Tag: canada

Would Anyone Copyright This Flag? (Not an April Fool’s Joke)

Image: Flags of the World (Used with permission)

No, this flag is not an April Fool’s joke, although I am posting this on April 1. As a flag design, it’s a dog’s breakfast. Not that a registered design has to be aesthetically appealing, but it needs to be original. And this one is original, in its own way. The flag of the Town of Ladysmith, BC, as Ladysmith councillor Jeff Virtanen has stated, is a “hodgepodge”. The mayor also agrees that it should be updated. Where it actually came from, no-one is saying but it is a pastiche of the red bars of the Canadian flag, with a maple leaf in the lower right, dogwood symbol (the provincial flower of British Columbia) in the upper left, and then, in the middle, a design of what appears to be a sail boat (Ladysmith does have a harbour) with two horseshoes superimposed on the sail (not sure what they are supposed to represent), with a diagonal slash that says “49th parallel”.

That is a reference to Ladysmith’s location, smack on the 49th parallel, the dividing line between Canada and the United States for most of North America west of Lake of the Woods. However, owing to a quirk of both history and geography, when the boundary west of the Rockies between the United States and British possessions in North America was settled by the Oregon Treaty of 1846, all of Vancouver Island, which extends south as far as Victoria at latitude 48’ 25” N, was included within British territory. Somehow, the fact that you can drive through the 49th parallel without being accosted by the US Border Patrol or the Canada Border Services Agency is part of Ladysmith’s appeal. Actually, it is a nice little town of 9,000 originally established as a coal mining centre back at the beginning of the 20th century, with a great location, some nice heritage buildings—and a very eclectic flag.

Last year I wrote about flags and copyright (“Flagging Copyright Concerns: Vexillologists Take Note”), given the controversy over the Australian Aboriginal flag, when the Australian government had to fork over AUD$20 million to purchase the copyright to a flag design that it had adopted, as the Aboriginal flag, under the Flags Act. Aboriginal artist Harold Thomas had designed the flag back in the 1970s and an Australian court had upheld his copyright on the design. I doubt if there is going to be any dispute over ownership to the Ladysmith flag, although you will note that the flag image gracing this blog at the top of this page is used with permission of the website Flags of the World, which has a depiction of the Ladysmith flag along with 188,000 other flags. It is very detailed. If you want to know what the flag of Tannu Tuva between 1933 and 1941 looked like, this is the place to find out.

Generally, most country flags are not copyright protected either because the designs have lost protection owing to the lapse of time or because governments have made them copyright exempt. However, there may be other forms of intellectual property protection to ensure the national flag is not misused in such a way as to misrepresent a commercial entity as a government institution, or to prevent it from being disfigured or dishonoured.

Flags of the World has an extensive section on copyright, noting that,  “Our editorial policy is to include images only when we can ascertain that we have permission to use them”. The website gives permission to use any of the flags on the site under the following conditions;

  • you limit your use to a maximum of 5% of the images or content of the website (let’s see, 5% of 188,000 is 9,400 so I am OK there)
  • you quote the author (Check, did that)
  • you quote the website (Check, yup)
  • you do not alter in any way the images or the content of the text (Check)
  • you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only (And Check)

It looks like I am in the clear when it comes to using this particular flag image. However, just to be extra vigilant I asked for and was granted permission to use the flag design on the website which was designed by Masao Okazaki from a photo located by Dave Fowler. It is not clear who the original designer of the Ladysmith flag is or was.

Now, whether and when Ladysmith’s municipal flag will get a makeover is a good question. It may not be top of mind for residents who are dealing with other issues, like inflation, world peace or whatever. Still, a flag is a branding tool, and this brand needs updating.

But here are some copyright considerations that Ladysmith Town Council might want to consider.

When the new design is approved by Council, no doubt after an extensive public consultation process, the flag designer (or their estate) will hold the copyright for the work for the duration of their lifetime, plus 70 years. That is unless they are an employee of the town and were assigned the task of flag design as part of their duties, in which case ownership would vest in the township (unless there is an agreement between the employee and employer to the contrary) although the copyright term of protection will still last for the life of the author plus 70 years. In Canada, there can be a distinction between authorship and ownership. If the artist is not an employee but if the work is produced under a “contract of service or apprenticeship”, (as opposed to a simple “contract for services”), the township will also own the copyright. But if the work is done under a “contract for services”, i.e. as an “independent contractor”, the author of the work will control the copyright. What is the difference between the two types of contracts? That is why we have lawyers!

If you want to add another layer of complexity, even if the copyright is owned by the township, the author will still enjoy moral rights in the work, that is the ability to protect the integrity of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. So, if we take the current flag as an example, and Council decides to remove the two horseshoes from the sailboat’s flag, in theory the creator of the original design (if anyone is aware of who that is) could assert their moral rights to oppose the modification of the flag. Better to get a new one designed and, if possible, control the copyright through contractual provisions.

Replacing a poorly designed flag may be a good idea, but keep in mind the copyright ramifications. I am sure that the Town has a legal department, or at least a lawyer on retainer for legal advice, so they will no doubt do it right. I can hardly wait to see the new flag floating proudly over Ladysmith harbour.

© Hugh Stephens 2024.  All Rights Reserved

After Blocking News in Canada, Meta Challenges Australia (Again)

Image: Shutterstock via AI modification

It was inevitable. After Meta pulled the plug on news content on its platform in Canada as its way of complying with the obligations of the Online News Act, Australia, the model that Canada sought to emulate, was surely next in line. On March 1, Meta announced that it plans to stop paying publishers of news content in Australia, and will not renew its current agreements with Australian media once they expire. Most will expire this year.

Canada had modelled its Online News Act (Bill C-18) on Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, albeit with “improvements”. Rod Sims, who was head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) at the time the Commission designed the Code (later incorporated into legislation as the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Act 2021), was invited to testify before the Canadian Parliamentary committee examining Bill C-18. In his testimony, Sims talked about the success of the Code, its benefits for not just large media players but also many smaller “country” outlets, estimating the benefits to be north of A$200 million per year to journalism in Australia. He added that the institution of the Code “has transformed the journalism landscape in Australia. It’s gone from pessimism to optimism.”

Inspired by the results of the Australian legislation (which, by the way, ended up not designating either Google or Facebook under the Code, since they managed to come to sufficient “voluntary” agreements with Australian media), Canada moved ahead, basing its legislation on the Australian law but adding a couple of additional features. One was to increase transparency with regard to deals that would be struck under the law. Another was to require self-designation by platforms (while making it apparent that only Meta/Facebook and Google) met the criteria, allowing them an exemption if they reached acceptable deals with media. In this way, the companies could not avoid designation and would be subject to the law, something they strongly opposed, even though both had already engaged in voluntary programs on their own terms to provide some financial support to selected media outlets.

Just as happened in Australia, (see “Google’s Latest “Stoush” with Australia: What’s the Lesson from Germany’s Failed Effort? and “Facebook in Australia: “READY, FIRE, AIM”) both platforms pushed back strongly against the draft legislation, threatening to block news for Canadian users. (Facebook briefly and disastrously blocked news for Australian users during its campaign against the Code, but ultimately backed down). First, in the fall of 2022 Facebook said it might have to block postings of news on its Canadian platform, followed by Google which  threatened to block search for Canadian news in Canada by Canadian users. By the summer of 2023, when the Online News Act became law without any of the amendments proposed by the platforms, Meta upped the ante by declaring that it would end news availability on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada prior to the Act taking effect, set for December 2023. Again, just as in Australia, Canadian government leaders were public in their condemnation, accusing Meta of threatening and irresponsible behaviour. Alas, it was all to no avail. It appears Meta had already made its decision to not provide financial support for news content in Canada, and to end the few existing agreements that it had undertaken in the past. At the time, it indicated it would also be taking similar action elsewhere. Rather than submit to the legislation by negotiating with media entities, it complied (in letter if not in spirit) by blocking links to Canadian media. Negotiations with Google continued and eventually a compromise of sorts was reached whereby Google agreed to contribute to a fund which would be used to support journalism in Canada.

This was a somewhat pyrrhic victory (the fund will be about $100 million, less than half what had previously been estimated), but a victory nonetheless in the eyes of at least some of the news media. One can debate the overall success of the legislation (see MediaPolicy.ca’s “The Online News Act is law: a buzzer-beater win or epic miscalculation?”), but along with more government financial support, the Google funded pot will be welcomed by many smaller media outfits. Ironically, establishing a fund rather than requiring negotiations between the platforms and media for payment for content was an early proposal by some commentators. Now this has come to pass more by accident than design. Criteria for disbursing from the fund have been tweaked so that broadcast media, and in particular the CBC, who employ the bulk of news journalists in the country, get less than their proportional share would otherwise indicate.

The lesson for Canada, and now for Australia, is that the big digital platforms will not hesitate to play hardball if they feel their global interests are threatened. While Australia, followed by Canada, was first off the mark with legislation designed to level the playing field between a stressed journalism sector and the monolithic platforms, the response of the platforms was governed more by potential precedent than the specifics of those markets. The existence of draft legislation at the federal level in the US, (the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, aka JCPA) as well as at the state level in California and Illinois, has not escaped the attention of Meta and Google. (Even the watered-down compromise settlement that Google made with Canada has led to some lip-smacking speculation in the US as to the amount of funding that could flow to US media). It appears that Meta, in the face of cost cutting and loss of market share in 2022, had made a business decision that if it had to pay for access to news content, it would do without. To what extent this is a wise business decision remains to be seen, but the company has clearly made a business decision in this regard. This decision may or may not affect Meta’s bottom line, but it will have the effect of leaving the platform as a purveyor of less than reliable information from nonprofessional sources. However, doing the most socially responsible thing as opposed to maximizing profits by cutting costs is not what Meta is about.  Having made its decision, it will need to unwind its commitments to Australian media, which it is now in the process of doing.

What does this mean for Australia and what can the Australian government do about it? Writing about this in Canada’s National Post, Rod Sims, now professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, outlined some choices the Australian government needs to face. It could move to designate Meta under the Bargaining Code and force it into the negotiation and arbitration process. That would likely lead to Meta taking precisely the action that it took in Canada. The government could amend the legislation, but to what end? It could publicly criticize Meta, accusing it of unfairness and bad behaviour. It has already done this, with Prime Minister Albanese saying that what Meta is doing is “not the Australian way”. That will have zero influence on Mark Zuckerberg and the people who run Meta.

At the end of the day, Australia can stand up to Meta, and let the chips fall as they may, or it can allow Meta to free ride on Australian news content, accepting that there may be social benefits in allowing this to happen. A recent report by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) points out that Facebook is the largest social media platform for general news and half of Facebook’s users in Australia report using the social media platform for news. (Regardless of this, Meta’s beancounters give news no value to the platform). According to a University of Canberra report cited by ABC, 45% of Australians get their news from social media as opposed to less than 20% from print sources. The largest source of news is still TV at 58%. (The numbers are greater than 100 because many consumers get their news from more than one source).  In one sampling, 14% of Australians got their news from Instagram! While I find this personally appalling (indirectly revealing my age), that is the reality of our society today. Better that consumers find reliable, curated news somewhere–but we still need to recognize that responsible journalism needs to be paid for. Meta, apparently, has no desire to be a part of that equation. Without the infusion of responsible, curated journalism, Facebook will become an even greater home for misinformation than it already is. But does Meta care? Clearly not. Consumers need to be encouraged to find their news sources elsewhere. Easier said than done.

The Australian government is no doubt pondering how to respond in the best interest of Australia. Allowing Meta to wriggle out from its obligations under the Bargaining Code would not necessarily undermine the deals struck with Google, who appears to have accepted that its overall interest is best served by some form of accommodation. Having Microsoft, which has publicly stated it is willing to subject itself to both the Australian and Canadian legislation, breathing down its neck is undoubtedly a factor in this. Even if the Google deal won’t be undone, it is still galling that Meta can get away with it. Canada had to swallow that reality, yet stood up to Meta. What will Australia do? It’s a tough call.

© Hugh Stephens, 2024. All Rights Reserved

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: The Canadian Cultural Community Speaks Out

Image: http://www.shutterstock.com

The extended period set by the Canadian Government (through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED) for response to its consultation paper on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Copyright closed on January 15. We will start to see a flurry of submissions released by participants while ISED digests and assesses the input it has received. One of the first is the submission from the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expression (CDCE), which represents over 360,000 creators and nearly 3,000 cultural businesses in both French and English-speaking parts of Canada. CDCE’s membership includes organizations representing authors, film producers, actors, musicians, publishers, songwriters, screenwriters, artists, directors, poets, music publishers—just about every profession you can think of that depends on creativity, and protection for creative output. The CDCE submission highlights three key recommendations, summarized as follows;

  • No weakening of copyright protection for works currently protected (i.e. no exception for text and data mining to use copyrighted works without authorization to train AI systems)
  • Copyright must continue to protect only works created by humans (AI generated works should not qualify)
  • AI developers should be required to be transparent and disclose what works have been ingested as part of the training process (transparency and disclosure).

While none of these recommendations are surprising, and from my perspective are eminently reasonable, I am sure we will also see a number of submissions arguing that, “in the interests of innovation”, access to copyrighted works is not only essential but should be freely available without permission or payment. OpenAI, the motive force behind ChatGPT—and the defendant in the most recent high-profile copyright infringement case involving AI (When Giants Wrestle, the Earth Moves (NYT v OpenAI/Microsoft)—has already staked out part of this position. In its brief to the UK House of Lords Select Committee looking into Large Language Models (LLMs), a key technology that drives AI development, the company says;

“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression–including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents–it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials (emphasis added). Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.”

OpenAI claims that it respects content creators and owners and looks forward to continuing to work with them, citing among other things, the licensing agreement for content it has signed with the Associated Press. But failure to reach a licensing deal with the New York Times is really the crux of the lawsuit that the media giant has brought against OpenAI and its key investor Microsoft. If reports are true that OpenAI’s licensing deals top out at $5 million annually, it is not surprising that licensing negotiations between the Times and OpenAI broke down over such lowball offerings.

As for the CDCE submission to ISED, it recommends that the government refrain from creating any new exceptions for text and data mining (TDM) since this would interfere with the ability of users and rightsholders to set the boundaries of the emerging market in licensing. No copyright exemption for AI is what the British government has just confirmed, after playing footsie with the concept for over a year. Apart from the examples of the licensing deals that OpenAI has with the Associated Press and German multimedia giant Axel Springer, the CDCE paper notes a range of other recent examples of content owners offering access to their product through licensing arrangements, including Getty Images, Universal Music Group and educational and scientific publishers like Elsevier. The paper also urges the government to avoid interfering in the market when it comes to setting appropriate compensation, leaving it to market players or, where the players can’t reach agreement, to the quasi-judicial Copyright Board.

In my view, licensing is going to be the solution that will eventually level the playing field, but to get there it will require that major content players lockout the AI web-crawlers while pursuing legal redress, as the NYT is doing. This will help to open the licensing path to smaller players and individual creators who don’t have the resources available to employ either technical or legal remedies. (The issue of what has already been ingested without authorization still needs to be settled). As for the tech industry’s suggestion that creators can opt-out of content ingestion if they wish, CDCE rightly points out that this is standing the world on its head, and would be contrary to longstanding copyright practice. Not only is it impractical in a world where what goes into an AI model is a black box (thus the imperative for transparency) but it is like saying a homeowner has to request not to be burgled, or else can expect to become a target.

On the question of whether AI generated works should be granted copyright protection, CDCE points out the double-standard of proposing an exception to copyright for TDM for inputs while claiming copyright protection for AI generated outputs. The need for human creativity is a line that has been firmly held by the US Copyright Office, pushing back on various attempts to register AI-generated (as opposed to AI-assisted) works. Canada has not been quite so clear cut in its position, owing to the way in which copyright is registered (almost by default, without examination) in Canada, as I pointed out in this blog post (A Tale of Two Copyrights). While AI generated works have received copyright protection in Canada (Canadian Copyright Registration for my 100 Percent AI-Generated Work), this is more by oversight than design, given the way the Canadian copyright registration system works.

Thirdly, we turn to transparency, a sine qua non if licensing solutions are to be implemented.  If authors don’t know whether their works are being used to train AI algorithms, or can’t easily prove it, licensing will fall flat. CDCE calls for publication of all content ingested into training models, disclosure of any content outputs that contain AI, and design of AI models to prevent generation of illegal or infringing content. This is similar to requirements already under consideration in the EU.

CDCE also makes the important point that it is not just copyright legislation that defends individual and collective rights against the incursions of AI and big AI platforms. While the Copyright Act offers some protection to creators, privacy legislation is important for all citizens. As the UK Information Commissioner has pointed out in a recent report, the legal basis for web-scraping is dependent on (a) not breaching any laws, such as intellectual property or contract laws and (b) conformity with UK privacy laws (the GDPR, or General Data Protection Regulation), where the privacy rights of the individual may override the interests of AI developers, even if data scraping meets other legitimate interest tests.

Finally, there is the question of the moral rights of creators that can be threatened by misapplication of AI, whether it is infringement of a performer’s personality or publicity right, distortion of their performance or creative output, misuse of their works for commercial or political reasons or any of the other reasons why copyright gives the creator the right to authorize use of their work.

Quite apart from the question of AI, there are of course other outstanding copyright questions that need to be resolved urgently, including the longstanding issue of the ill-conceived education “fair dealing” exception that has undermined if not permanently damaged the educational publishing industry in Canada. This exception needs to be narrowed to allow users continued unlicensed access to copyrighted materials under fair dealing guidelines for study, research and educational purposes but to limit institutional use to situations only where a work is not commercially available under a license from a rightsholder or collective society. While this issue requires looking back and fixing something that is already broken, policy making with respect to AI and copyright needs to anticipate the future and “do no harm”, while requiring AI developers to open up their black boxes and respect existing rights. This should be achieved by maintaining and protecting the rights of creators in ways that will facilitate market-based licensing solutions for use of copyrighted content by AI developers, while ensuring that creative output remains the domain of human beings, and not machines.

© Hugh Stephens, 2024.