Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc.

Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc. [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336 is one of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading cases on copyright law. This case interprets the meaning of "reproduction" within the Copyright Act of Canada, as well as touches on the moral rights to copywritten material.

Background

Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain bought the rights to make a limited number of paper copies of Mr. Théberge's paintings in order to create posters from them. Through a chemical process the gallery was able to lift the ink off the paper and put it onto a canvas, destroying the paper version.

Judgment

The issue before the court was to what extent does an artist have control over the reproduction of their work.

McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major and Binnie JJ. (majority) stated that there was no reproduction involved as no new copies were made. There was only the transfer of ink which is considered a modification rather than a copy. They criticized the plaintiff for trying to make a moral argument where the issue is one of economics when there is a claim of copyright infringement as opposed to moral right infringement.

In a claim of moral rights the plaintiff could have sued on the modification of the art, but no argument was made by the party.

In the end the court felt that it should not put too much power in the hands of the artist over the purchaser of the art, as it would overly limit the ability of private property owners to do what they will with their possessions.

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and LeBel JJ. (in dissent) took an artist-oriented approach. They interpreted the purpose of the copyright act as a means of protecting the rights of artists, and as such must take a broader interpretation of "reproduction". In their definition "reproduction" does not necessarily involve making additional copies, rather a "reproduction" was merely a "fixation". That is, a new physical structure or "production" of the work.

External link

• full text