We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Canada: A Sound Recording That Is Part Of A Soundtrack Cannot Be The Subject Of A Tariff Under Section 19 Of The Copyright Act When The Recording Accompanies A Cinematographic Work: Re: Sound v. MPTAC (2012 SCC 38)
Performers and makers of "sound recordings" are
entitled to remuneration when their published sound recordings are
performed in public. The term "sound recording" is
defined in section 2 of the Copyright Act to mean a recording of
sounds but excluding any "soundtrack" of a
cinematographic work where it accompanies the cinematographic work.
The term "soundtrack" is not defined.
The collective society Re:Sound argued that the term
"soundtrack" should be found to refer only to the
aggregate of sounds that accompany a cinematographic work, and not
to the soundtrack's constituent elements. On its view,
pre-existing recordings incorporated into a soundtrack should still
be subject to remuneration.
This argument was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court of
Canada based on principles of statutory interpretation. A
pre-existing recording of sounds is not considered a "sound
recording" when it is a soundtrack that accompanies a
cinematographic work.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Given that many Canadian Internet web sites do receive U.S. visitors and many also utilize a DMCA safe-harbour provision, understanding the scope of protection that the safe harbour provides can be important to Canadians.
ICANN (the entity that essentially controls the worldwide domain name system) is in the final stages of processing approximately 1,900 applications for new gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains – like ".com") many of which are expected to come online in 2013.
In this case, Apotex claimed damages pursuant to s. 8 of the NOC Regulations, and Pfizer alleged that Apotex should not be entitled to damages, due to the principles of ex turpi causa relating to its alleged infringement of the relevant patent.
In a recent judgment, the Federal Court of Canada, granted Apotex's claim against Pfizer for section 8 damages under Canada's Patented Medicines Regulations, SOR/93-133.
