Celebrating the extension of copyright term in Canada, and debunking ridiculous objections.
Published in the Toronto Star, January 19, 2023
Why are Canadian artists accused of harming culture whenever something good happens to our careers? Sounds backwards, doesn’t it? And yet, here we go again.
In December, Parliament extended the term of copyright protection in Canada, from 50 years after an author’s death to 70 years. That’s an extra two decades of value for artists to negotiate within professional agreements and contracts.
The change brings Canadian cultural workers into alignment with our colleagues in the United States, the U.K., and almost all other major trading partners. Essentially, Canada upgraded to a new global standard for copyright terms. Good stuff.
Artists here are now on even ground in international sales, and no longer enter those transactions at a competitive disadvantage. These are all positive outcomes, with zero downside. In fact, I’d argue it’s impossible to find a net negative for Canada in this legislative change.
And yet, in these very pages last week, a librarian from Queen’s University complained about copyright like it was a biblical plague upon consumers.
It will limit library digitization!
Readers won’t be able to get old books!
Only a few artists will benefit, while all cultural consumers will “lose!”
These fear-based attacks on artists’ rights are pure fantasy, and should all be read as … but now we can’t have everything for FREE (frowny-face emoji).
Please. Every single cultural professional in Canada benefits from a copyright term extension. And when artists benefit, so too do audiences, collectors, and readers. A healthier cultural economy means more culture.
Longer copyright terms increase the value of our work to legitimate follow-on creators who want to license those rights. Yes, yes — not for free — but that’s called commerce, and it’s a good thing. Or are artists expected to ignore the economy? Are we to eat accolades and pats on the back?
This copyright term extension is good for Canada. It deepens the value of our artistic estates, which continue to give back long after an artist has passed away. I know of many artistic estates left to charities and not-for-profits, which benefit for decades from continued sales and licensing.
Creative earnings are thus recycled to the benefit of hospitals, social justice causes, the unhoused, students, people living in poverty, and even struggling artists. Why would anyone want such benefits to stop?
All the panic-stricken “harms” attached to copyright boil down to a short-sighted discomfort with seeking permission or paying a fee. Digitization of out-of-print work is ongoing under copyright protection. In fact, it’s often done by authors themselves. Access to older works is entirely possible — it may just come at a small price. Libraries should partner with authors; not seek to weaken their rights.
Let’s stop equating payment for culture with harm or loss. That’s cheap rhetoric, and an insult to cultural labour.
John Degen is a poet and novelist with three published books. He is chief executive officer of The Writers’ Union of Canada.