Canada's 20,000 visual artists have been exploit with a
legal body impact in a landmark court judgment that efficaciously
bans them from passing minimum display and other copyright-related
charges with the National Gallery of Canada. The Federal Court of
Appeal judgment applies only to government institutions, but an
interpreter for the artists' association that demanded the
National Gallery over the fees says it has the likely to affect
financial plannings between artists and galleries across the
Canadian Artists Representation (CARFAC) and its Quebec partner,
Le Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Quebec (RAAV), were
trying to talk over a legally-binding minimum copyright regulation
with the gallery for use of artists' work, including display
fees and a work's use in catalogues, postcards or other
commodity. The lawfully-binding minimum fee would have been a basic
for Canadian artists and galleries. When the gallery scrapped to
talk over copyright, CARFAC asked to the now-defunct Canadian
Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, which ruled
that the federal Crown corporation had purchased in bad belief. The
art gallery yielded its case to the Federal Court of Appeal and won
in a two-to-one judgment.
"The intention of our negotiations was to amend the working
conditions the art gallery offers to artists and aid us put some
regulations in place to make sure artists aren't pressured to
accept less than what they be," said CARFAC executive director
April Britski. "We are manifestly disappointed that this has
"We haven't lost anything with this judgment but we
haven't increased and that was what we were looking for,"
said Britski. "CARFAC has been negotiating fees for 45 years
but they are all willful. Sometimes artists are bestowed less and
sometimes get nothing. We haven't increased a betterment to
In a statement, the gallery said it was "very happy"
with the opinion that "confirmed the gallery had agreement in
good faith." Still, it's probably that more legal
elucidation will be needed. Britski said Tuesday that CARFAC is
thinking for a final plea to the Supreme Court of Canada.
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.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).