Once Upon a Time, There was a Manuscript…



ONCEUPONATIME,THEREWASAMANUSCRIPT…

By
AlexandraSteele*
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

INTRODUCTION
Whenonebeginstoreadabook,thefirstpagesregardingpublicationare,
moreoftenthannot,completelyoverlookedbythereader.Rarelydowe
thinkaboutwhattheauthormusthavedonetohavethebookpublished,or
whatrightsheorshemayhaveoverthemanuscriptinthefuture.Copyright
ownershipcanbetheobjectofmuchdebateanddiscussion,especiallyin
viewoftheoftenunclearboundariessetoutintheCanadianCopyrightAct
1
orincontractbetweenpartiesconcerningsuchright.
InTurgeonv.Michaud
2,theQuebecCourtofAppealrecentlyruledonan
appealfromajudgementoftheSuperiorCourtofQuebecconcerningthe
transmissionofcopyrightfurthertocontractualagreementsbetweentheheirs
ofawell-knowbusinessman,anauthorwhowascommissionedtowritethe
deceased’sbiographyandthepublishersofthemanuscript.
THEFACTS
PierreMichaud(hereinafter“Michaud”)wasoneoftheheirsofhisgreat-
uncle,Paul-HervéDesrosiers,(hereinafter“Desrosiers”).Desrosiershad
foundedahomerenovationbusinesswhichisknowntodayunderthetrade-
markandtrade-nameRéno-Dépôt.In1993,Michaudmandateda
communicationsfirm,LefebvreDemosthèneetalsInc.(hereinafter
“Lefebvre”),tofindapersontowriteDesrosier’sbiography.Lefebvre
commissionedPierreTurgeon,(hereinafter“Turgeon”),awellreputedwriter
andhistorian,towritethebiographyofDesrosiers.Theobjectofthe
biographywastopromotethebusinessbyenablingpeopletoknowmore
aboutitsfounderandhowhebuiltsuchacommerciallysuccessfulenterprise.



















































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003*Lawyer,AlexandraSteeleisamemberofthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andof
thepatentandagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication173.14E.
1R.S.C.1985,c.C-42(hereinafterthe“CopyrightAct”).2PublishedinFrenchonlyatJ.E.2003-1299(Q.A.C.#500-09-006404-982,May15,2003,
Dussault,Morrissette,LetarteJJ.A.).Alsoavailableatwww.jugements.qc.ca.



TurgeonandLefebvre,onbehalfofMichaudandRéno-Dépôt,negotiateda
writtenagreementwhichforesaw,amongstothers,atimelineforcompleting
themanuscriptandthefinancialcompensationforTurgeon,including
advancesonfutureroyaltiesforthesaleofthebook.Itwasalsoagreedinthe
contractthatMichaudandReno-Dépôtreservedtherightnottopublishthe
manuscript.Althoughtherewasnospecificclauseconcerningtheownership
ofcopyrightinthemanuscript,therewasnonethelessaparagraphinthe
agreementthatconfirmedTurgeonastheownerofallderivativerights,such
astherighttoadapttheworkforcinematicortheatricalpurposes,etc.
TurgeonwasalsogivenaccesstoDesrosiers’personalfiles,astherewasvery
littlepublicinformationconcerningthebusinessman.ThroughMichaud,
TurgeonwasalsoputincontactwithvariouspersonswhoknewDesrosiers
andwhocouldthereforeprovideinformationonhislifeandwork.
Thetimelinesetoutintheinitialagreementbetweenthepartieswasnot
respected.Turgeon,whohadalreadybeenpaidinaccordancewiththe
provisionsoftheinitialcontract,agreedtocontinuehisworkforanadditional
amountofmoneyandanewtimeline.Turgeonfinallyremittedacompleted
versionofthemanuscriptinSeptember1995.Atthistime,Turgeonand
Lefebvre,againonbehalfofMichaudandRéno-Dépôt,alsoenteredintoa
publishingcontractwithSogidesLtée(hereinafter“Sogides”).Aclauseinthe
contractprovidedthatTurgeonassignedhiscopyrightsandhisderivative
rightsinandforthemanuscripttothepublisherSogides.Sogideswasbound
topublishthemanuscriptwithina“reasonabledelay”afteritscompletion.
InOctober1995,LefebvreandSogidesinformedTurgeonthathismanuscript
wasunacceptableandTurgeonagreedtore-workthedocument.Arevised
versionofthemanuscriptwaseventuallyprovidedbyTurgeoninFebruary
1996.InJune1996,despitethefactthatthemanuscriptwasnowacceptable
toSogides,LefebvreadvisedTurgeonthatthebookwouldnotbepublished.
InJuly1996,TurgeonenteredintoapublishingagreementwithLanctôt
ÉditeurInc.,(hereinafter“Lanctôt”),anotherpublishinghouse.InSeptember
1996,MichaudandRéno-Dépôtsoughtandobtainedaninjunction,onboth
aprovisionalandinterlocutorybasis,topreventthebookfrombeing
published.InMarch1998,theQuebecSuperiorCourtissuedapermanent
injunctionagainstTurgeonandLanctôt.
THESUPERIORCOURTJUDGEMENT
Inissuingthepermanentinjunctionin1998,theTrialJudgeheldthatMichaud
andRéno-Dépôtwereentirelyintheirrighttorefusetopublishthemanuscript.
InthelearnedJudge’sview,theinitialagreementbetweenthepartieswasa



contractforservices,wherebyTurgeonwasmandatedtowriteabookforthe
solebenefitoftheheirstotheDesrosierssuccession
3andRéno-Dépôt.
TheTrialJudgealsoconcludedthatTurgeonhadassignedhisrightsforthefirst
publicationofthemanuscript.AccordingtotheJudge,thereisno
requirementthatsuchanassignmentbeexplicitintheagreement,butthatit
couldreasonablybeinferredfromthedocumentsignedbytheauthorthat
suchrightwasassigned.Hefurtherconcludedthatthecontractbetween
Turgeon,LefebvreandSogidesdidnotterminatethefirstagreement,but
ratherthatitwasanaddendatotheinitialcontractforservices.
Consequently,theTrialJudgeruledthatSogidescouldnotproceedtopublish
themanuscriptuntilsuchtimeasithadreceivedauthorisationfromMichaud
andRéno-Dépôt,throughtheiragentLefebvre.
TheJudgealsoruledthatTurgeoncouldnotpublishthemanuscriptwithout
theexpressconsentofMichaudandRéno-Dépôt,sincehehadcollected
confidentialinformationconcerningDesrosierspriortowritingthemanuscript,
andthatwasincludedinthebiography.RelyingtheprinciplesofLindseyv.
LeSueur
4andtherelevantprovisionsoftheCivilCodeofQuebec5,theTrial
JudgeruledthatTurgeonhadanobligationofconfidentialityandthe
informationhehadgatheredconcerningDesrosiersandRéno-Dépôtcould
notbeusedforanypurposeotherthanthemanuscripthewascommissioned
towrite.TheJudgenonethelesslimitedTurgeon’simpliedconfidentiality
obligationtotheinformationhehadobtainedfromtheheirstotheDesrosiers
successionorpersonsdesignatedbythem.
TurgeonandLanctôtappealedtheTrialJudge’sjudgement.
THECOURTOFAPPEALJUDGEMENT
OnappealfromtheSuperiorCourtdecision,TurgeonfirstarguedthattheTrial
JudgehaderredinconcludingthatMichaudandRéno-Dépôthadthe
exclusiverighttoauthorisepublicationofthemanuscript:attheverymost,
theyhadarightoffirstrefusaltoproceedtopublishtheDesrosiersbiography.
TheCourtrejectedTurgeon’sargument,rulingthattheinitialcontract
providedforanassignmentofTurgeon’srighttopublishthemanuscript.In
accordancewiths.13(1)CopyrightAct,theauthorofaworkisthefirstowner



















































3TheTrialJudgeruledthattheprinciplessetoutintheSupremeCourtdecisionMorangv.
LeSueur,[1911]S.C.R.95(S.C.C.),didnotapplytothiscase.InMorangv.LeSueur,the
SupremeCourthadruledthattherewasanimplicitobligationforaneditor,whohas
acceptedtopublishawork,todosowithinareasonabledelay.TheTrialJudgedistinguished
thefactsinbothcases,rulingthattheagreementbetweenTurgeonandLefebvre,clearly
providedthattherewasnoobligationtopublishtheliterarywork.
4(1913)29O.L.R.648(O.C.A.).5S.Q.,1991,c.64(hereinafterthe“CivilCode”),s.1434.



ofthecopyrightinandforsaidwork,saveforcertainspecificexceptions,
suchastheassignmentofwholeorpartofthecopyright.Byreadings.3(1)
and13(4)CopyrightAct,therightofpublicationofthemanuscriptofthe
Desrosiersbiographycouldthereforebeassignedaslongastherequirements
oftheActweremet:
Copyrightinworks
3(1)ForthepurposesofthisAct,”copyright”,inrelationtoawork,
meansthesolerighttoproduceorreproducetheworkorany
substantialpartthereofinanymaterialformwhatever,toperformthe
workoranysubstantialpartthereofinpublicor,iftheworkis
unpublished,topublishtheworkoranysubstantialpartthereof,[…]
Ownershipofcopyright
13(1)SubjecttothisAct,theauthorofaworkshallbethefirstowner
ofthecopyrighttherein.[…]
Assignmentsandlicences
13(4)Theownerofthecopyrightinanyworkmayassigntheright,
eitherwhollyorpartially,andeithergenerallyorsubjecttolimitations
relatingtoterritory,mediumorsectorofthemarketorotherlimitations
relatingtothescopeoftheassignment,andeitherforthewholeterm
ofthecopyrightorforanyotherpartthereof,andmaygrantany
interestintherightbylicence,butnoassignmentorgrantisvalid
unlessitisinwritingsignedbytheowneroftherightinrespectof
whichtheassignmentorgrantismade,orbytheownersduly
authorizedagent.[…]
(ourunderlines)
TheCourtinterpretedtheoriginalagreementbetweenTurgeonandLefebvre
asprovidingthatTurgeonremainedtheownerofallcopyrightsinthe
manuscript,includingallderivativerights,saveandexceptfortherightto
publishtheliteraryworkinsuit,i.e.makeitaccessibletothepublic.TheCourt
ofAppealruledthat,althoughitmaybepracticallyimpossibletoexploita
literaryworkwithouttherighttopublishsame,itdoesnotprecludeanauthor
fromassigningsuchrighttopublishthework.Infact,theassignmentofthe
righttopublishaworkconstitutesanassignmentoffuturerights,whichis
permittedbys.1374CivilCode.
Turgeonfurtherpleadedthatanyassignmentofwholeorpartofcopyright
mustbeexpresslymadeinwritingandthathehadthereforenotagreedto
anysuchassignment.TheCourtofAppealonceagainrejectedthis
argument,statingthats.13(4)CopyrightActdoesnotrequirethatthewritten
assignmentofcopyrightbeexplicitlyformulated.TheCourtreferstoseveral
authorswhohavewrittenonthesubjectofcopyrightassignment,andthe
consensusisthattheintentionofthepartiesisthekeytodeterminingthe
existenceandscopeoftheassignment.Thereisnoparticularformthatsuch
assignmentmusttakeinordertobeconsideredvalidandbinding;rather,the
Courtswilldeterminetheintentionofthepartieshavingregardtoallthe
surroundingcircumstanceofthecase.



TheCourtofAppealthereforeconcludedthattheclauseintheoriginal
agreementthatgaveLefebvre,(andthereforeMichaudandRéno-Dépôt),
theexclusiverighttonotpublishthemanuscriptwasinfacttheassignmentof
Turgeon’srighttopublishsaidmanuscript.Consequently,theassignmentof
rightsfromTurgeontoSogidesinthepublishingagreementwasnullandvoid
sincesaidrightshadalreadybeenassignedbyvirtueofthefirstagreement
betweenTurgeonandLefebvre.TheCourtruledthattheTrialJudgewasright
inorderingtheissuanceofapermanentinjunctionbasedonthetermsand
conditionsoftheoriginalagreementbetweentheparties.
Turgeon’ssecondargumentonappealrestedonhiscontentionthatthe
originalforservicesdidnotspecificallyprovidethattheinformationhewould
obtaintowritethebiographywasconfidential;thiswouldthereforeenable
himtohaveanothermanuscriptpublishedwithoutMichaudandRéno-
Dépôt’sconsent.
TheCourtdisagreedwithTurgeon’sposition,statingthattheTrialJudgehad
correctlyruledthatifTurgeoncouldnotpublishthemanuscripthehadwritten
forMichaudandRéno-Dépôt,hecouldnotpublishanyotherdocument
containingthesameinformation.Inotherwords,Turgeonwasalsoprecluded
fromdoingindirectlywhathecouldnotdodirectly.TheCourtofAppeal
concludedthattheoriginalagreementcontainedanimpliedconfidentiality
obligationforTurgeon.However,theCourtconfirmedthatthisobligationdid
notextendtoinformationaboutDesrosiersandRéno-Dépôtthatwasinthe
publicdomain,butonlytotheinformationthatTurgeonhadgatheredfrom
Michaudandothersourcesthathehadbeenpermittedtoaccessforthe
purposesofwritingthebiography.
TheCourtofAppealthereforedismissedTurgeonandLanctôt’sappeal,with
costsagainstTurgeon.
CONCLUSION
ThiscasetookapproximatelysevenyearstoreachtheQuebecCourtof
Appeal.Muchoftheparties’time,effortandfundscouldhavelikelybeen
savediftheoriginalagreementbeenmoreexplicitastothescopeofthe
assignmentoftheauthor’srights.Thesagaofthemanuscriptthereforeends
astheCopyrightActandthecaselawforeseesitshouldend.However,even
afterallthistime,thestoryofasuccessfulbusinessmanandhisbusinessstill
remainstobetold…
SUMMARY
COPYRIGHT–ASSIGNMENT-RIGHTTOPUBLISH



ONCEUPONATIMETHEREWASAMANUSCRIPT…
TheCanadianCopyrightActprovidesthatanyassignmentofwholeor
partofacopyrightmustbeinwriting.However,partialassignmentsof
rightsinwritingcanbetheobjectofmuchdebateandinterpretation.
AlexandraSteeleprovideacasesummaryofarecentQuebecCourtof
Appealdecisionregardingsuchadebateovertherighttopublishthe
manuscriptbetweentheauthorofamanuscript,andtheheirsofawell-
knownbusinessmanwhohadcommissionedthewritingofhisbiography.



ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,
marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;
poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanada
quailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrial
designsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;
copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;
tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;
prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughoutthe
world.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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD