The Federal Court revisits the test for joint authorship under the Copyright Act

THEFEDERALCOURTREVISITSTHETESTFORJOINTAUTHO
RSHIPUNDER
THECOPYRIGHTACT

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDCLÉAIAVARONE-TURCOTTE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

PRECIS:InNeugebauerv.Labieniec[2009FC666(CanLII)],theFederalCourtof
CanadadismissedanapplicationtoexpungeaCertificateofRegistrationof
CopyrightissuedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOfficeonJuly12th,2006,in
connectionwithGesipuch,anovelwritteninPolish.TheRegistrationthatis
objectedidentifiestheApplicantandtheRespondentastheownersandjoint
authorsofthebook.
Thefactscouldbesummarizedasfollows:theApplicant,HenryNeugebauer,was
borninPolandin1926andhaslivedinCanadasincethe1950s.HeisaHolocaust
survivor,andthebookatissuetellshisstory.SincetheApplicanthadnowriting
experienceandevenlessinediting,hecalledonPolishwriterandjournalistAnna
M.Labieniec,theRespondent.
ThepartiessignedafirstagreementinSeptember2005,providingthatMs.
Labieniec,identifiedas“editor”,wouldprepareatranscriptionoftheApplicant’s
tape-recordedrecollectionsofhisHolocaustexperiences.TheApplicantwas
referredtoasthe“author”inthisfirstagreement.Becausethelanguagespokenon
thetapewasdifficulttounderstand,andthestoryperse,toldinachaoticandnon
chronologicalway,theRespondenthadtorequestinterviewswiththeApplicantas
wellasundertakeindependentresearchinorderto“fillingaps”inthematerialthat
wasgiventoher.OnlythenwassheabletoreconstructtheApplicant’sstory,and
providehimwithathirtypageslongdocument.Asecondcontractwasorally
concludedafterwards,underwhichthepartiesagreeduponthewritingbythe
RespondentofabookbasedontheApplicant’slifestory.Thissecondagreement
wastotheeffectthatthepartieswerejointauthorsofthesoontobereleasednovel.

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.CléaIavarone-Turcotteis
anarticlingstudentwiththefirm.Publishedinthe2009-09-08issueofWorldMediaLawReport.
Publication328.072.

2
Thisliterarywork,entitledGesipuch,wasfirstpublishedinTorontoinMay2006.
Thecoverdisplaysthenamesofbothparties,theApplicant’snameaboveand
slightlylargerthantheRespondent’s.Furthermore,thepublishinginformation
appearingonthesecondpageofthevolumeshowscopyrightsforNeugebaueras
wellasLabieniec.Thepartieswerethereforereferredtoasjointauthorsonthe
CertificateofRegistrationofCopyrightissuedinconnectionwiththebookbythe
CanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice.Neugebauertookanactiontoexpungethis
certificateofregistrationinordertoberecognizedassoleauthorofthebook.

JusticeSimpsonfirstrejectedtheApplicant’spretensionthattheparties’intention,
whensigningupthefirstagreement,wastoestablishtheApplicantaloneasauthor
ofthebook,andtheRespondentaseditor.Thejudgeratherconcurredwiththe
Respondent’sassertionthatthisfirstcontractwaslimitedtothetranscriptionofthe
Applicant’smemoriesandthatithadnothingtodowithanovel.TheCourtfurther
foundthattheApplicant’sconductafterthepublicationofthebookundeniably
betrayedhisinitialintention,whichwastobeconsideredaco-author.Indeed,it
appearedthattheApplicant,whilepromotingthenovelinaTorontobookstorein
2006,introducedhimselfasco-author,andrepeatedlythankedMs.Labieniec“for
writingabeautifulbookabouthimandhislot”.
Furthermore,thepartiesjointlysignedthevolumesforthereaders.JusticeSimpson
alsofoundverytellingthefacttheApplicanthimselfgavetheRespondentacopyof
thebook,acopyinwhichhehadwritten:“ForMs.Aniaforwritingbeautifulbook
withthanks,HenryNeugebauer”.AccordingtotheCourt,thepartiesthereforeheld
themselvesoutasjointauthorsduringthepromotionoftheirnovel.

TheCourtthenaddressedthequestionofwhethertheRespondent’scontributionto
thebookconstituted“authorship”undertheCopyrightAct.Althoughtheword
“author”isnotdefinedintheAct,thejudgeremindedthatthisnotion“conveysa
senseofcreativityandingenuity”.AsforMs.Labieniec,JusticeSimpsonstatedthat
shedidn’tmerelyedittheApplicant’sstory,butrather“tooktheApplicant’sdisjointed
informationandcreatedanarrative”.Moreover,sheexpandedhisstorybyincluding
originalmaterialwhichwasbasedonherownimaginationandresearchandnoton
Neugebauer’spersonalexperiences.Accordingtothejudge,theRespondent
therefore“contributedsufficientoriginalityandexpressiontoclaimauthorshipofthe
Book(…)”.
Asforthequestionofwhethertheparties’respectivecontributionstothebook
constituted“jointauthorship”,JusticeSimpsonfirststatedthata“workofjoint
authorship”asdefinedinSection2oftheCopyrightActwas“aworkproducedby
thecollaborationoftwoormoreauthorsinwhichthecontributionofoneauthorisnot
distinctfromthecontributionoftheotherauthororauthors”.Inlightofthisstatutory
definition,thejudgeheldthat:

3
“(…)undertheSecondAgreement,therewascollaborationwhich
contributedtowardsaunitarywholeand(…)thepartiesintended
that
theircontributionsbejoinedinfurtheranceofacommondesign.I
haveacceptedtheRespondent’sevidencethattheApplicantagreed
thattheywouldbejointauthorsoftheBook.Iampersuadedthatthe
Respondentisajointauthorbytheevidenceofthebookstoreowner
whoassertedthattheApplicantintroducedhimselftoherasthe“co-
author”oftheBookwrittenbytheRespondentandbytheApplicant’s
post-publicationconduct.”[emphasisadded]

Interestinglyenough,theCourtreachedthatconclusionbyapplyingthetestforjoint
authorshipestablishedinLevyv.Rutley(1871)6L.R.976(CP),ratherthantheone
introducedbytheBritishColumbiaSupremeCourtinitsdecisionNeudorfv.Nettwerk
ProductionsLtd.[1999CanLII5293(BCS.C.)].AccordingtoJusticeSimpson,the
NeudorfdecisionfollowedAmericanlaw[forinstanceChildressv.Taylor945F2d500
2dCir.,1991)],whichimposesarequirementthatcollaboratorsalsointendtoregard
eachotherasjointauthors.Indeed,thedefinitionof“jointwork’foundinsection101of
theAmericanCopyrightActspecificallyprovidesforthisrequirement:“
A“jointwork”isa
workpreparedbytwoormoreauthorswiththeintentionthattheircontributionsbe
mergedintoinseparableorintertependantpartsofaunitarywhole”,whichisnotthe
caseundertheCanadianCopyrightActwhichismostlyderivedinthatregardfromthe
U.K.CopyrightActof1912!

However,theLevycase,which,accordingtothejudge,stillis“theleadingauthorityon
theconstituentelementsofjointauthorshipunderEnglishandCanadianLaw”,requires
nosuchsharedintention.InthatregardonemayalsorefertotheU.Kdecision
HodgensvBeckingham2003EWCACiv143(Eng.C.A.;2003-02-19)Jonathan
ParkerLJatparagraph49″Irejectthesubmissionthat[…]requires,asoneofthe
elementsofjointauthorship,theexistenceofacommonintentionastojoint
authorship;seealsoBrightonvJones2004EWHC1157(Eng.Chan.Div.;2004-05-
18)ParkJ.
ThejudgefurtheropinionatedthateventhoughtheNeudorftesthasbeenusedatthe
triallevelinQuebec,OntarioandNovaScotia,“ithasnot(…)beenappliedatthe
appellatelevel”,andconsequentlydecidedtosetitaside.Nevertheless,thejudgewent
onbystatingthathadshefollowedNeudorf,herconclusionontheissueofjoint
authorshipwouldhavebeenthesame.Therefore,onecanbeleadtowonderwhythe
FederalCourtchosenottoapplythetestsincethenutilized,ifthischangewasnotto
affectitsfinaldecision.Asonecanarguethatitispreciselytodetermineifthisshared
intentionofcollaborationwaspresentinthecaseinpointthattheCourtexaminedthe
post-publicationbehavioroftheparties,examinationevenjudged“relevanttoissueof
(…)jointauthorship”byJusticeSimpsonherself…

4

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD

5
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP(“ROBIC”)