Edited by Estelle Derclaye
Chapter 5: The Requirement of Originality
for a dramatic work could still be protected as a series of photographs.19 Originality was a prerequisite for protection under both headings, and it appears that the emphasis put by section 35 on the originality of cinematograph productions did not set a more stringent test than for other types of works.20 However, there remained uncertainties as to which films could be considered as dramatic works under the Act.21 The characterization of a given film as a dramatic or a non-dramatic film (the latter being protected under the sole heading of photographs) is important. Dramatic films received protection for a longer period, that is, author’s life plus fifty years,22 as against fifty years from their making for non-dramatic films.23 Also, dramatic films could be reproduced by anyone, subject to Section 35(1) further defined ‘cinematograph’ as including ‘any work produced by a process analogous to cinematography’. 17 However, the idea of protection of the visual recording constituted by the film strip as a specific subject-matter, by analogy to sound recordings, was expressed in the Gorell Committee Report, and comparison between the two ‘recordings’ was made. 18 Nordisk Films Co. Ltd v. Onda [1919–24] MCC 337; also, under a similar definition, the Canadian case of Canadian Admiral Corp. Ltd v. Rediffusion Inc. (1954) 20 CPR 75; 14 Fox Pat. C. 114. 19 Nordisk Films Co. Ltd v. Onda [1919–24] MCC 337. 20 Ricketson, op. cit., at para. 10.3, pp. 550–1; H. Laddie, P. Prescott and M. Vitoria, The...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.