Scott and Diane Robinson are livid with the Walmart store in Barrhaven and think apologies to their daughter Sydney and a friend, both 14, are in order for holding them for six hours over an unfounded shoplifting allegation.Police didn’t lay charges or even speak to the girls, according to Diane Robinson. She says once police finally arrived at the Walmart at the Barrhaven Market Place, they stayed fewer than three minutes. Diane says an officer talked briefly to store security and then to her to explain what the store was alleging. She says the officer left it at that before leaving.

An apology? How about a wrongful imprisonment suit? [Local cache of informative legal note: False Imprisonment]

Possibly related posts:

1. Thinking of visiting the US?
2. Fear gone amok…
3. France bans free press

Possibly related posts:

1. France bans free press
2. Police and DNA Data
3. Does anyone now doubt the US is a police state?

Peter, a Canadian citizen, was on his way back to Canada after helping a friend move house to Nebraska over the weekend. He was stopped at the border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan by U.S. border police for a search of his rental vehicle. When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond and walked was taken across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening). He’s home safe. For now. But he has to go back to Michigan to face the charge brought against him.

Possibly related posts:

1. Conservatives: No expectation of privacy on the Internet
2. USA wants to fingerprint people ‘approaching their borders’
3. Fear gone amok…

Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history.  His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

As my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes, the infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don’t shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

Possibly related posts:

1. Copyright News
2. Captain Copyright in a new light
3. Copyright Update

Just so you know, we have pretty much the exact same law here in Canada. (Thank you, US movie lobbyists).

(via /.)

UPDATE: Cory at BoingBoing puts it best:

The movie industry has turned into an alcoholic dad who beats up his family at the slightest transgression while ignoring his own gross failures — blaming everything on external forces and refusing to confront its own problems.

Meanwhile, 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach spent two nights in jail for recording her friends singing “Happy Birthday” at a movie theater, for capturing less than four minutes of a feature film. She is charged with a felony and if convicted, could lose the right to vote, to work with children, to hold office, and to partake in full civil life.

And the movie industry’s pitch to us remains, “Please stop pirating our discs, because if you don’t stop, we may be driven out of business and then society would suffer from our absence.”

Possibly related posts:

1. Copyright Consultation
2. Copyright EPIC FAIL (Irony warning)
3. Why the Canadian DMCA is bad

If you are in trouble overseas and go to a Canadian embassy, Canada’s government believes that it has the option, but not the obligation, to help. If the government is fond of you, like Brenda Martin, it may help with papers or a private jet home, but if it scorns you, like Mr. Abdelrazik, it may revoke your passport and exile you. The choice is the government’s alone.

No laws govern this relationship, the government says. As then-Mr. Justice Konrad von Finckenstein of the Federal Court wrote in an earlier case, “Canadians abroad would be surprised, if not shocked, to learn that the provision of consular services in an individual case is left to the complete and unreviewable discretion of the minister.” Except for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the minister’s exercise of the prerogative is absolute.

What this means is that Canadian citizenship is less than it appears.

Dr. Dawg is already all over this one, and it seems (shockingly) that the Liberals are against such Protection of Canadians. I suppose it makes sense, as the Abdelrazik thing started under their watch, after all. But Ignatieff, who has shown not even a shadow these last few months, is not making much of a positive impression on Canadians – at least, this Canadian.

Possibly related posts:

1. Who hired these guys?
2. Oh Canada!
3. Lawrence Cannon dissapoints again

* It never used to bother me, until I started the Wheel of Time series. Will it never end? Being dead is no excuse!!

Possibly related posts:

1. Medico-Legal Blogging Link…
2. A few interesting movies
3. An interesting blog for aspiring med students

Now for two months Cannon exiled a Canadian citizen, stating she was an ‘impostor’ (despite having multiple pieces of identification claiming she was who she said she was):

Mohamud, 31, spent a month visiting her mother in Kenya and was on her way back to Canada when an officer stopped her at Nairobi airport May 21, saying she did not look like her four-year-old passport photo.

At the crux of the matter was the size of her lips.

After spending eight days in jail she was released on bail with no travel documents.

Canadian consular officials said she was an “impostor,” voided her passport and sent the case to Kenyan authorities for prosecution.

As Mohamud showed various pieces of ID, volunteered fingerprints and garnered the attention of media across the country, the Canadian government maintained their stance that she was not the citizen she claimed to be.

The above quote is from this CTV article, which reveals that DNA now proves her identity, too.

Will the Canadian government apologize, and swiftly bring this Citizen home to her family? What actions will it take to remedy these grossly negligent acts, and ensure no other Canadian citizens are thus wronged?

I’m not holding my breath for sensible answers. But I have posed these questions to the ‘Honourable’ Cannon himself. You can too:

Hill Office:

House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 992-5516
Fax: (613) 992-6802
Email: Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca

Possibly related posts:

1. Oh Canada!
2. Who hired these guys?
3. A Law to make the government protect Canadians stranded abroad?

Michael Geist has his short answer – and I generally agree with him. Laura Murray has some further comments.

Why does copyright matter?

The consultation’s first question is also the most personal since the answer will be different for almost everyone.

For me, copyright matters because I am a professor and my students need access to copyrighted materials and the freedom to use those materials. It matters because I am a researcher who needs assurance that as materials are archived they will not be locked down under digital rights management. It matters because I am deeply concerned about privacy and fear that DRM could be harmful to my personal privacy. It matters because I have created videos and need flexibility in the law to allow for remix and transformed works and do not want my content taken down from the Internet based on unproven claims. It matters because I am a writer and I need certainty of access to speak freely. It matters because I am a consumer of digital entertainment and I want the law to reasonably reflect the right to view the content on the device of my choice. It matters because I am a parent whose children have only known life with the Internet and I want to ensure that they experience all the digital world has to offer. It matters because I live in a city with a strong connection to the digital economy and we need forward-looking laws to allow the next generation of companies to thrive. It matters because I am a proud Canadian who wants laws based not on external political pressure, but rather on the best interest of millions of Canadians.

Possibly related posts:

1. Copyright Consultation
2. Industry adds its voice to the Copyright Debate
3. Why the Canadian DMCA is bad

UPDATE: Wow, this post seems to have made it to #1 on Google on the subject, and is my most popular page this week. I guess I should clarify that the below is regarding Canadian (and I believe UK) law. The default in the US (where many of my visitors are likely from) is actually the opposite, i.e. commissioned photos’ copyrights rest with the photographer in the absence of an agreement otherwise.

Wal-Mart will sell you some great prints for really low prices, but the CD with digital images (although jpgs, not TIFFs/RAW files) costs an arm and a leg (well, not really, it’s a fair price, considering the photographer’s time) — and they only throw in a ‘copyright waiver’ with the CD. But, if I buy just a couple of pictures, the employees were under the impression I wasn’t allowed to reproduce them. I was pretty sure this was wrong.

So, I did some Googling and found The Professional Photographers of Canada web site, which clearly states (quoting the Copyright Act, Section 13):

Who is the author of a photograph determines who owns the copyright in the photograph. Generally, the author is the first owner of the copyright in a work. This is true for photographs with some exceptions. The Copyright Act provides that where a photograph is commissioned the copyright belongs to the person who orders the photograph. Prior to July 1, 1998 it did not matter whether the photographer was actually paid the commission fee. Effective July 1, 1998 the photographer’s fee must be paid before the copyright will belong to the person commissioning the photograph. If the fee is unpaid the copyright belongs to the photographer:

13(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of copyright.

So how is it that all these places get away with claiming you don’t actually own the copyright in these photos? Am I missing something? Some legal loophole?

I know Canadian photographers hate this, and have been trying to get the copyrights over commissioned photos changed…

There’s also an interesting discussion along similar lines (regarding school photos) at Digital Copyright.ca.

Addendum – In a number of ‘net discussions (pardon lack of linkage), it was pointed out that the law makes a distinction between the owner of the negatives (or original picture if there are none as in a digital photo) and the owner of the copyright in the photo. There really is no question that the photographer owns the original picture / negatives, and I can’t just take them / expect them to produce them. However, it seems they are wrong in claiming that when I order photos taken, and buy only a print or two, that I cannot get those prints reproduced. I am the copyright holder, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. It is actually the photographer who cannot reproduce the photos without my permission.

Addendum #2 – AmbientLight.ca has a page on Canadian Photography Law in general, including trespassing, your rights when nosy guards/cops confront you, and other valuable reading.

Possibly related posts:

1. Industry adds its voice to the Copyright Debate
2. Copyright Consultation
3. Copyright: What Prentice giveth, the fine print taketh away