Recent Developments in Copyright Law: Is Parody a Defence for 3x Rated Films and are Chemical Formulae Literary Works?


RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINCOPYRIGHTLAW:ISPARODYADEFENCEFOR3X
RATEDFILMSANDARECHEMICALFORMULAELITERARYWORKS?

By
HuguesG.Richard*
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
TwoCanadiancopyrightcaseshaverecentlybeendecided:Tri-TexCo.Inc.
v.Ghaly,EliaGideonetal.andProductionsAvantiCinéViéoInc.v.Favreau.
AsbothcasesweredecidedbytheQuebecCourtofAppeal,theyset
importantprecedentsinintellectualpropertylaw.Leavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadaisbeingsoughtinbothcases.
TheTri-Texcase:
Tri-Texmanufacturesdyesandotherchemicalproducts,whichitsellstothe
textile,leather,carpet,andpaperindustries.GideochemInc.(Gideochem)
operatesasimilarbusiness,althoughonamuchsmallerscale.
Tri-Texallegesthatinmay1998,itdiscoveredthatGhalyEliaGideon
(Gideon),PresidentofGideochem,hadillegallyobtainedsomeofits
confidentialinformationandanumberofitssecretformulaeforthe
productionofdyesandotherchemicalproducts.
OnMay15,1998,Tri-Tex,allegingarightofownership,causedtobeissueda
Writofseizurebeforejudgmentpursuanttoarticle734(1)oftheCodeofCivil
Procedure(C.C.P.)whichpermitsapersontoseizebeforejudgment”the
moveablepropertywhichhehasarighttorevendicate”.
Tri-Texassertsthatithasarightofownershipinthesecretformulaeaswellas
theproductsproducedtherefromwhichrightstemsfromtheCopyrightAct
1

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2000.*LawyerandTrademarkAgent,HuguesG.RichardisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGER
ROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.
1CopyrightAct,R.S.C.1985,c.C-42.


(Act).Italsoassertsthatithasarightofownershipinconfidentialinformation
namely,itschemicalformulae,itslistofclientsaswellasitslistofsuppliers.
Initsmotion,Tri-Texrequeststheseizureofallconfidentialinformationwhich
concernsTri-TexandwhichisownedbyTri-Tex,thelistofclients,thelistof
suppliersandthesecretformulaeandtheproductsinthepossessionofthe
defendantswhichhasorwhichhavebeenmanufacturedthroughtheuseof
thesecretformulaeincluding,computers,hard-disks,magnetictapesand
disketteseventhoughthesewaresmaynotbelongtoTri-Texbutaslongas
theycontainconfidentialinformationbelongingtoTri-Tex.
TheWritofseizurewasexecutedonMay15,1998.Anumberofitemswere
seizedincludingchemicalproductscontainedinbarrels,threeboxesof
documentsandonecomputer.
Gideochemfiled,pursuanttoarticle738C.C.P.,amotiontoquashthe
seizurebeforejudgmentallegingboththeinsufficiencyandfalsityofthe
affidavitonthestrengthofwhichtheWritofseizurewasissued.
Gideochemargued,interalia,thatnoneoftheproductsseizedbefore
judgmentconstituteproductswhichinfringeonTri-Tex’sallegedcopyright.
ByjudgmentdatedJune22,1998,theSuperiorCourtquashed,inpart,Tri-Tex’s
seizurebeforejudgmentonthegroundsofinsufficiencyoftheaffidavitand
orderedthataninventorybetakenofthoseitemsforwhichtheseizurewas
notquashed.OnJune30,1998,Tri-TexaswellasGideonandGideochem
soughtandobtainedleavetoappealthejudgmentbelow.Tri-Texmaintains
thatthetrialjudgeshouldnothavequashedtheseizurebeforejudgment
insofarasitpertainstothechemicalcompoundsseized.Thebasicissueinthis
appealiswhetherthechemicalformulaeofTri-Texaresubjecttoprotection
oftheAct?
TheCourtofAppealstatedthattheActismeanttograntadvantagestothe
personwhoexpressesandideainanoriginalform.Itdoessobygivingthe
personinwhomcopyrightveststheexclusiverighttodo,andtorestrainothers
fromdoing,certainactswithrelationtooriginalliterary,dramatic,musical
andartisticworks.Inessence,theownerofcopyrightinanoriginalworkhas
thesolerighttoproduceorreproducetheworkoranysubstantialpart
thereofinanymaterialformwhatever.
Tri-Texmaintainedthatthejudgeinfirstinstanceerredinfindingthatitssecret
formulaewerenotprotectedbycopyrightandthatthechemical
compoundsproducedtherefromcouldnotbeseizedbeforejudgmentin
accordancewiths.38oftheActandarticle734(1)C.C.P.


Tri-Texcontendsthattheterm”literarywork”hasbeendefinedins.2ofthe
Act,inaliberalmannersoastoincludeavastvarietyofworks.Tri-Tex
arguedthatthewrittenversionofthechemicalformulaecreatedand
developedinitslaboratoriesconstituteliteraryworkswithinthemeaningofs.
2oftheAct.Onthisbasis,Tri-Texclaimedthatithadaright,invirtueofs.38
oftheActtoseizebeforejudgmentthechemicalformulaeaswritten,printed
orotherwisereproducedonpaperorcomputersoftwareaswellasthe
chemicalcompoundsproducedtherefrom.
Ontheotherhand,GideonandGideochemsubmittedthattheActdidnot
applytochemicalorbiochemicalprocesses.Itwastheircontentionthata
chemicalformulaisonlypropersubjectmatterforpatent.
IntheopinionoftheCourtofAppeal,theTri-Texchemicalformulaeareideas
andassuch,arenotsubjecttocopyright.Thefactthattheseformulaewere
writtenorprintedonpaperorotherwiserecordedoncomputersoftwaredoes
notmeanthattheyare”literaryworks”withinthemeaningoftheAct.The
Courtstatedthatperhaps,theTri-Texformulaeconstitutedtradesecrets.The
Courtstatedthattradesecretsmayincertaincases,beprotected
contractually,(e.g.non-competitionconvenants),bytheapplicationof
certainlegalconcepts(e.g.employeeloyalty,unfairtradepractices,the
obligationtoactingoodfaith),orbyhavingrecoursetothePatentAct.In
theCourt’sopinionhowever,theycannot,simplyonthegroundsofbeing
tradesecrets,beaffordedprotectionundertheAct.Asaconsequence,the
CourtofAppealfoundthatthechemicalformulaeandthechemical
compoundscouldnotbeseizedbyvirtueoftheAct.
AccordingtotheCourt,evenifthechemicalformulaeweresubjecttothe
Act,Tri-Texwouldnothavehadtherighttoseizethechemicalcompounds
derivedfromit.Suchaseizurewouldnotbejustifiedgivingthereasoning
underlyingthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtofCanadainCuisenairev.
SouthWestImportsLtd.
2(Cuisenaire).
Tri-Texallegedthatitscopyrightinthesechemicalformulaewasinfringed
whenGideonandGideochemproducedthechemicalcompounds.In
Cuisenaire,theappellanttriedtoclaimcopyrightinthe”teachingrods”
produced,bytherespondents,inaccordancewiththeinstructionscontained
inhisbook.
InCuisinaire,theSupremeCourtofCanadaunanimouslyruledthatcopyright
protectstheexpressionofanideabutnottheideaitself.Onthatbasis,even

2Cuisenairev.SouthWestImportsLtd.[1969]S.C.R.208,atpp.211-212.


ifTri-Texformulaehypothetically,didfallwithinthepurviewoftheAct,onlythe
expressionoftheseformulaewouldbeprotected.Thosefollowingthe
instructionstoproducethechemicalcompoundswouldnotbeinfringingTri-
Tex’scopyright;theywouldsimplybeusingtheideacontainedinTri-Tex’s
“literaryworks”(chemicalformulae).Tri-Texwouldaccordinglynothavehad
therighttoseize,onthebasisofs.38oftheAct,thechemicalcompounds
mentionedintheaffidavit.Forthesereasons,Tri-Tex’sappealwasdismissed.
WithrespecttoGideonandGideochem’sappeal,bothappellantssubmitted
thattheseizurebeforejudgmentoftheirpropertyshouldhavebeenquashed
initsentiretyonthegroundsofinsufficiencyoftheaffidavit.Theirappeal
raisedonequestion:Isconfidentialinformation”moveableproperty”thatcan
beseizedbeforejudgmentpursuanttoarticle734(1)C.C.P.?
AccordingtotheCourtofAppeal,therighttoseizebeforejudgmentisa
provisionalremedyofanexceptionalnature.AWritofseizuremaytherefore
onlybeissuedincircumstanceswheretherulesgoverningthisprocedure
havebeenstrictlyobserved.Article734(1)C.C.P.states:ThePlaintiffmayalso
seizebeforejudgmentthemoveablepropertywhichhehasarightto
revendicate.
GideonandGideochemarguedthatTri-Texwasnottheownerofthe
contentsof3sealedboxesandthecomputeranddidnothavetherightto
revendicatetheseitemsinaccordancewitharticle734(1)C.C.P.
Tri-Texmaintainedthatthetrialjudgecorrectlydecided/thatithad
establisheditsrightofownershipoftheconfidentialinformationstoredeither
intheboxesorinthecomputerthatwereseizedonthecommercialpremises
ofGideochem.
InR.v.Stewart
3,theSupremeCourtofCanadaruledthatconfidential
informationdoesnotconstitute”property”withinthemeaningofs.283(theft)
or338(fraud)oftheCriminalCode.InrenderingthejudgmentoftheCourt,
LamerJ.,ashethenwas,commentedonthepossibilityofconsidering
confidentialinformationasproperty.
TheQuebecCourtofAppealthenquotedwithapprovalProfessorMistrale
Goudreauwheresheconcludedtotherejectionofthenotionthat
informationcanbeassimilatedwithproperty.

3[1988]1R.C.S.963.


Tri-Texhavingfailedtodemonstratethatconfidentialinformationconstitutes
“moveableproperty”withinthemeaningofarticle734(1)C.C.P.,theCourt
dismisseditsappeal.
ThiscasewhiledealingwithaspecificarticleoftheQuebecCodeofCivil
Procedureshouldbeusefultocourtsofotherjurisdictionsintheir
interpretationofthedefinitionof”literaryworks”andwhetheritincludes
chemicalformulaeortradesecretsexpressedinamaterialform,andintheir
interpretationof”infringingcopies”unders.38oftheAct,whetherthis
expressionincludeschemicalcompoundsderivedfromthechemical
formulaeorthecomputerharddiskorothermediumcontainingthetrade
secrets?
Lapetiteviecase:
AnotherjudgmentoftheQuebecCourtofAppealdatedAugust4,1999may
alsohaverepercussionsoutsideoftheprovinceofQuebecsinceitdealswith
thedefenceofparodyinanactioninstitutedbytheownersofthecopyrights
inatelevisionseriesentitled”Lapetitevie”whoclaimedthatthedefendant
hadinfringedtheircopyrightsbytheproductionofapornographicfilm
entitled”Lapetitevite”(Thequickie)
4.
OneofthefirstthingsthattheCourtofAppealhadtoconsiderwaswhether
ornot”Lapetitevite”constitutedasubstantialtakingoftheoriginalwork”La
petitevie”.Thetrialjudgehadconcludedthatitdidnot.Thetrialjudgewas
oftheopinionthatthecharactersof”Lapetitevie”didnotpresent
characteristicssufficientlyoriginaltobebythemselvesprotectedby
copyright.Itwastheinteractionbetweenthesecharacters,thewordsthat
theyexchanged,thesceneswhichtheyplayedthatgavetothese
characterssomeoriginality.
However,accordingtothetrialjudge,verylittleofthewords,ofthetext,of
thescenesandoftheplaywastakenfromtheoriginalwork.Thetrialjudge
saidthatconfusionshouldnotbemadebetweenartisticworksconstitutedof
cartooncharactersandcharactersofdramaticworkswhogenerallyhaveno
independentlifeapartfromtheworkitself.
TheCourtofAppealconsideredthisanalysisofthetrialjudgeandinorderto
determinewhetherasubstantialtakingoftheoriginalworkhadtakenplace,
theCourtofAppealreferredtothejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtof

4ProductionsAvantiCinéVidéoInc.v.Favreau,[1999]R.J.Q.1939(C.A.)reasonsby
RothmanJ.andGendreauJ.


CanadainSlumber-MagicAdjustableBedCo.v.Sleep-KingAdjustableBed
Co
5.Itisnotcontestedthatthedefendantdidborrowfromtheoriginalwork.
Thequestioniswhetherheborrowedasubstantialpartoftheoriginalwork.
TheCourtofAppealindicatedthatitcouldnotagreewiththetrialjudge
whenhestatedthatthecharactersdidnothavesufficientoriginal
characteristicsbythemselvestobesubjecttocopyrightprotectionwithout
theirtheatricalplayandscript.
TheCourtofAppealwasoftheopinionthatthefirstworkwasanoriginal
work,coherentandintegrated.Thestagesetwasessentialtothetextas
werethedecorsandthecharacters.Onedidnotgowithouttheother.Each
partwasacreationinitselfandthefruitoftheimaginationoftheauthor.
TheCourtofAppealwasoftheviewthatthecharactersthemselvesarea
creationandasubstantialpartoftheworkandtheuseofthecharacters
withoutauthorizationisillegalundertheAct.TheXXXfilmhasnotonlyused
thecharactersof”Lapetitevie”intheirrecognisablecostumesandhabitsbut
ithasalsoappropriatedthevisualaspectofthefirstwork,includingthe
musicaltheme,thedecors,theopeningpresentationwiththecredittitles,
etc…Infact,theXXXfilmcopiedthetotalityofthefirstworkexceptthe
dialogueassuch,butitdidkeepthecharacteristicsofthelanguageandof
theexpressionsusedbythecharacters.
TheCourtofAppealconcludedthatwhatwastakenwasasubstantialpartof
thefirstwork.
Havingdecidedthatasubstantialtakingofthefirstworkhadtakenplace,
theCourtofAppealwentontodecidewhetherthedefenceofparodywas
acceptable.Therespondent’sonlyseriousdefenceofhisuseofthe
characters,costumesanddecorcreatedin”Lapetitevie”isadefenceoffair
useoftheseelementsforpurposesofparodyundersection29oftheAct.
TheQuebecCourtofAppealsawnothingin”Lapetitevite”thatcould
possiblybecharacterizedasparody.Clearly,thepurposewasnottoparody
“Lapetitevie”butsimplytoexploitthepopularityofthattelevisionseriesby
appropriatingitscharacters,costumesanddecorasamise-en-scenefor
respondent’svideofilm.
FromtheCourtofAppeal’spointofview,thereisanimportantlineseparating
aparodyofthedramaticworkcreatedbyanotherwriterorartistandthe

5(1984),3C.P.R.(3d)81.


appropriationorusethatworksolelytocapitalizeonor”cashin”onits
originalityandpopularity.
Parodynormallyinvolvesthehumorousimitationoftheworkofanotherwriter,
oftenexaggerated,forpurposesofcriticismorcomment.Appropriationof
theworkofanotherwritertoexploititspopularsuccessforcommercial
purposesisquiteadifferentthing.Itisnomorethancommercial
opportunism.Thelinemaysometimesbedifficulttotrace,butcourtshavea
dutytomaketheproperdistinctionsineachcasehavingregardtocopyright
protectionaswellasfreedomofexpression.
AccordingtotheCourtofAppeal,therespondentwasonthewrongsideof
theline.Farfromaparodyofanoriginaldramaticwork,”Lapetitevite”
constitutedacrassattempttogaininstantpublicrecognitionwithouthaving
tocreatecharacters,costumes,decororsituation.”Lapetitevie”had
suppliedthecharacters,costumesandmise-en-scene.Oncethatwas
obtainedbytherespondent,heonlyhadtosupplythesimplepornographic
activityforthesuccessof”Lapetitevite”.Whateverthedramaticmeritsof”La
petitevite”,theCourtofAppealsawnoparody,criticismororiginalityinit.
Simplyaddingpornographicactivityasastorylineforcharactersthathave
beenappropriatedfromanotherwriter’sworkdoesnot,intheopinionofthe
Court,constituteparodyorfairuseofthatmaterial.
IntheopinionoftheCourt,therespondent’sappropriationdidnotconstitute
parody.Itwasaninfringementofappellant’scopyrightmotivatedby
commercialopportunism.
ThisdecisionoftheQuebecCourtofAppealhasgivenindicationsastowhat
constitutesthetakingofasubstantialpartofadramaticwork,andtowhat
extentthedefenceofparodyisavailableinanactionforinfringementof
copyrightinadramaticwork.TheconclusionsoftheCourtarethatthe
defenceoffairdealingdoesnotliewheretheparodyisreallyan
appropriationofafirstworksolelytocapitaliseonorcashinonitsoriginality
andpopularity,andtherecanbeasubstantialtakingofadramaticwork
eventhoughnopartofthedialogueorscripthasbeentaken.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.
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