Dickens’ Provisions: Reversion of Literary Rights to an Author’s Estate

June 4, 2021 Paul Emile Trudelle Estate Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Estates of artists pose problems. Issues arise with respect to the ownership, use and disposal of the artist’s works.

An important consideration relating to copyright and estate assets is the concept of “Dickens provision” under Canada’s copyright laws.

Briefly put and simplified, the Copyright Act creates reversionary rights with respect to the heirs of an author. Notwithstanding any assignment agreement made during the lifetime of the author, the author’s copyright reverts to the author’s estate 25 years after the death of the author.

The provisions are technical, and there are important notice provisions that apply and must be followed before the reversion can occur. This was the issue in the 2002 decision of Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc. v. Avonlea Traditions Inc.

In Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc. v. Avonlea Traditions Inc., the court sets out the reasoning behind the provisions: “This complex statutory framework of reversionary copyright was originally created in England to relieve against the hardship suffered by the impoverished families of deceased authors”. The court goes on to note that the reversionary rights have been repealed in England, but remain in force in Canada.

The Dickens provisions were applied in the matter of Winkler v. Roy. There, Thomas Kelley, who authored several books on the Black Donnellys[1], died. The court determined that under the Dickens provisions of the Copyright Act, his estate was the owner of the copyright, notwithstanding the fact that Kelley assigned the rights during his lifetime. The assignee would own the copyright until a date 25 years from Kelley’s death, and thereafter, the copyright would belong to his estate.

Subsequently, the Kelley estate sued another author, Nate Hendley for copyright violations, alleging that Hendley copied Kelley’s story of the events relating to the Donnellys. The action was dismissed. The court held that Kelley presented his version of the story as being true historical facts. The rule that “there is no copyright in facts” applied, even if some of the facts as presented by Kelley were subsequently shown to be untrue and thus literary creations.

One takeaway from all of this is that estates of artists require special care and consideration. Expert advice is essential to their proper administration. A second takeaway is to avoid feuding with your neighbours.

Have a great weekend.

Paul Trudelle

 

[1] On February 4, 1890, after years of feuding, a mob of townsfolk attacked the Donnelly homestead, leaving five members of the Donnelly family dead and their farm burned to the ground. Despite two trials, no one was ever convicted of the murders.

A podcast on the event, written by Nate Hendley, can be found here.

2 Comments

  1. John Winkler 4 months Reply

    I believe an appeal is in order based on the Hager v. ECW Press Ltd. decision.
    Under Anglo-Canadian case law (namely Express Newspapers plc v News (UK) Ltd, and Gould Estate v. Stoddard Publishing Co.), as far as private interviews are concerned, it is the person who reduces the oral statements to a fixed form that acquires copyright therein. That individual is considered to be the originator of the work.
    As in the case of “The Black Donnellys”, each of the original stories authored by Thomas P. Kelley obtained through private interviews is made up of two elements. First, there is the news story as such; second, there are the quotations of the words used by the person inter-viewed.
    In Hager v. ECW Press Ltd. the quoted words of Ms. Twain cannot be divorced from the context in which they were spoken. They were elicited by Ms. Hager in response to questions she had framed. It is not appropriate to fragment Barbara Hager’s work and treat the quotes as independent parts. Barbara Hager’s work required each of (1) skill, (2) judgment and (3) labor for its creation.

    • Hull & Hull LLP 4 months Reply

      Thanks for commenting, John! We’re glad that you engaged so thoroughly with this post.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET

  • The latest episode of our podcast is now live! Hull on Estates #624 – Worsoff and Virtual vs. In-Person Examinatio… https://t.co/oblkloPaYh
  • Today's article: Substantial Compliance and the Dalla Lana Decision Read the full blog here:… https://t.co/Iy4CjZJN4L
  • Will the new test for limitation periods in New Brunswick affect claims in Ontario? Diana Betlej tackles this ques… https://t.co/CBalefszVu
  • The Law Society of Ontario provides assistance and guidance when you are trying to locate a Will. Read today's art… https://t.co/3voWfQDRfq
  • Last Friday’s blog references a recent report on the difficult issues arising when dealing with digital assets. Re… https://t.co/lQTMhdu2ez
  • Today's article: Applying the new standard for limitation periods. Read the full blog here:… https://t.co/Lk7Q3W2BSZ