“Innocent Publisher” Violated Copyright Law, Federal Court Finds

1992-01-01

COURTFINDSTHAT”INNOCENTPUBLISHER”VIOLATEDCOPYRIGHTLAW

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
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada
confirmedthestrictguidelinesinapplyingthedefenceaffordedtothe
“innocentinfringer”incopyrightmatters,undertheCopyrightAct,1985R.S.C.,
c.C-42,(9
1439CanadaLtéev.LesÉditionsJCLInc.andLouiseDenis-Labrie,
No.T-311-88,January24,1992).
THEFACTS.Plaintiff91432CanadaLtéeandDefendantLesÉditionsJCLInc.
(“JCL”),arebothpublishers.Theformersuedthelatteroverallegedviolations
ofcopyrightofwhichitwastheassignee.Co-defendantandauthorLouise
Denis-Labrie(“Denis-Labrie”)filedforbankcruptcybeforethetrial.
Plaintiffwasthecopyrightowneroftwoliteraryworksentitled”UNJOURLA
JUMENTVAPARLER…”(whichcouldbetranslatedas:”ONEDAYTHEMAREWILL
SPEAK…”)and”J’ESPÈREAUMOINSQU’YVAFAIREBEAU!”(“IHOPEATLEASTTHE
WEATHERWILLBENICE!”),firstpublishedinOctober1983andOctober1985
respectively.Theauthorofboththeseliteraryworks,MarcelyneClaudais
(“Claudais”),hadpreviouslyassignedhercopyrightstothePlaintiff,which
obtainedconfirmationofitstitleinbothworksbyregistrationwiththe
CopyrightOffice.
DefendantJCLwasthepublisheroftheliterarywork”ONM’AVOLÉMONFILS”
(“THEYSTOLEMYSON”)allegedlywrittenin1987byco-defendantDenis-Labrie.
Inthepublishingcontractbetweentheco-defendants,Denis-Labriestated
thatherworkwasoriginalanddidnotviolateanyexistingcopyright.
InNovember1987,afewmonthsafterthepublicationoftheQuebecbest
seller”ONM’AVOLÉMONFILS”,ajournalistcontactedJCL’spresident,Jean-
ClaudeLarouche,anddrewhisattentiononvarioussimilitudesexisting
between”ONM’AVOLÉMONFILS”ontheonesideand”UNJOURLAJUMENT
VAPARLER…”and”J’ESPÈREAUMOINSQU’YVAFAIREBEAU!”ontheother.
Aftercomparingtheworksinquestion,JCLacceptedvoluntarily,evenwithout
havingbeenrequestedtodoso,towithdraw”ONM’AVOLÉMONFILS”from
themarketplace.Thesuitwasinitiatedin1988.

THEPUBLISHER’SGOODFAITH.Inhisdecision,theCourtconcludedthat
DefendantDenis-Labriehadreproduced,withoutauthorization,substantial
partsoftheprotectedliteraryworksentitled”UNJOURLAJUMENTVA
PARLER…”and”J’ESPÈREAUMOINSQU’YVAFAIREBEAU!”.
WhilethepublisherhadpleadedthathecouldnothaveviolatedthePlaintiff’s
copyrightsbecausehewasnotawareofthenatureofDenis-Labrie’sactions,
theCourtconcludedthatbypermittingtheprintingandreproductionofthe
infringingwork”ONM’AVOLÉMONFILS”,thepublisherhadviolatedthe
Plaintiff’sexclusiverightstoreproduceitsprotectedworks.TheCourtfurther
addedthatthepublisher’sknowledge(orlackthereof)concerningthenature
ofDenis-Labrie’sactionswasirrelevant.However,thepublisher’sgoodfaith
wasconsideredimportantwithrespecttothesaleandofferingforsaleofthe
infringingcopiesunderSection27.(4)oftheCopyrightAct,forwhich
knowledgeisanelement.
TheCourt’sdecisionisinlinewiththewellestablishedprinciplethatinnoncent
intentionisnotadefenceincopyrightmattersandthatignoranceastothe
existenceofcopyrightisnotadefenceinaninfringementsuit.
InCanada,thedefenceofthe”innoncentinfringer”isoutlinedbystrict
guidelines,inSection39oftheCopyrightAct.Indeed,Section39providesfor
alimiteddefence,incaseswherenocopyrightregistrationexists,inthatan
injunctionistheonlyremedyavailabletoaPlaintiffwhentheDefendant
provesthat,atthedateoftheinfringement,hewasnotawarethatcopyright
subsistedintheinfringedwork.
TosuccessfullyavailhimselfofthedefenceaffordedbySection39,a
defendantmustprovethathewasnotawareoftheexistenceofthe
copyrightintheinfringedworkatthedateoftheinfringement.Theelement
ofawarenessmustconcernsolelytheissueofexistenceofcopyrightinthe
infringedworkandnoother,suchaswhetherornotthedefendantthoughthis
actionsconstitutedinfringementorwhetherornotthedefendantthoughthe
hadauthorizationtocopythework.Knowledgerelatingtotheidentityofthe
actualownerofthecopyrightisalsoirrelevant.
THERIGHTTOCONVERSIONOFTHEINFRINGINGWORKS.TheCourtjudgedthat
JCL’sgoodfaithdidnotexcludethegrantingofreliefrequestedbythe
Plaintiff.Thus,theCourtcondemnedDefendantJCLtopayPlaintiff,in
accordancewiththechoicemadebythelatterattrial,thevalueofthe
copiesoftheinfringingliterarywork”ONM’AVOLÉMONFILS”printedbutnot
sold.

UnderSection38oftheCopyrightAct,theownerofacopyrightisconsidered
theownerofallinfringingcopiesandallplatesusedintheproductionofthese
copies.Accordingly,proceedingsinrecoveryorconversionofthevalue
thereofareavailabletothecopyrightowner,athischoice.AsthePlaintiff
electedtoobtaindamagesforconversion,theCourtfollowedtheguidelines
ofMr.JusticeAndersoninTomHopkinsInternationalInc.v.WallandRedekop
RealtyLtd(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)475(B.C.C.A.)whostatedthat”theformal
mesureofdamagesforconversionistodeterminethevaluetotheownerby
ascertainingthemarketvalueofthegoodsconverted”andnotby
calculatingthecostsofproductionoftheconvertedgood.Inthisinstance,
theCourtgranted51,929.50$forconversiondamages(i.e.4010unsoldcopies
ataretailpriceof12.95$each)onaglobalcondemnationof52,202.90$.
TheCourtthusfollowedthereasoningoftenstatedbyCanadiancaselawthat
damagesforconversionawardedunderSection38oftheCopyrightAct
shouldnot”overlap”or”duplicate”damagesthatareawardedfor
infringement.
ThisdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaconfirms
presentlawconcerningthe”innoncentinfringer”.Inthiscase,apublisher’s
goodfaithinprintingandreproducinganinfringingworkwrittenbyalessthan
honestauthorwasdeemedirrelevantintheCourt’sfinaldecisionwithrespect
totheillegalreproductionofthework.
Publishedin(1992),6W.I.P.R.61-62underthetitle”InnocentPublisher”Violated
CopyrightLawfederalCourtFinds.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1992.

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