Question Title

1. In 2022 Canada will move to a term of copyright protection of life plus 70 years. The current term is life + 50 years. Do you have any examples of how this term extension might impact any projects, or proposed projects, in your work or at your organization?

Question Title

2. Does your organization only undertake digitization projects when you have obtained permission of the copyright holder to do so? Does the inability to figure out who owns the copyright in photographs, pamphlets, posters, newspapers, etc prevent your organization from digitizing those works as part of a digitization project?

Question Title

3. Please share any other compelling stories about how Canada's current copyright regulations, practices, or lack of certain exceptions affect your work.

An example of such a story in response to question 3 is the following from a public library:

"Our public library holds a collection of photographic negatives from a society that employed photographers to document life in the city in the early 1970s, funded by a federal grant. There is no documentation that clearly establishes whether the rights to the negatives were transferred with the donation, although this may have been the intention based on certain phrases and the declared intention to provide public access. For public domain work in its collection, or where rights are held by the library, the library digitizes the works and sells prints and digital copies. For many years, the lack of clear documentation prevented digitization of this collection. In 2008, a small portion of the collection was digitized and made available online. No further digitization or public access is being undertaken for this collection as determining ownership has proven complex, and changes to copyright law in Canada in 2012 increased the likelihood that the library may not own the rights. The library occasionally seeks permission from the photographers who are still living for special requests. As a result of this ambiguity, access to a significant collection documenting life in the city in the 1970s is prevented."

T