2014 FCA 173, 2014 FCA 173

A-330-12 2014 FCA 173 Catherine Leuthold ( Appellant ) v . Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. ( Respondent ) Indexed as: Leuthold v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Federal Court of Appeal, Pelletier, de Montigny ( ex officio ) and Mainville JJ.A.—Montréal, February 25; Ottawa, June 27, 2014.

Copyright –– Appeal from Federal Court decision awarding appellant damages, other remedies against Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as result of admitted infringement of appellant’s copyright in five images taken during terrorist attack on World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001 — Appellant claiming $22 million in damages but awarded US$20 000 — Pictures appellant taking made available for licensing to news media — CBC wanting to use 5 of appellant’s images for documentary; seeking appellant’s consent to do so — Appellant providing written consent thereto but unclear whether consent applying to broadcast of documentary on Newsworld — CBC later seeking second licence (Stills Licence) to broadcast images, one year later, in documentary; appellant entering second licensing agreement therewith — At trial, CBC conceding having infringed appellant’s copyright several times but disputing amounts owed therefrom — Federal Court finding, inter alia, that both licences granted including right to broadcast images on Newsworld; that unauthorized broadcasts on relevant dates constituting 6 acts of infringement for which appellant entitled to compensation; that broadcast of documentary containing images amounting to single act of infringement — Whether Newsworld covered by Stills Licence; how many acts of infringement existing herein; what was measure of damages for infringing acts; whether accounting of profits of cable companies generated by infringing broadcasts should be ordered — Newsworld separate entity from CBC — To extent conclusions drawn on basis of what appellant failed to exclude from Stills Licence, Federal Court’s reasoning on whether Stills Licence covering Newsworld not accepted — CBC acquiring only those rights circumscribed by specific phrase at issue in Stills Licence agreement — As to whether appellant including Newsworld in grant of rights found in Stills Licence, Federal Court considering all evidence; reaching conclusion reasonably open thereto based on evidence — Error thereof regarding

interpretation of Stills Licence not fatal to conclusion; not making palpable or overriding error warranting intervention — Therefore, broadcast of images on Newsworld on September 10, 2002 not constituting act of infringement of appellant’s copyright — No rights acquired by virtue of appellant’s failure to exclude Newsworld from grant of licence — As to number of acts of infringement, Copyright Act , s. 2.4(1) (

c) examined — Act, s. 2.4(1) (

c) properly interpreted having effect of making network transmission of cable programming material to public via broadcasting distribution undertaking single infringement of copyright holder’s rights if network not properly clearing rights with respect to transmission — In present case, six transmissions of documentary containing appellant’s images, in violation of appellant’s copyright, constituting six acts of infringement as Federal Court finding — Federal Court also concluding that each of six broadcasts of documentary at issue considered single communication to public; thus single act of infringement — Since damages depending on number of infringing broadcasts, Court’s comments indicative of view that each retransmission not separate act of infringement — Federal Court making no palpable, overriding error in making such conclusion — Since Federal Court correctly finding that only six acts of infringement existing, appellant’s argument on measure, amount of damages failing; appeal on accounting of profits also failing — Appeal dismissed.

This was an appeal from a Federal Court decision awarding the appellant damages and other remedies against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as a result of the admitted infringement of her copyright in five images taken during the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The appellant appealed because the Court awarded her damages of US$20 000 when her claim was for $22 million. The difference between these two figures depended largely on the number of times the appellant’s copyright in the images were infringed.

The appellant, a professional photo-journalist residing in New York City, took a number of photographs on September 11, 2001 during the events which unfolded that day. She later made them available for licensing by news media and others. Later, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) commissioned a documentary which was meant to show how the events of 9/11 were seen through the eyes of journalists and photographers who covered the story as it happened. The CBC wanted to use five of the appellant’s images and sought her consent to do so.

The appellant only provided her written consent on March 19, 2002, while the CBC documentary was broadcast on March 17. It was also unclear whether the consent applied to the broadcast of the documentary that same day on Newsworld. Subsequently, the CBC sought a waiver from the appellant respecting the March 2002 broadcasts and later to obtain a licence to broadcast the images in the documentary a second time in September 2002.

The appellant thus entered into a second licensing agreement (the Stills Licence) in October of that year granting the CBC the right to broadcast the images on Canadian television for one broadcast on CBC’s network and regional TV stations. The documentary was broadcast on the CBC network and on Newsworld on September 10 and again on Newsworld on September 11, 2002. Following this, CBC directed that the appellant’s images be removed from the documentary since it was known at that point that the appellant was not prepared to give the CBC unlimited rights to broadcast her images.

The images were only removed from some versions of the documentary but not others. The documentary was rebroadcast in 2003 and 2004 and all but one of those broadcasts was of a version of the documentary containing the appellant’s images. At trial, the CBC conceded that it had infringed the appellant’s copyright a number of times but disputed the amounts owed thereto as a result of those infringing broadcasts. The appellant argued in particular that the first licence granted did not extend to Newsworld and that both licences authorized only a single over-the-air broadcast in a single time zone.

The Federal Court found that both licences granted included the right to broadcast the images on Newsworld; that the phrase “one broadcast on CBC’s Network & Regional TV stations” in the second licensing agreement included the right to one broadcast in each time zone on the ground that this was industry practice; and that the unauthorized broadcasts on the relevant dates constituted 6 acts of infringement for which the appellant was entitled to compensation.

It found that the broadcast of the documentary containing the images on each of the relevant dates amounted to a single act of infringement since there was only one communication of the program to the Canadian public. It set damages to US$19 200 for the 6 infringing broadcasts and another small amount was set as award for profits.

The issues were whether Newsworld was covered by the Stills Licence; how many acts of infringement existed in this case; what wasthe measure of damages for the acts of infringement; and whether an accounting of profits of the cable companies, which were generatedby the infringing broadcasts, should be ordered. Held, the appeal should be dismissed. Regarding whether Newsworld was covered by the Stills Licence, the meaning of the phrase “for one broadcast on CBC’s Network &Regional TV stations” had to be determined. Newsworld is a separate entity from the CBC for regulatory purposes and is a separateundertaking.

The Federal Court reached its conclusion largely on the basis of evidence of industry practice. To the extent thatconclusions were drawn on the basis of what the appellant failed to exclude from the Stills Licence, the Federal Court’s reasoning couldnot be accepted. A licensee acquires only those rights which the licensor has granted it. The CBC acquired only those rights which werecircumscribed by that specific phrase at issue in the Stills Licence agreement. No rights were acquired by virtue of the appellant’s failureto exclude Newsworld from this grant of a licence.

Whether the appellant included Newsworld in the grant of rights found in the StillsLicence had to be determined. The Federal Court considered all the evidence and reached a conclusion that was reasonably open to itbased on that evidence. Its error regarding the

interpretation of the Stills Licence was not fatal to that conclusion. There was no palpableor overriding error warranting intervention. As a result, the broadcast of the images on Newsworld on September 10, 2002, was not anact of infringement of the appellant’s copyright. As to the number of acts of infringement in this case, the appellant relied on paragraph 2.4(1)(

c) of the Copyright Act in support of herclaim that each transmission to a broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) by the CBC was an infringement of copyright. However,paragraph 2.4(1)(

c) legislates that the distribution of a network signal incorporating a protected work to BDUs and the subsequentcommunication of that work to subscribers is but a single network-wide infringement in which each participating BDU is jointly andseverally liable along with the network. In that way, all those who benefit from the communication of the work share in the liability forcompensating the rights holder, subject to whatever arrangements may be in place between them. This reading of paragraph 2.4(1)(

c) ofthe Act moves in the direction of technological neutrality in that the number of infringing acts does not vary according to the number ofintermediaries in the transmission chain. There is one act of infringement whether the work is communicated to the public via one BDUor via hundreds of them. The measure of damages may depend upon the number of viewers of the work, which has a rational connectionwith compensation. Paragraph 2.4(1)(

c) properly interpreted has the effect of making a network transmission of cable programmingmaterial to the public via BDUs a single infringement of a copyright holder’s rights if the network has not properly cleared the rights withrespect to that transmission. In this case, the six transmissions of the documentary containing the appellant’s images, in violation of hercopyright, constituted six acts of infringement as found by the Federal Court.

The Federal Court also came to the conclusion that each ofthe six broadcasts on the relevant dates was a single communication to the public of the documentary containing the appellant’s imagesand thus a single act of infringement. This conclusion was reached on the basis that the technical means used to relay the infringingcopies were not determinative of the damages. Given that damages depended on the number of infringing broadcasts, the Court’scomments were indicative of its view that each retransmission was not a separate act of infringement.

It made no palpable and overridingerror in coming to that conclusion, which would justify intervention. The appellant, while not conceding that the Federal Court was correct in finding that there were only six acts of infringement, adopted itsconclusion that the amount of damages flowing from

an act of infringement represented US$3 200. Since the Federal Court correctlyfound that there were only six acts of infringement, the appellant’s argument on the measure and amount of damages failed. The ground of appeal pertaining to an accounting of profits failed as well. In particular, the BDUs were not party to the litigation and theFederal Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to make an order against them. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, s. 2(1) “broadcasting”. Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, ss. 2.4(1)(c), 31(2). International Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

I.10. Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, s. 2. TREATIES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS CITED United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods,

Schedule to the International Sale of Goods ContractsConvention Act, S.C. 1991, c. 13. CASES CITED applied: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. Distinguished: Bishop v. Stevens, (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467, (1990), 72 D.L.R. (4th) 97. considered: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2014 FCA 84, [2015] 1 F.C.R. 509. referred to:

Toronto (City of) v. Cacciatore, , 161 O.A.C. 132; Zurich Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Davies, (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 670, (1981), 130 D.L.R. (3d) 748; Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006SCC 21, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 744; Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2010 FCA 183, 409 N.R. 152; Entertainment Software Associationv. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 231.

APPEAL from a Federal Court decision (2012 FC 748, 413 F.T.R. 162) awarding the appellant damages and other remedies against theCanadian Broadcasting Corporation as a result of the admitted infringement of her copyright in five images taken during the terroristattack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Appeal dismissed. APPEARANCES Daniel O’Connor for appellant. Christian Leblanc for respondent. SOLICITORS OF RECORD Daniel O’Connor, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, for appellant. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montréal, for respondent.

The following are the reasons for judgment rendered in English by [1] Pelletier J.A.: Ms. Leuthold appeals from the judgment of the Federal Court, reported as Leuthold v. Canadian BroadcastingCorporation, 2012 FC 748, 413 F.T.R. 162, in which she was awarded damages and other remedies against the Canadian BroadcastingCorporation as a result of the admitted infringement of her copyright in five images taken during the terrorist attack on the World TradeCenter on September 11, 2001. [2] Ms. Leuthold appeals because the Court awarded her damages of US$20 000 when her claim was for $22 million.

The differencebetween these two numbers depends largely on the number of times Ms. Leuthold’s copyright in the images was infringed which is themajor issue in this appeal. [3] For the reasons which follow, I would dismiss Ms. Leuthold’s appeal. I. THE FACTS AND THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL [4] Ms. Leuthold, a professional photo-journalist, resides in New York City and was present in that city on September 11, 2001. Asthe events of that fateful day unfolded, Ms. Leuthold took a number of photographs which she later made available for licensing by newsmedia and others.

In the months following these events, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (the CBC) commissioned a documentarywhich was meant to show how the events of 9/11 were seen through the eyes of journalists, cameramen and photographers who coveredthe story as it happened. [5] The CBC wished to use five of Ms. Leuthold’s images (the images) and contacted her for her permission to do so. Negotiationstook some time with the result that while the documentary was broadcast on March 17, 2002, Ms. Leuthold did not communicate herwritten consent to the use of the images until March 19th (the March 19th licence).

An issue arose as to whether that consent also appliedto the broadcast of the documentary the same day on Newsworld, the CBC’s 24 hour specialty news channel. [6] Following the initial broadcasts, the CBC continued to deal with Ms. Leuthold, first, to get her to sign a waiver with respect tothe March 2002 broadcasts and later, to obtain a licence to broadcast the images in the documentary a second time in September 2002. OnOctober 7, 2002, Ms. Leuthold entered into a second licensing agreement which was referred to in the Federal Court decision as the StillsLicence.

In that licence, she granted the CBC “the right (but not the obligation) to broadcast the [images] on Canadian television for onebroadcast on CBC’s Network & Regional TV stations”. [7] The documentary was broadcast on the CBC network and on Newsworld on September 10, 2002 and again on Newsworld onSeptember 11, 2002. Following this, an official at CBC directed that Ms. Leuthold’s images be removed from the documentary as it wasknown by then that Ms. Leuthold was not prepared to give the CBC unlimited rights to broadcast her images.

For reasons unknown, theimages were only removed from some versions of the documentary but not others. The documentary was rebroadcast in 2003 and 2004;as luck would have it, all but one of those broadcasts was of a version of the documentary which contained Ms. Leuthold’s images. Attrial, CBC conceded that it had infringed Ms. Leuthold’s copyright on September 11, 2002, September 7, 2003, September 8, 2003,September 11, 2004, and twice on September 12, 2004 (collectively, the relevant dates) but disputed the amounts owed to Ms. Leutholdas a result of those infringing broadcasts. [8] Ms.

Leuthold’s argument at trial was that the March 19th licence did not extend to Newsworld so that even if the broadcast of theimages on the CBC network was covered by the licence, the broadcast by Newsworld was not. The trial Judge found that the March 19thlicence included the right to broadcast the images on Newsworld. This conclusion is not challenged on appeal. [9] The trial Judge also found that the Stills Licence applied to the broadcast of the images by Newsworld.

In particular, he foundthat the expression [at paragraph 89] “‘One broadcast on CBC’s Network & Regional TV stations’” included Newsworld for thefollowing reasons: • CBC’s practice was to always include Newsworld when it was clearing rights. • It was not commercially sensible to conclude that CBC would have agreed to terms which ran counter to its normal usage. • The contra proferentem rule does not apply because any ambiguity can be resolved by reference to industry practice.

[ 10 ] Ms. Leuthold argued that both licences authorized only a single over-the-air broadcast in a single time zone so that the broadcast of the documentary later in other time zones was an infringement by CBC. As a result, after the broadcast of the documentary in the Atlantic region, each subsequent broadcast in the same time slot in each time zone from east to west across the country was also an infringement. Finally, Ms.

Leuthold also argued that each retransmission of the broadcast in the chain from the CBC studio to the consumer was in infringement so that each Broadcasting Distribution Undertaking or BDU (such as a cable companies or satellite distribution system) and each local affiliate was also an infringer with whom the CBC was jointly and severally liable. [ 11 ] The trial Judge found that the “one broadcast” contemplated by the Stills Licence included the right to one broadcast in each time zone on the ground that this was industry practice; see reasons, at paragraphs 70–71.

This is not challenged directly in this appeal but the issue is implicit in the calculation of the number of infringing acts. [ 12 ] The CBC admitted that it was jointly and severally liable with the cable companies for the unauthorized broadcasts of the images on the relevant dates. It did not, however, concede that each retransmission by each cable company was

an act of infringement. [ 13 ] Having found that Newsworld was included in both licences, the trial Judge went on to find that the unauthorized broadcasts on the relevant dates constituted six acts of infringement for which Ms. Leuthold was entitled to compensation.

The trial Judge accepted the CBC’s argument based on the definition of “broadcasting” in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act , S.C. 1991, c. 11. [ 14 ] The trial Judge appears to have found that the expression “other means of telecommunication” included the cable systems so that a broadcast was a transmission from the CBC to the public: see reasons, at paragraphs 98–100.

In the trial Judge’s view, the broadcast of the documentary containing the images on each of the relevant dates amounted to a single act of infringement as there was, on each of the relevant dates, but one communication of the program to the Canadian public. [ 15 ] The trial Judge then turned to the issue of damages. He found that the technical means by which the documentary was communicated to the public ought not to be a factor in the calculation of damages.

After reviewing the law of damages, the trial Judge concluded that the starting point was the price which would have been asked for broadcast licences, had they been sought in advance of the infringing broadcasts. He reviewed the evidence as to the prices paid for Ms. Leuthold’s images in the past, noting that she was careful to limit the number of uses to be made of her images under each licence which she negotiated. The Court set the quantum of damages for each infringement at US$3 200 for each of the six unauthorized broadcasts on the basis that Ms.

Leuthold could have negotiated a higher fee than the US$2 500 fee which she agreed to in the Stills Licence if she had known of the repeated use of the images. This amounts to US$19 200 for the six infringing broadcasts. [ 16 ] On the issue of recovery of profits, the trial Judge refused to order an accounting of profits and calculated the amount due to Ms. Leuthold under this heading by dividing Newsworlds’ gross revenue by the proportion of the entire broadcast taken up by the display of the images. This yielded an award for profits of $66 for the 2003 broadcasts and $102.73 for the 2004 broadcasts. [ 17 ] Ms.

Leuthold withdrew her claim for punitive damages against the CBC and one of its employees but pursued her claim for exemplary damages, arguing that they acted in a callous manner. The trial Judge dismissed the claim for exemplary damages because he was satisfied that the infringing broadcasts were the result on an honest mistake, not a deliberate decision to infringe Ms. Leuthold’s copyright. [ 18 ] The trial Judge dismissed Ms. Leuthold’s claim for an injunction on the basis that there was no probability that CBC would broadcast the copies of the documentary containing Ms.

Leuthold’s images again. [ 19 ] Finally, the trial Judge asked for further submissions on the issue of costs. His award of costs is the subject of a separate appeal. II. THE ISSUES [ 20 ] Ms.

Leuthold identified the following issues in this appeal: • Was Newsworld covered by the Stills Licence? • How many acts of infringement were there? • What is the measure of damages for the acts of infringement? • Should the Court order an accounting of profits of the cable companies which were generated by the infringing broadcasts? [ 21 ] To this I would add the issue of the standard of review though it can be disposed of summarily. This is an appeal from the decision of a trial judge after a trial. Following Housen v.

Nikolaisen , 2002 SCC 33 , [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, the standard of review for findings of fact and findings of mixed fact and law is palpable and overriding error. The standard of review for questions of law (including extricable questions of law in a finding of mixed fact and law) is correctness. III. WAS NEWSWORLD COVERED BY THE STILLS LICENCE? [ 22 ] The operative words of the Stills Licence are: Catherine J. Leuthold… hereby grants to CBC the non-exclusive and limited right to incorporate the Stills in the Production.

CBC shall have the right (but not the obligation) to broadcast the Stills on Canadian television for one broadcast on CBC’s Network & Regional TV stations. [ 23 ] The issue is what is meant by the phrase “for one broadcast on CBC’s Network & Regional TV stations.” The trial Judge approached the issue from the point of view of whether there was one communication to the public. Ms. Leuthold approaches it from the perspective of whether Newsworld is part of “CBC’s Network & Regional Stations”.

[24] Ms. Leuthold’s evidence was that Newsworld meant nothing to her. She only learned of it later, that is, after the licence wasgranted: see reasons, at paragraph 52. To that extent, she could not have intended to grant rights for Newsworld since she ignored itsexistence. CBC’s evidence, on the other hand, was that it routinely included Newsworld when it was clearing rights for broadcast. [25] The evidence was that Newsworld is a separate entity from the CBC for regulatory purposes. It has its own CRTC licence as aSpecialty Programming Undertaking.

It is, from the point of view of the regulators, a separate undertaking. On the other hand, the factthat Ms. Leuthold seeks damages from the CBC for unauthorized broadcasts of the image by Newsworld suggests that she does not viewNewsworld as a separate legal entity. If she did, she would sue Newsworld for its unauthorized broadcasts of the images. [26] The trial Judge came to the conclusion he did largely on the basis of evidence of industry practice. Ms. Leuthold seeks to counterthis evidence by relying on the Ontario International Sale of Goods Act [R.S.O. 1990, c.

I.10] and by extension, the United NationsConvention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods [Schedule to the International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act,S.C. 1991, c. 13]. This Act does not help her as it deals with the sale of goods. A contract for the sale of goods is defined at

section 2 ofthe Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. S.1 as follows: Sale andagreementto sell 2.

(1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in the goods tothe buyer for a money consideration, called the price, and there may be a contract of sale between one part owner andanother. [27] A licence agreement is not a sale of goods; no property in goods is transferred as a result of a licence agreement. All that isconveyed is a right to use the property which is subject to the grantor’s copyright in certain ways. Furthermore, an intangible such as aninterest in copyright is not a good: see Toronto (City of) v.

Cacciatore, , 161 O.A.C. 132, at paragraph 14. [28] Ms. Leuthold also argues that the trial Judge erred in failing to apply the contra proferentem rule of construction to the StillsLicence. Contra proferentem is invoked in the case of contracts of adhesion such as insurance contracts (see Zurich Life Insurance Co. ofCanada v. Davies, (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 670, at page 674) and in the case of unequal bargaining power (see JesuitFathers of Upper Canada v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 21, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 744, at paragraph 28). Neither of thoseconditions is present here.

While it is true that the CBC has more resources than Ms. Leuthold, the latter is the one with the power in thenegotiations. She is the “vendor” and has the power to dictate terms, as she apparently did with respect to “one broadcast”. The fact thatthe Stills Licence was drafted by the CBC is not a reason to invoke contra proferentem because the clause at issue was one which wasnegotiated between the parties, as opposed to some of the other clauses which appear to be CBC boilerplate. [29] Ms.

Leuthold also argues that the Newsworld broadcast was not covered by the Stills Licence because it was in contravention ofNewsworld’s operating licence which prohibits the simultaneous broadcasting of programming on the CBC “regular” network and onNewsworld. I do not find this argument persuasive, as regulatory practices are not dispositive of copyright issues. [30] I am nonetheless unable to accept the trial Judge’s reasoning to the extent that conclusions are drawn on the basis of what Ms.Leuthold failed to exclude from the Stills Licence. A licensee acquires only those rights which the licensor has granted it.

The CBCacquired only those rights which are circumscribed by the phrase “to broadcast the Stills on Canadian Television for one broadcast onCBC’s Network & Regional TV stations”. No rights are acquired by virtue of Ms. Leuthold’s failure to exclude Newsworld from thisgrant of a licence. The question is whether Ms. Leuthold included Newsworld in the grant of rights found in the Stills Licence. [31] This question is one of mixed fact and law, reviewable on the standard of palpable and overriding error.

Palpable and overridingerror is found when there is an absence of evidence to support a given conclusion, or a factual finding that cannot be made rationally oras a matter of logic on the basis of the evidence in the record: see Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2010 FCA 183, 409 N.R. 152, atparagraph 33. That is not the case here. The trial Judge considered all the evidence before him and, based on that evidence, reached aconclusion that was reasonably open to him. His error with respect to the

interpretation of the Stills Licence is not fatal to that conclusion.There is no palpable or overriding error warranting this Court’s intervention. [32] As a result, the broadcast of the images on Newsworld on September 10, 2002 was not

an act of infringement of Ms. Leuthold’scopyright. IV. HOW MANY ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT WERE THERE? [33] This issue is the heart of Ms. Leuthold’s case. Her calculation of her damage claim is entirely a function of the large number ofdistinct acts of infringement which she saw in each broadcast of the documentary. [34] There is some basis for Ms. Leuthold’s approach to the issue. [35] In Bishop v.

Stevens, (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467, in the context of reproduction rights, the Supreme Court ofCanada held that each reproduction of a protected work attracted royalties (or damages) even if the reproduction was simply an adjunctto another activity such as broadcasting. This Court applied Bishop v. Stevens in the context of technological change in CanadianBroadcasting Corp. v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2014 FCA 84, [2015] 1 F.C.R. 509. In that case, we held that reproductions made as a step inthe use of digital content management software in the course of broadcasting were subject to the rights of the copyright holder.

The resultwas that the royalties due to the reproduction rights holder increased substantially. [36] Ms. Leuthold does not refer to this authority and instead relies on paragraph 2.4(1)(

c) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42(the Act) in support of her claim that each transmission to a BDU by the CBC is an infringement of copyright. Paragraph 2.4(1)(c)provides as follows:

Communication to the public by telecommunication 2.4

(1) For the purposes of communication to the public by telecommunication, … (

c) where a person, as part of (

i) a network, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act , whose operations result in the communication of works or other subject-matter to the public, or … transmits by telecommunication a work or other subject-matter that is communicated to the public by another person who is not a retransmitter of a signal within the meaning of subsection 31(1), the transmission and communication of that work or other subject-matter by those persons constitute a single communication to the public for which those persons are jointly and severally liable. [ 37 ] According to Ms. Leuthold, this result flows from the following reasoning (appellant’s memorandum of fact and law, at page 15, paragraph 47): This

section means, by way of example, that where Newsworld make two such transmissions to two BDUs, there would be two infringements under Section 3(1) (

f) of the Copyright Act because the second person that communicates the work to the public (the second BDU) is a different person from the first instance, even when such transmissions occur simultaneously. [ 38 ] It seems to me that the better view is that paragraph 2.4(1) (

c) legislates that the distribution of a network signal incorporating a protected work to BDUs and the subsequent communication of that work to subscribers is but a single network-wide infringement in which each participating BDU is jointly and severally liable along with the network. In that way, all those who benefit from the communication of the work share in the liability for compensating the rights holder, subject to whatever arrangements may be in place between them. [ 39 ] This reading of paragraph 2.4(1) (

c) of the Act moves in the direction of technological neutrality in that the number of infringing acts does not vary according to the number of intermediaries in the transmission chain. This is consistent with the goal of technological neutrality which the Supreme Court articulated in Entertainment Software Association v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada , 2012 SCC 34 , [2012] 2 S.C.R. 231, at paragraphs 5–10 . [ 40 ] There is one act of infringement whether the work is communicated to the public via one BDU or via hundreds of them.

The measure of damages may depend upon the number of viewers of the work, which has a rational connection with compensation, unlike the number of intermediaries, which does not. [ 41 ] Paragraph 2.4(1)(

c) serves to distinguish this case from Bishop v. Stevens where, as noted, each unauthorized reproduction was found to be a violation of the copyright holder’s rights. While that may have been the case for unauthorized communications to the public by telecommunication prior to the passage of paragraph 2.4(1) (

c) and its companion disposition subsection 31(2) of the Act , it is no longer the case now. [ 42 ] I am of the view that paragraph 2.4(1)( c ), properly interpreted, has the effect of making a network transmission of cable programming material to the public via BDUs a single infringement of a copyright holder’s rights if the network has not properly cleared the rights with respect to that transmission. In this case, the six transmissions of the documentary containing Ms.

Leuthold’s images, in violation of her copyright, constituted six acts of infringement, as found by the trial Judge. [ 43 ] The trial Judge also came to the conclusion that each of the six broadcasts on the relevant dates was a single communication to the public of the documentary containing Ms. Leuthold’s images and thus a single act of infringement. He came to this conclusion on the basis that the technical means used to relay the infringing copies were not determinative of the damages: see reasons, at paragraph 128.

Given that damages depended on the number of infringing broadcasts, the trial Judge’s comments are indicative of his view that each retransmission was not a separate act of infringement. In coming to that conclusion, he made no palpable and overriding error which would justify our intervention. V. WHAT IS THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR THE ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT? [ 44 ] In her memorandum of fact and law, Ms. Leuthold does not concede that the trial Judge was correct in finding that there were only six acts of infringement but she adopts the Judge’s conclusion that the amount of damages flowing from

an act of infringement is US$3 200. In those circumstances, Ms. Leuthold’s argument on the amount of damages stands or falls on the correctness of her calculation of the number of infringing acts. Since I have concluded that the trial Judge correctly found that there were only six acts of infringement, Ms. Leuthold’s argument on the measure and amount of damages fails. VI. SHOULD THE COURT ORDER AN ACCOUNTING OF PROFITS OF THE CABLE COMPANIES WHICH WERE GENERATED BY THE INFRINGING BROADCASTS? [ 45 ] The CBC points out in its memorandum of fact and law that Ms.

Leuthold did not raise the issue of the accounting of profits from the BDUs in her statement of claim. She asked only for an accounting of profits from the CBC. As the latter points out, the BDUs are not party to this litigation and the Court has no jurisdiction to make an order against them. Furthermore, I agree with the CBC that it is not open to Ms. Leuthold, on appeal, to seek a remedy which she did not seek in the Federal Court. This ground of appeal fails as well. [ 46 ] I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. de Montigny J.A. ( ex officio ) : I agree.

Mainville J.A.: I agree.