Party faces copyright infringement charges after handing photographs of an illicit nature to the authorities

2009-01-01

P
ARTYFACESCOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENTCHARGESAFTERHANDING
PHOTOGRAPHSOFANILLICITNATURETOTHEAUTHORITIES

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDJASONMOSCOVICI*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
PRECIS:TheOntarioSuperiorCourtofJusticedismissedamotionforleavetoappeal
concerningtwoordersmadeagainstplaintiffstoproducephotographsinsupportof
theirclaimofcopyrightinfringement.
InthematterofWojtanowskav.Mustard[

brought
forwardbytheOntarioSuperiorCourtofJustice,plaintiffssoughtdamagesfor
copyrightinfringementwithregardstophotographsthatweregiventodefendanttobe
developedandwhichweresubsequentlyhandedtothepoliceauthoritiesduetothe
illicitnatureofthesubjectmatterdepictedinthepictures.
Thefactsareasfollows:plaintiffsdeliveredphotographstodefendant,BlackPhoto
Corporation,tobedeveloped.Thephotographsshowedmarijuanaplantsgrowingin
plaintiffs’residenceamongstothersubjectmatterofasensitive,intimatenature.The
defendanthandedthephotographstothePeelcountypoliceandasearchwarrant
wasobtainedandexecutedthesamedayonJune14,2001.Theexecutionofthe
searchwarrantresultedinthediscoveryandtheseizureofthemarijuanaplants;
plaintiffsweresubsequentlychargedandarrested.Thechargesagainstplaintiffswere
droppedafteritwasdeterminedthatthephotoswereseizedunderconditionsviolating
theirconstitutionalrightsandthereforetheonlyevidencesupportingthechargeswas
deemedinadmissible.Theseizedmaterials(thephotographs)wereorderedtobe
returnedtoplaintiffs.
Plaintiffsissuedastatementofclaimnamingdefendantforallegedcopyright
infringementforatotalof$1,375,000indamagesand$85,694inspecialdamages.
Theyclaimedthatdefendantbreachedtheircopyrightinthephotographsbyusing
themandbyhandingthemtothepolice.Anexaminationfordiscoverywasheldon
March27and28,2006andplaintiffsundertooktoprovidethephotographsforwhich
theywereclaimingcopyrightandforwhichtheyhadsolepossessionof;however,due

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.KarineJarryisanarticling
studentwiththefirm.Publishedat[2009-03-19]WorldMediaLawReport.Publication328.060.

2
tothesensitive,intimatenatureofthephotos,plaintiffsthenrefusedtoproducesaid
evidence.AmotionwasbroughtonJune26,2008bydefendantthatplaintiffscomply
withtheirundertakingsandproducethelitigiousphotographs.Thejudgeheldthat
plaintiffsneededtoprovidethephotographsastheyhadundertook;afterwhichthey
soughtleavetoappealofthedecisionmadeonJune26th2008,whichisthesubject
ofthiscasereview.
InordertoobtainleavetoappealinOntario,aplaintiffmustmeetthetestsetoutin
rule62.02(4)oftheRulesofCivilProcedurewhichcanbereadasfollows:

“62.02(4)Groundsonwhichleavemaybegranted–Leavetoappealshall
notbegrantedunless,

(a)thereisaconflictingdecisionbyanotherjudgeorcourtinOntarioor
elsewhereonthematterinvolvedintheproposedappealanditis,inthe
opinionofthejudgehearingthemotion,desirablethatleavetoappeal
begranted;or

(b)thereappearstobethejudgehearingthemotiongoodreasontodoubt
thecorrectnessoftheorderinquestionandtheproposedappeal
involvesmattersofsuchimportancethat,inhisorheropinion,leaveto
appealshouldbegranted.”
TheCourtfoundthatplaintiffswerenotabletomeeteitherofthecriteriafoundunder
62.02(4).Concerningcriteria(a),plaintiffbroughtforwardjurisprudenceconcerning
theuseofdetainedoriginalmaterialswhichwasquicklydistinguishedbytheCourtas
thereisadifferencebetweenoriginalmaterialsheldbythepoliceandoriginal
materialsheldbyaplaintiff.Theoriginalmaterialsinthiscasewerephotographs
whichwerecreatedbytheplaintiffsandthatwerenolongerheldbytheauthorities.
Analysisofplaintiffs’argumentsundercriteria(b),thatthephotosdealtwithsensitive
mattersandwerethereforeofimportancetothem,wasalsonotconsideredsinceit
waslogicallyfoundthatplaintiffs,havingsuedforuseofthephotographsby
defendant,couldnotthenrefusetoproducesaidphotostodefendantsfor
assessment.Whileitwasobviousthatplaintiffsweresensitiveaboutothersseeing
theirphotographs,defendantcanonlyproperlyanalysethecaseagainstthemby
viewingandreviewingthepictures.
Itwasfoundthatplaintiffs’appealwaswithoutmeritandcostswereawardedagainst
themforatotalof$12,000;with$6,000$beingdeferreduntiltrialorsettlementwith
respecttotheinitialquestionofcopyrightinfringement.

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstous
lesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriété
littéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielset
circuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secrets
decommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892
totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsof
origin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)