Employee Cannot Assign Copyright He Never Owned

1995-01-01

COURTHOLDSTHATEMPLOYEECAN’TASSIGNCOPYRIGHTHENEVEROWNED

by
BarryGamache
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

ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadahas
reviewedtheprovisionsofCanada’sCopyrightAct(R.S.C.,1985c.C-42)
relatingtoownershipofworksmadeinthecourseofemployment(Télé-Direct
PublicationsInc.v.SouthamInc.,no.T-1021-93,June28,1995).
PlaintiffTele-DirectPublicationsInc.(Tele-Direct)initiatedinfringement
proceedingsagainstSouthamInc.(Southam)onthebasisofcopyright
ownedinaworkcreatedbyDonaldLorneRichmond,oneofTele-Direct’s
employee.Beforetrial,SouthamsoughttoexamineMr.Richmondclaiming
that,asanemployee,hewasanassignorofthecopyrightworkinquestion
whichhadbeenregisteredinthenameoftheplaintiff.
Inaveryshortdecision,Mr.JusticePinardsetasideSoutham’sDirectionto
AttendanexaminationfordiscoverythathadbeenserveduponMr.
Richmond.Inthejudge’sword,theallegationinTele-Direct’sstatementof
claimthatMr.Richmond,theauthorofthecopyrightwork,”isandwasan
employeeoftheplaintiffatalltimesrelevantintheseproceedings”couldnot
justifySoutham’srequest.Mr.JusticePinarddidnotacceptthedefendant’s
submissionthattheCopyrightActdeemsthatanassignmenthastakenplace
fromanemployeetoanemployer,thusentitlingthedefendanttocross-
examineanallegedpredecessorintitleregardingthecopyright.Rather,the
Courtmadereferencetosubsection13(3)oftheCopyrightActwhich
providesthat,interalia,wheretheauthorofaworkwasintheemploymentof
someotherpersonunderacontractofserviceorapprenticeshipandthe
workwasmadeinthecourseofhisemploymentbythatperson,theperson
bywhomtheauthorwasemployedshall,intheabsenceofanyagreement
tothecontrary,bethefirstownerofcopyright;itthereforeheldthatTele-
DirectwouldthenbethefirstownerofcopyrightandMr.Richmondcouldnot
haveassignedtoTele-Directwhathecouldneverhaveownedinthefirst
place.

Section13oftheCopyrightActestablishesaframeworkfordeterminingwho,
amonganauthor,anauthor’semployerandothers,istheownerofthe
copyrightinanywork.Section13beginswiththegeneralrulethattheauthor
ofaworkistheownerofthecopyrighttherein.TheCopyrightActdoesnot
definewhatconstitutesauthorship.Itisgenerallyacceptedthattheperson
whocreatestheworki.e.,whoexpressesanideainatangibleformisthe
author.TheremainingprovisionsofSection13setoutvariousexceptionsto
thisbasicrule,includingtheonereferredtobyMr.JusticePinard,namely
whenworkismadeinthecourseofemployment.Section13therefore
underlinestheimportanceofdistinguishingbetweenauthorshipofawork
andownershipofcopyrighttherein.Itisnotalwaysthepersonwhoreduces
anideatoitsmaterialformwhomayclaimtocopyrightinit,althoughthatis
thegeneralrulesetoutatthebeginningofSection13.
Undersubsection13(3)oftheAct,apersonwhocreatesaworkinthecourse
ofhisemploymentisconsidered,absencestipulationtothecontrary,tohave
renouncedinfavorofhisemployertheownershipofthecopyrightinthe
work.Thisruleappliestoauthorsunderacontractofservice.Inthecaseof
anindependantcontractor-thatissomeonewhoisengagedbyacontract
for
servicesratherthanacontractofservice-copyrightisretainedbythe
author.
AsMr.JusticeDenningobservedinStevenson,Jordan&Harrison,Ltd.v.
MacDonald&Evans(1951),[1952]1T.L.R.101(C.A.),atp.111,therecanbe
nosingletestfordeterminingwhethertherelationshipbetweenanemployer
andanemployeeisgovernedbyacontractofserviceasopposedtoa
contractforservices.Onecouldlooktowhatdegreetheemployercontrols
theemployee’smannerofprovidingitsservices-thepropositionbeingthata
personwhoworksunderacontractforservicescanbetoldwhatto
accomplishbyhisprincipalbutnothowtoexecutewhatheistoaccomplish.
However,thistestisnotwellsuitedtocontemporaryindustrialrelationsin
whichaclassofso-calledprofessionalemployeeshasemerged.These
employeesmayenjoyagreatdealofautonomyinthewaytheyexecute
theirwork,yetstillbeboundbyacontractofservice.Towitithasbeenheld
thatthesignificanceofcontrolindeterminingwhetheranemployeeisunder
acontractofserviceisinverselyrelatedtotheskillrequiredtoperformthejob:
seeBeloffv.PressdramLtd.(1972),[1973]R.P.C.765,(Ch.D.)Ungoed-Thomas
J.,atp.772.
Althoughcontrolisstillafactorofvaryingrelevancetobeconsideredin
distinguishingbetweenacontractofserviceandacontractforservices,
anothercriteriontomakethisdistinctionwasidentifiedbyDenningJ.in
Stevenson,Jordan&Harrison,Ltd.v.MacDonald&Evans,referredtoabove,
whostated,atp.111,that:”Underacontractofservice,amanisemployed
aspartofthebusiness,andhisworkisdoneasanintegralpartofthebusiness;

whereas,underacontractforservices,hiswork,althoughdoneforthe
business,isnotintegratedintoitbutisonlyaccessorytoit.”
Evenwhenitisdemonstratedthattheauthorofaworkwasunderacontract
ofserviceatthetimetheworkwascreated,theauthorremainsfirstownerof
copyrightthereinunlessitisalsoshownthattheworkwasmadeinthecourse
oftheauthor’semployment.Inprinciple,anemployeeboundbyacontract
ofservicemaycreateaworkoutsidethecourseofhisemploymenteven
thoughtheworkisintrinsicallyrelatedtotheservicesheperformsforhis
employer.
Inthecaseatissue,thesedistinctionswerenotreviewedbytheCourtasit
wasclearlyunderstoodthatMr.Richmond,anemployee,hadcreatedthe
workinthecourseofhisemployment.Mr.JusticePinard’sdecisionishowever
atimelyreminderthatsubsection13(3)doesnotcreateapresumptionof
assignmentfromemployeetoemployerbutrathersimplystateswhoisthefirst
ownerofcopyrightinemploymentsituations.
Publishedat(1995),9W.I.P.R.223-225underthetitleEmployeeCannotAssign
CopyrighttheNeverOwned.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1995.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD