The Right of Contributors to Royalties – Une Révolution Tranquille not so Tranquille After All

1
THERIGHTOFCONTRIBUTORSTOROYALTIES

UNERÉVOLUTIONTRANQUILLENOTSOTRANQUILLEAFTERALL

By
NadiaPerri*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
1.FACTUALBACKGROUND

Imavisioninc.(hereinafterreferredtoas¨Imavision¨)acompanywhich
distributescassettesinQuebecandbeyond,enteredintoanagreementon
September30
th,l998withLesFilmesGillesCarleinc.(hereinafterreferredtoas
¨F.G.C.¨),wherebythelatterundertooktowritethescreenplayfora
documentaryentitled”Unerévolutiontranquille,unehistoirepopulairedu
Québec”.
Imavisionwasultimatelyforcedtosuspendproductionofthescreenplayasa
resultofMr.Carle’slanguishedstateofhealth.Inanefforttorespectthe
deadlinegiven,andconsciousofthefactthatMr.Carle©shealthhad
becomeanimpedimenttorespectingsuchadeadline,Imavisionsoughtthe
helpofMr.Cossette-Trudel.OnMarch23
rd2000,thetwopartiessignedan
agreementwherebythelatteraccededtoproduce,directandre-vampthe
formatofthescreenplayinquestion.
1TheonlyprovisowasthatMr.Cossette-
Trudelnotalteranymomentouseventalreadydepictedinthedocumentary.
Theagreement,whichImavisionhadpreviouslyenteredintowithF.G.C.,was
formallycancelledonSeptember26
th,2000wherebythepartiesagreedthat:

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2005.*LawyerwiththelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatentandtrade-mark
agentsfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication328.009.
1AnofficialagreementwassignedOctober9th,2000onceMr.Carle©scontractwasofficially
cancelled.

2
1.F.G.C.retainallamountswhichhadbeenremittedatthedate
ofthecancellation;
2.F.G.C.acknowledgehavingreceivedamonetary
compensationfromImavision;
3.thenameGillesCarleberemovedfromthedocumentary©s
creditsandnotbeusedinanypromotionalendorsements;
4.theapplicationformfiledwiththeSCAMoranysimilar
organizationwouldindicatethatMr.Carlewasoneofthe
documentary’sdirectors,entitlinghimtoreceiveapercentage
oftheroyaltiesassociatedwiththeseries
2.

Thedocumentarywasultimatelycompletedaftermonthsofonerouswork
andwassequentiallysubdividedinto4episodeseachconsistingof52
minutesand50seconds.ItwassoonafterthatMr.Cossette-Trudelfiledboth
amembershipapplicationandapplicationformforwhatheregardedas”his
work”withtheSociétéciviledesauteursmultimédia(hereinafterreferredto
asthe”SCAM”).Itwasallegedinthelatterform,thatMr.Cossette-Trudelhad,
withregardstothefirstthreeepisodes,writtenfortypercent(40%)ofthe
scriptanddirectedsixtypercent(60%)ofthedocumentary.Insofarasthe
lastepisodewasconcerned,Mr.Cossette-Trudelspecifiedthatanother
individualhadaidedinitsdirecting.
TheSCAMisaninternationalorganizationconstitutedunderthelawsof
Franceresponsibleformanagingtherightsofallauthors.
3Authorsseekingthe
servicesoftheSCAMmustobligatorilybecomeamember.Inordertodoso,
authorsmustfilloutmembershipapplicationformsaswellasapplication
formsfortheworkinwhichtheyavouchbeingthecreator.Itisfurthermore
imperativethatauthorsconcludecontractswithproductioncompaniesprior
tosubmittingtheirapplicationformstotheSCAM.Undertheregulations
governingtheSCAManditsmembers,thelattermustdiscloseinthe
aforementionedformswhethermultiplescreen-writersand/ordirectors
contributedtotheworkandtheproportioninwhichtheroyaltiesmustbe
partitioned.Inaddition,theSCAM’sregulationsstipulatethatalldisputes
amongcontributorsregardingsuchpartitionmaybesubmittedtotheBoard
ofDirectorsforarbitration.Membersarehowevernotobligatedtodoso.
2Suchapercentagewastobedeterminedinrelationtothecontributionoftheother
directorsandscreenwritersinthefinalversionofthedocumentary.
3TheSCAM(TheCivilCompanyoftheAuthors’MultiMedia)representsmorethan20,000
authorsworkinginthetelevision,radio,andcinematographicindustries.

3
OnceinformedofthepreviouslymentionedfilingsbyMr.Cossette-Trudel,Ms.
ElisabethSchlitter,theSCAMDelegate-General,forthwithadvisedMr.Carle
ofMr.Cossette-Trudel©spretensions.Inresponsetothelatter©sassertions,the
formersentSCAMaletterinwhichheassertedhavingwrittenfiftypercent
(50%)ofthescreenplayforthetelevisedseries,consequentlyhavingrightto
fiftypercent(50%)ofthecopyrightroyalties
4.
ItwasMr.Carle©sallegationswhichpromptedMr.Cossette-Trudeltoinstitute
proceedingsbeforetheSuperiorCourtofQuébecwherebyherequested
thattheCourtdeclarehimthesoleauthorofthedocumentaryinquestion
and,asaconsequence,theonlypersonentitledtothecopyrightroyalties
associatedwithsuchawork.
5

2.DECISION
TheonusprobandiwasonMr.CarletoprovetothesatisfactionoftheCourt
thathehadindeedwrittenfiftypercent(50%)ofthescreen-playforthe
televisedseriesinquestionthusenablinghimwitharighttoreceiveroyalties
inthesameproportion.DespitethefactthatMr.Carlefailedtoprovetothe
Courtthathewasdeservingoffiftypercent(50%)oftheroyalties,theCourt
neverthelessfoundthatMr.Carlehadinfactcontributedtotheseriesand
thatsuchacontributioncouldnotbeignored.
TheCourtconsequentlyconcludedthatMr.Cossette-Trudelhadacquireda
righttoseventy-fivepercent(75%)oftherightsassociatedwiththe
broadcastingoftheseries”Unerévolutiontranquille,unehistoirepopulairedu
Québec”andthereforetoseventy-fivepercent(75%)oftheroyalties
associatedwiththeseries;whereasMr.Carlehaddemonstratedcontributing
totheseriesinamannerwhichledhimtoamasstwenty-fivepercent(25%)
ofsaidrightsandroyalties.TheSCAMwasconsequentlyorderedbythe
4WhileMr.CarledidindeedsendalettertotheSCAMinwhichhedeclaredhavingwritten
fiftypercent(50%)ofthetelevisedseries,itwasestablishedthatMr.Carlehadnever
submittedanapplicationformtotheSCAMfortheseries.
5Section453oftheCodeofCivilProcedureR.S.Q.c.C-25reads:Anypersonwhohasan
interestinhavingdetermined,fortheresolutionofagenuineproblem,eitherhisorherstatus
oranyright,powerorobligationthepersonmayhaveunderacontract,awilloranyother
writteninstrument,astatute,anorderincouncil,oraby-laworresolutionofamunicipality,
may,bywayofamotiontoinstituteproceedingsaskforadeclaratoryjudgementinthat
regard.

4
Courttoreleasetheroyaltiesheldintrustaccordingtotheaforementioned
percentages.
3.COMMENTS
TheCanadianCopyrightAct
6,providesthatindividualswhopartakeinthe
creationofthesamework,coineda¨workofjointauthorship¨
7bytheAct,
donotpossessindividualandparticularcopyright.Inotherwords,the
contributionofoneauthorisnotregardedasdistinctfromthecontributionof
theotherauthor(s).Assuch,thereisnoneedtodeterminetheproportionin
whichmultipleauthorscontributetoaparticularwork.Ithoweverbecomes
imperativethatanindividualclaimingjointauthorshipqualifyasan¨author¨.
Whiletheterm¨author¨isnotdefinedbytheAct
8,onemayturntoadecision
renderedbytheBritishColumbiaSupremeCourt
9whereCohenJ.attempted
todefinesuchaterm.AccordingtoCohen,authorshipmustberegardedas
havingtwofundamentalcomponents:originalityandexpression.Originality,
alsonotdefinedintheActrelatestotheexpressionofthought.TheCourt
furthermoreconcludedthatinorderfortheclaimantofjointauthorshiptobe
recognizedbytheCourtsasajointauthorofawork,saidclaimantmust:

1.contributeoriginalexpressiontothework,regardless
ofthesourceoftheideasbeingexpressed;
2.demonstratethatitwastheintentionofeachoftheauthorsthat
theirrespectivecontributionsbeconsolidatedintoa¨unitary
whole¨
10;and
3.establishthatitwasunderstoodthatallofthecollaboratorswere
toberegardedasjointauthors.

6CopyrightActR.S.C.1985c.C-42.(hereinafterreferredtoasthe¨Act¨).7ProvidedforatSection2oftheAct.8ThetermisnotdefinedintheAct,assuchwemustturntotheCourtsforexamplesofthe
wayinwhichthetermisinterpreted.
9Neudorfv.NettwerkProductionsLtd.,(1999)3C.P.R.(4th)129.10Ibid.

5
Cohendidhoweverspecifythat¨whileaclaimantneednotcontributea
majorpartoftheworktobeconsideredajointauthor,’someonewho
tinkeredwithandimprovedtheworkofanothermightnothavedone
enoughtoshowjointauthorship’¨
11.
Inlightofsuchadefinition,itisnotmereconjecturethatthedocumentaryin
questioncouldnotberegardedasajointauthorship,asoneoftheelements
permittingittobesoisabsent,namely,theunderstandingamongthe
collaboratorsthattheybeperceivedasjointauthorsofawork.
WhiletheActdoesnotempowerCourtswiththerighttodeterminethe
proportioninwhichmultipleauthorscontributetoawork,inthepresentcase
Jean-JacquesCrôteauoftheQuebecSuperiorCourtwaspermittedtodoso
duetotheratherspecialcircumstancesinwhichMr.Cossette-TrudelandMr.
Carlewereplaced.Boththeformerandthelatterweremembersofthe
SCAM,andassuch,weregovernedbyitsregulations.
Infact,undersuchregulations,bothMr.Cosette-TrudelandMr.Carlewere
obligatedtodiscloseintheirrespectiveapplications,thepercentagein
whichallcontributorshadcontributedtothedocumentaryinquestion.The
regulationsadditionallyspecifythatalldisputesarisingfromsuch
apportionmentmayberesolvedviaarbitration.Thedisputingparties
however,wereundernoobligationtodoso.
Oncethedisputearose,followingthesubmissionoftheaforementioned
applications,Mr.Cossette-Trudeloptedtoasserthisallegedrightsbywayof
amotionfordeclaratoryjudgementbeforetheQuebecSuperiorCourt
ratherthanbyarbitration.Asaconsequence,theCourtwasboundbythe
provisionssetforthinthepreviouslymentionedregulations.Assuch,the
QuebecSuperiorCourtwasenabledwiththerighttodetermineboththe
mannerinwhichMr.Cossette-TrudelandMr.Carlehadcontributedtothe
documentaryandthepercentageoftheroyaltieseachhadarightto
receive.

11Ibid.

6