeinsertedinthe
Bill,sothatifaworkisundulyandunjustlywithheldfromthepublic,there
shouldbeanopportunitytoissuealicenceforitspublication.

§10.3HousesofCommonsDebates—UnitedKingdom(1911.04.07)
AugustineBirrellM.P.,atpp.2648-2649:

ThenextpointisaboutClause4.Ithasbeensubjectedtoagooddealof
criticismasregardsthecompulsorylicence.Iwasgladthehon.Member,
whohasjustsatdown,referred—becauseIwasgoingtodosoifhehad
not—totheprovisionsoftheActof5thand6thVictoria,whichsays:
“Whereasitisexpedienttoprovideagainstthesuppressionofbooksof
importancetothepublic,beitenacted,thatitshallbelawfulforthe
JudicialCommitteeofHerMajesty’sPrivyCouncil,oncomplaintmadeto
themthattheproprietorofthecopyrightinanybookafterthedeathofits
authorhasrefusedtorepublishorallowtherepublicationofthesame,and
thatbyreasonofsuchrefusalsuchbookmaybewithheldfromthepublic,
tograntalicencetosuchcomplainanttopublishsuchbook”,andsoon.
Thatwasonlyfollowingonearlierprovisions.Therewasanopportunitytothe
publictoappealtotheArchbishopofCanterburyandtothelearnedmen
ofUniversitiesofOxfordandCambridge,whoarealwaysmenofgreat
literaryknowledge,andthatallowedtothemthepowertodeterminewhat
wasthepriceofthebook.Ispeakmyselfinthismatterwithoutgreat

c
onsideration,butIdoaskwhetherthereisreallyanysuchgreatneedfora
Clauseofthiskind,ashasbeensupposed.Atthesametimethereare
people,ofwhomIhavelatelymadetheacquaintance,whoattachgreat
importancetoit,anditiscertainlyasubjectwhichmightreceivefull
considerationaftertheevidencebeforetheCommitteeupstairs,oneway
ortheother.Theremaybemoreinitthanappearstobeatthismoment.I
confessIthinkthereisalotofstufftalkedaboutprice;Idonotthinkthereis
anythinginit,IbelievethewholethingsofarasthatActof1842is
concernedisbaseduponLordMacaulay’smotion,orrathertheexample
hegivesaboutBoswell’slifeofDr.Johnson.Hementionedthecaseof
Alexander,whowasBoswell’ssonandwhohatedandabhorredthe
memoryofJohnson.Hethoughtithasplayedtoogreatapartinthelifeof
thelairdofAuchinleck,andsogreatwasthathatredthatLordMacaulay
believedthatifhehadhadthechancehewouldhavesuppressed
absolutelythat,“LifeofDr.Johnson,”or,beingabibliophile,hemighthave
putituptoapriceoftenguineas,andsosuppresseditforthemassofthe
people,suchahighpricethatpeoplewouldnotbepreparedtogiveitfor
abook,althoughtheyarepreparedtogivethatmuchforamotorcaror
anythingofthatkind.Thatwasthenotionanyhow,suchapriceastheprice
ofamotorcar,ortenguineasforabook.
Itisjustpossibletheremaybeariskofthesuppressionofabook.Idonot
knowwhethertheHousewouldcaretogointosuchniceconsiderationsas
mightoccurwithregardtothatpoint.Icanimagineacaseinwhichabook
ofgreatmeritwouldbesuppressedowingtothefeelingsoftheheir-at-law
orwidowofthemanwhowrotethebook,whichmightbeofareligious
characteroranirreligiouscharacterintheestimationofthewidow,orit
mightbehereticalastoFreeTradeorTariffReforminsuchamannerasto
shockthesusceptibilitiesofthefamilyorthetimeinwhichitwasproduced.
Itisquitewithintheboundsofpossibilitythatitmightbenecessarytoretain
suchaClausesoastosecurethatthepublicshouldnotbedeprivedofthe
benefitofabookbyreasonofitssuppressioninsuchcircumstances.

§10.4HousesofCommonsDebates—UnitedKingdom(1911.04.07)ArthurJ.
BalfourM.P.,atpp.2653-55:

Clause4,ifabused,mightevidentlybeasourceofinfiniteinjustice.Iquite
hopethatitwillneverbeabused,butIdonotmuchlikethisgrowing
practice,Iwasgoingtosay,ofthisGovernment,thegrowingpracticeof
thisHouse,ofhandlingovertoaGovernmentofficialuncheckedand
withoutappealtoanycourtthefortunesandinterestsofanyclassofHis
Majesty’ssubjects.Itiscontrarytoallouroldestandbesttraditions.Iamsure
itisfullofdanger.IbegtheGovernmenttopausebeforetheytakeany
othersteponthisratherdangerouspath.Andforwhatendsarewerunning
theserisks?Forwhatobjectareyoureallydiminishingthesecuritywhich
everygreatmandesirestoexperience,thatsomeofthosewhocomeafter
himwillenjoysomeofthefruitsofhislaboursandhisfame?Youaredoingit
apparentlybecauseitoccurredtoLordMacaulaythatsomeone
sometimeshereandtheremayfindthatabookhasbeenwrittenbya
memberofafamilysorichthattheyarequiteindifferentorrelatively
indifferentatallevents,totheprofitsofthework,andsoindignantatthe

c
haracterofthework,asreflectingupontheirownfamilyfame,thatthey
arepreparedtoforegotheprofitsofthatworkratherthanthatthepublic
shouldenjoyit.Howmanyofsuchbooksarethere?Ithasneverhappened.
SirAlexanderBoswellwasprematurelykilledinaduel,andLordMacaulay
thoughtitmighthavehappenedifhehadlived.Itneverhashappened.
Whyshouldweanticipateacasesoveryrare?Butwhatstrange
coincidencesandunexpectedcombinationsofcircumstanceswouldbe
necessary,forthePrivyCouncilundertheexistinglaw,ortheBoardofTrade
underthelawthatisproposed,tointerveneandsaythatthepublicshall
enjoyabookwhichitisdecidedtosuppress.
However,ifyouleaveitmerelytodealwithsuppression,Ipersonallysofar
asIhaveconsideredthemattershallhavenoobjection.Idonotsayit
wouldbebetter,butIhavenoobjection.Ihaveneverheardofabook
beingsuppressedthatoughttobepublished,thoughIhaveheardofsome
booksbeingpublishedthatoughttobesuppressed,andinanycaseIthink
theactualstoppageofpublicationofabookforwhichthereisby
hypothesisagreatdemand,issoarbitraryanactiononthepartoftheheirs
ofamanoflettersthatIconfessIshouldregard,withoutanyverygreat
alarm,thepowerevenofaGovernmentDepartment,andcertainlyofa
courtoflaworabodylikethePrivyCouncil,tosaythatthisembargoshall
bewithdrawn,andthatthisbookshallbepublished,andthatpeopleshall
notbedeprivedoftheadvantagesofreadingit.Butwhenyougofurther,
whenyoutakethewholeprovisions,whenyousaythatanofficialina
publicDepartmentisnotmerelytosaythatabookshallbedonebythis
manandatthisprice,thenImustsaythatallreasonableprecedentsare
violated,anditseemstomeyougiveapowerofanunheard-ofdescription
toaGovernmentDepartment.Youthrowanairofinsecurityoverakindof
propertywhichweall,withinreasonablelimitsdesiretosecure;and
thereforeImostearnestlytrustthatwhenthisBillcomestobediscussedin
GrandCommitteetheGovernmentofthedaywillseetoitthatClause4,if
itremainsintheBill,doessoinaverymuchsaferandsimplerformthanthat
inwhichitisatpresent.

R
OBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince
1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionand
anti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distribution
andbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD



LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE