Month: May 2026

Can You Copyright a Totem Pole?

View of a modern building surrounded by trees on a rocky shoreline under a cloudy sky.

Photo: Author

Can the individual or individuals who design and carve a totem pole claim copyright protection for their work? This question crossed my mind during my recent visit to Haida Gwaii, those mysterious fog-shrouded islands in the North Pacific about 150 kilometers west of the British Columbia mainland, just south of Alaska. The home of the Haida, skilled mariners and master artists and carvers. I have always wanted to visit Haida Gwaii and last month my wife and I finally made the dream come true, as the photo above will attest.

Today Haida artists work in all media, copper and silver jewellery, weaving, paintings, carved small objects such as bowls, spoons and miniature ceremonial objects, often in jade and argillite (a form of hard slate found only on Haida Gwaii) and, most famously, large wooden totem poles, typically between 40 and 50 feet tall. It was the late 19th century photos of Skidegate and other Haida villages that made the islands famous. Curved shingle beaches fringed with cedar beam houses, each with its clan totem in front, with the thick untamed forest behind, as shown in this 1878 photograph by George M. Dawson.

Black and white photograph of totem poles and a historic building along a beach, with canoes in the foreground and trees in the background.

Public domain: Wikimedia Commons

Those days are gone, although the beautiful Haida Gwaii museum and cultural centre in Skidegate, captured in my photo above, attempts to recapture the romance of those early days. Most of the villages were abandoned as disease decimated the Haida population. The survivors were encouraged by the missionaries to resettle in one or two centres. Carving of totems was actively discouraged. Cultural traditions such as the potlatch were outlawed by the government of the day. Many poles were taken away to museums around the world, such as the British Museum, Humboldt Museum in Berlin, Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and the American Museum of Natural History in New York, while those that remained were left to be reclaimed by nature as part of the natural cycle of birth and death. And yet, today, it is still possible to see a few remnants of 19th century poles, while a number of new poles have been carved and erected in recent years, including those at the Haida Gwaii museum. The totems are an indelible signature and symbol of the Haida nation (although a number of other First Nations along the B.C. and Alaska coasts also carved similar poles). However, are they also individual works that can be protected by copyright? The answer, in most instances, seems to be yes. It depends on whether the pole can be attributed to an individual or a small group of individuals as “joint authors” (or in the case of paid employees, to a corporation that employed them). Traditionally a pole belonged to the clan (the Haida have two clans, or “moieties”, raven and eagle) or family that resided in a dwelling featuring a pole, but nonetheless if an individual pole can be identified with a specific artist, modern copyright protection would apply.

The day we visited the Museum in Skidegate, there was lots of activity in the carving shed. Two poles were being worked on. I chatted with a couple of the carvers and learned that each had a specialized role, but none of the carvers we spoke to were “in charge” of the pole. That role belonged to “Norman”, who had the commission for the poles and who also appeared to be the designer. The others were chiselling and smoothing, following his designs that had been stencilled on to the wood. These poles are apparently destined to be erected on the waterfront in the nearby village of Skidegate.

A workshop interior with two men carving a large wooden log, surrounded by tables with tools and wood shavings on the floor. Natural light enters from a window, and another wooden structure is visible in the background.

Photo: Author

The master carver/commissioning entity (Norman?) should be able to assert copyright over the work, even though some of the actual carving was done by others. Copyright can be held by the master artist even though they may not have personally executed every element of a work. This was the case with the famous glass artist Dale Chihuly who was sued by one of his staff, one Michael Moi, who claimed that he was not just an employee in Chihuly’s studio but a co-creator. At the time (2017) I wrote a blog post in which I pointed out that in a studio controlled by a master artist (like Chihuly or Andy Warhol for example), the master could legitimately claim to be the creator if they exercised overall artistic control. That included “signing off” or authenticating the work as meeting their standards. The US District Court in Seattle was apparently of the same mind as Moi’s claim was thrown out in 2019.

What about joint authorship being shared among the carvers? There are provisions in Canadian copyright law for joint authorship, with no limit on the number of authors who can be involved, but it is generally accepted there must be intent and mutual understanding from the outset on the part of all parties that the work will be one of joint authorship (a US concept that has been applied in Canadian legal cases). A joint work exists, subject to mutual agreement, where the work of one author is not distinct from the work of the other(s), although the contribution of each party does not have to be precisely equal. But it must be substantial. There needs to be joint labour in execution even if one contribution is qualitatively or quantitively inferior to the other. Therefore, it is possible that two or more carvers could execute a work where they could claim to be joint authors, or co-owners of the copyright in the work. This, however, does not seem to be the case with notable Haida totem poles carved in recent years.

The most notable individual names in Haida pole carving (apologies to anyone I have inadvertently left out who should be included) are, using their English language names, Charles Edenshaw (1839-1924), Bill Reid (1920-98), Robert Davidson (b. 1946) and Jim Hart (b. 1952). Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Reid, Davidson and Hart are all related to Edenshaw. He was Reid’s great-great uncle and great grandfather to both Davidson and Hart. Hart, a member of the Order of Canada, has been a prolific pole carver, and there are several well-known poles directly associated with him. Among these are the Reconciliation Pole at UBC, erected in 2017 and other poles at the university’s Museum of Anthropology. These poles are all recognized as the works of Jim Hart. As such he would have a copyright claim on the design of his poles, even if they followed traditional designs. He could not stop someone else from using a similar traditional design, but he could prevent copying of his precise expression of those designs. Photos of the poles, however, such as those at the top of this blog, are not protected by copyright under what is commonly referrred to as the “freedom of panorama”. Section 32.2(1) (b) (ii) of the Canadian Copyright Act applies.

Just in case you were wondering, this says;

“It is not an infringement of copyright…for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph…a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship…that is permanently situated in a public place or building”

Whew. My photograph above is not infringing.

Back to Jim Hart. I have focussed on Hart because I had a brief personal encounter with him and one of his carved works in an unusual place for a totem pole, Seoul, Korea some 35 years ago, when we were both much younger. At the time, 1990, I was an officer at the Canadian Embassy. Then, as now, the embassy was actively working to promote increased trade and investment between Canada and Korea and to promote bilateral ties, we organized a Canada Week in March of 1990. There were a series of cultural and business events, including the opening of a major Canadian Trade Show at the KOEX, an exhibition centre in Seoul. Someone in Ottawa had the bright idea of shipping a pole carved by Hart to Seoul as a cultural attraction to help promote Canada Week. The pole had been shipped from Vancouver to Yokohama to be part of the Canadian pavilion at the Yokohama Expo ’89. Why not send it on to Seoul before it was shipped back to Canada? As a result, one of my key tasks was to negotiate with various Korean municipal authorities to have the pole erected at the front entrance of the KOEX. In a note of binational solidarity, Hart’s enormous pole was to be matched with two Korean jangseung, smaller (about 6 feet) poles that traditionally were erected at the entrance to Korean villages. They feature carved faces designed to frighten off evil spirits and bear some resemblance to small totem poles. While there is no proven cultural or genetic connection between Koreans and North American Indigenous peoples, Koreans are fascinated with the possibilities, and this “hook” gave us a real publicity boost.

A collection of wooden totem poles with carved faces, standing in a garden area. The background features a stone wall and bare trees under a clear sky.

Image: Shutterstock.com

The difficulties we faced in finding a suitable site in front of the exhibition building, and then getting approval from the municipal authorities and the utlities seemed insurmountable—but we did it. The digger went to work to excavate the hole for the pole—until buried electrical wiring was discovered. A quick adjustment was made and Hart’s pole was exhibited “lying down”, on its back, with the top of the pole slightly raised, under a plexiglass cover in front of the main entrance. Erecting the jangseung upright beside them was relatively simple by comparison. Before we knew it Korean children were clambering all over it, and we had to hire a security guard to shoo them away before the big opening the next day. On March 27, 1990 Canada Week at the KOEX opened with widespread Korean media coverage. Jim Hart, who was there, performed a ceremony around the pole and was interviewed by the Korean media. Two Canadian pianists, Anagnosen and Kinton who, it appears, are still actively performing, played just inside the entrance. The event was a huge success. I breathed a deep sigh of relief. Jim Hart and his work of art had helped make it all happen. I don’t know what has happened to that particular pole. It was shipped back to Canada and may today be looking out over the beach at Massett, Haida Gwaii, Jim Hart’s home. I had hoped to make contact with him during our visit there but regrettably was not able to do so. 

I realize I have taken a very long detour to answer the question as to whether a totem pole can be copyrighted. While Indigenous cultural expression does not always align well with western legal concepts, partly because of the individuality requirements and time limitations of works protected by copyright statute, I hope I have demonstrated that, yes, a unique totem pole in which identifiable individual or joint authorship can be determined, is indeed protected by copyright.  

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Update: I have subsequently learned, upon reading the recently released book 7IDANSOO James Hart: A Monumental Practice, published by the Audain Art Museum, that the pole in question, a replica of a 19th century pole that once stood at the now-abandoned village of Yan across the estuary from Old Masset, was installed at Yan in 1991, where it stands to this day. The Audain book is a comprehensive catalogue of Hart’s life and work, beautifully edited and presented.

Art on Ice

A serene underwater image of a person with closed eyes, partially submerged, surrounded by bubbles and ice.

Reproduced with permission of the artist

It was the eerie, almost creepy yet beautiful image of a young woman apparently face-up, frozen under the ice while serenely exhaling air bubbles, that caught my attention. CBC News produced a video reporting on how New York-based artist David Popa creates artwork on frozen lakes, in this case Abraham Lake in Alberta. Popa uses chalk and charcoal to create his works. The quality of the ice surface is all-important, he says. He has done other works off the coast of Finland on the frozen Baltic Sea but prefers Alberta lakes because of their deep blue hue, caused apparently by sudden freezing. Popa goes a lot of trouble to create artworks that disappear shortly after their creation, ephemeral works which, because of the medium on which they are created, do not qualify for copyright protection unless preserved in some other medium (like the CBC footage). In copyright terms, this is referred to as “fixation”.

It seems that every couple of years I write a piece about the attributes of copyright, outlining the basic requirements it takes to establish copyright in a work. (This is for readers new to copyright, not the old pros). One of the hot topics right now is the role of AI. Various attempts have been made to register AI-generated works with the US Copyright Office, to date all unsuccessful. In jurisdictions such as Canada, where registration is simply a convenience rather than a requirement (in the US there is also no requirement to register copyright but if a rightsholder wants to take legal action to enforce a copyright in the US, prior registration is required), works generated by AI have received Certificates of Copyright. However, this actually proves nothing as in Canada there is no examination of the work itself. Issuance of the certificate is automatic upon payment of the fee provided the work has not already been registered by another Party. This has led to a legal challenge to the Canadian system from the University of Ottawa’s Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), an action that has proved controversial in some quarters. CIPPIC is challenging the Canadian registration of a work by Indian artist Ankit Sahni, who claimed his artistic work “Suryast” was jointly authored with his AI platform “Raghav”.

But while the role of AI in the creation of a work remains in flux (AI-assisted as opposed to AI-created works are more likely to be recognized as copyright protected), another required attribute, fixation, has not changed. Fixation is the fancy term of art establishing that the work is more than ephemeral, that it can be perceived and has a degree of permanence—although permanence itself is not a requirement. After all, what is “permanence”?  In the past I have discussed fixation with regard to such works as sand and ice sculptures, and even wedding cakes. (here and here).

The requirements for fixation vary slightly from country to country. In the US, a work must be “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” meaning it must be able to be visually or audibly perceived. This is to prevent claims to copyright of unexpressed ideas, noting that copyright only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. In the UK, British copyright law does not explicitly require fixation or permanence for artistic works (as opposed to literary, dramatic, or musical works, where it is required). In Canada to qualify for copyright protection a work must be fixed in a material form, such as paper, a video recording, audio recording, hard drives or memory card, even though fixation is not defined in the Copyright Act. The point is to ensure that the creation exists in some form other than in the author’s head. The website Copyrightlaws.com notes that;

In some cases, a work may not be considered fixed. One example may be works such as lectures, speeches, addresses and sermons that have not been written down or recorded in some manner prior to their presentation. The same may be true of an improvised comedy skit, a jam session or an improvised tune.  An unsaved image or text on a computer screen is not considered fixed.

While the Government of Canada site gives examples of acceptable material form, other forms beyond paper and digital recordings could include metal, canvas, wood, fabric, concrete and other material substances. What it almost certainly does not included, however, is ice. That is what brought me back to this topic, as outlined in my opening paragraph above.

Popa himself says, “My works are made to disappear. Wind, weather, thaw — nature always takes the final brushstroke… and somehow that impermanence makes the whole thing feel more alive”. His works will last until spring comes when they will disappear along with the ice roads, snowmobile tracks and left-behind ice fishing huts that someone forgot to remove. They must have all disappeared about a month ago, if not sooner.

But is the original work (i.e. not the photograph of the work, but Popa’s original) protected by copyright? Almost certainly not (note the “escape hatch” which is always required when discussing copyright generalities). If I had been able to get to Abraham Lake to photograph the work, I would be in the clear from a copyright perspective to use my photograph, to which I could claim copyright, the basic underlying work being unprotected. However, if I were to take a photograph of the work from the CBC video to use as an illustration for this blog post, or use one from Popa’s website, I would arguably be violating the copyright of either the CBC or Popa. I would need permission. So that’s what I did. I contacted Popa.

I am happy to say he generously agreed to grant me permission to reproduce and display the artwork at the top of this blog post. Thank you, David. If you would like to see how the work was actually created, watch here. It’s a remarkable piece of outdoor artistic creativity.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved

Like Wasps at a Picnic: (Distracting from the Canadian Heritage Committee Report on AI and Creative Industries)

Close-up of a wasp drinking from a metallic surface with blurred green background.

Image: Pixabay.com

It was as predictable as wasps at a picnic. Within days of the Canadian Parliament’s Heritage Committee releasing its report on “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creative Industries”, with its lead recommendation being (my highlights)…

That the Government of Canada protect the property rights and interests of artists through the principles of the Copyright Act, in accordance with the ART principle—authorization, remuneration and transparency:

a) The Government of Canada must take the necessary steps and ensure that the scope of the Copyright Act applies to AI-generated content in order to guarantee copyright protection.

b) The Government of Canada must mandate greater transparency from AI developers regarding copyrighted works used to train their models, including disclosure of training data sources, to enable proper authorization and licensing.

c) The Government of Canada must establish a clear opt-in consent requirement for the use of copyrighted works in the training of artificial intelligence systems, ensuring that creators’ works may not be used for text and data mining or model development without their prior authorization.

…prolific tech and copyright commentator Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa was attacking its conclusions, issuing warnings that unless the tech industry is allowed (without authorization or compensation from rightsholders) to help itself to copyrighted content for the purpose of AI training, we will have “AI without Canada”. In other words, unless the tech industry is allowed to plunder Canadian content in the same way that it has been doing to date in the US (although this is meeting legal challenges and is quickly changing as licensing solutions take hold), there will be less Canadian content in the training data. This, apparently, will leave Canada as an “outlier” compared to peer jurisdictions. The AI developers will turn their back on Canada and rush off elsewhere. (This is a standard threat deployed by the AI industry to play off one country against another). He cites the EU, Japan, Singapore and Israel, as well as the US in support of this interpretation. Not mentioned as “peer jurisdictions” are the UK and Australia but then that would not have served the purpose of his narrative. Australia has recently declared it will not be legislating a Text and Data Mining (TDM) exception to its copyright laws to legalize unauthorized ingestion of copyrighted works for AI training, while the UK has just hit the pause button on a series of ill thought-out and badly received proposals to allow AI developers to freely use copyrighted content to train their AI algorithms unless rightsholders specifically opt out.

Singapore and Israel are among a small minority of countries that, under US pressure, have adopted US-style fair use laws that potentially allow for a weakening of copyright protection through a hodge-podge of court rulings. While many cite Japan as a jurisdiction that has given carte blanche to tech interests and AI developers, the facts are quite different as I pointed out in this blog post a couple of years ago. Japan has a strong cultural industry that it wants to nourish and protect and has defined its TDM exception very narrowly and carefully. The EU, has two provisions in its Copyright Directive related to AI training (Article 3 which permits TDM carried out only for non-commercial scientific research purposes, and Article 4, which permits TDM for any purpose, including commercial, as long as rightsholders have not opted-out, subject to strict transparency provisions by AI companies). Both impose constraints on AI developers, although there are differing views on opt-out.

Opting-out may sound like a compromise that both rightsholders and the AI industry could support but Britain’s example demonstrates otherwise. In its now aborted public consultation, the UK government put forward several options including its “preferred” option of opt-out. Fully 97 percent of respondents, from both the tech and creative communities, trashed this option. For creators, opting out not only stands copyright on its head (it is a property right, so why should holders of that right be required to notify someone who wants to infringe on that right that they may not do so, i.e. it’s like passing a law allowing anyone to picnic on my front lawn unless I post a “No Trespassing” sign), but it is technically difficult to do, especially for individuals and small-scale rightsholders. The robots.txt protocol is not binding and is in many cases not very effective. The tech industry doesn’t like opt-out because it imposes constraints on their untrammelled ability to access anyone’s copyright-protected content, anywhere, anytime. Instead the Committee recommends “a clear opt-in consent requirement” for the use of copyrighted works in the training of artificial intelligence systems.

Now it’s my turn to quibble. IMHO, there should be no explicit need for a rightsholder to “opt in”. I think that Canada’s copyright laws, properly interpreted, already provide sufficient protection to prevent unauthorized use. A rightsholder can “opt in” to AI training or any other unauthorized use not subject to fair dealing by granting a license to use their content. If that is an “opt-in” requirement then I am in favour. If yet another opt-in step is required, this would seem to be unnecessary. Licensing is a growing phenomenon. AI developers want reliable, curated content to develop their applications. As long as they are prevented from simply helping themselves, there is incentive for them to reach licensing deals with content owners. However, giving the tech industry a pass by allowing themselves to take for free whatever they want in the name of developing AI applications (for their commercial advantage) removes the needed incentive to negotiate with rightsholders. As to whether unauthorized use for AI training constitutes fair dealing, as Dr. Geist claims (“most TDM for AI training purposes would likely qualify as fair dealing under existing law”), this is doubtful to say the least. It is hard to imagine which fair dealing purpose currently applicable in Canadian law (research, private study, education, parody or satire, criticism or review, news reporting) would apply particularly when there are fair dealing limits to the amount of a work that can be used for such purposes, and specific factors that must be applied as to the effect of the dealing on the work.

The Committee’s lead recommendation is not the only complaint that Dr. Geist has about the Committee’s report. He feels it is unbalanced because the majority of its witnesses represented the cultural industries. It’s true that its lead recommendation is very much in line with the mainstream views of the Canadian cultural community.  It was, after all, the Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This reminds me of the conflicting reports on copyright issued a few years ago by the Heritage Committee and its counterpart the INDU Committee. The 2019 Heritage Committee report, titled Shifting Paradigms, was attacked at the time by Dr. Geist as “the most one-sided Canadian copyright report issued in the past 15 years”. He claimed that there was “no attempt to engage with a broad range of stakeholders”, even though he himself appeared along with a number of others who shared his perspective on copyright. Shortly after issuing its own report, the INDU committee then issued a tone-deaf “We’re in charge” press release reminding the world that it had “sole responsibility” for administering the Copyright Act. (This is not strictly accurate). Dr. Geist’s main complaint, whether with “Shifting Paradigms” in 2019 or the current Heritage Committee report seems to be that the Committee members, in their wisdom, did not take his expert advice.

What is the function of Parliamentary Committees? It is to hear evidence, draw conclusions and make recommendations. He complains that while there were different points of view, including notably his, on how to tackle the issue under study, the Committee’s conclusions did not reflect these views. Was it because, numerically, there were more pro-copyright witnesses from the creative community that those from the Geist camp? That is theoretically possible if it were just a mathematical exercise of adding up comments in a pro and con column. But that is not the case. While the Report made a conscientious effort to capture the full range of comments, including those of Dr. Geist, in the end the members (from three political parties) made a judgement and reached consensus conclusions. (Although the Conservative Party members provided their own addendum that added to but did not refute the Committee’s conclusions). Presumably the members of the Committee were more convinced by the force of the arguments presented by some witnesses than others. Given the range and similarity of concerns presented by disparate members of the creative community it is not surprising where they came out in terms of conclusions.

Dr. Geist is entitled to disagree with these conclusions and recommendations. To be fair, his blog commentary echoes the position he presented to the Committee, except for his complaints about process. As I said at the outset, his attack on the Committee’s report is entirely predictable, like wasps at a picnic. And those wasps can be so annoying, distracting from the main event with the occasional bite and annoying buzzing, but as any determined picnic-goer knows, it’s important to not let them become the centre of attention. The Heritage Committee’s report was carefully considered and drafted by an all-party group after hearing from a wide range of experts. It provides important recommendations that the government would be well advised to take into account as it develops a legal framework in which both the AI and creative industries can co-exist and flourish.

© Hugh Stephens, 2026. All Rights Reserved