Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc.

“Copyright protects expression, not economic control over copies.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The decision in Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc. is a foundational judgment that clarified the scope and purpose of copyright law, particularly the limits of an author’s control once a lawful copy of a work has been sold. The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that copyright is intended to encourage creativity by protecting original expression, not to grant perpetual control over the physical copies of a work. This case remains a cornerstone for understanding exhaustion of rights and the balance between creators’ rights and public interest.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Claude Théberge was a professional artist who created original poster artworks. He authorized the sale of these posters, which were lawfully purchased by Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc., an art gallery. The gallery used a chemical process to transfer the ink from the paper posters onto canvas, after which the original paper backing was destroyed. The resulting canvas artworks were then sold at a higher price.

Théberge objected to this process and claimed that the gallery had infringed his copyright by altering the form of the artwork without authorization. He argued that the transfer process constituted reproduction of the work and violated his exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The principal issue before the Court was whether transferring ink from one physical medium to another amounted to “reproduction” of a copyrighted work. The Court also examined whether copyright law grants authors control over the transformation or resale of lawfully purchased copies, and whether economic interests alone are sufficient to establish infringement.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Théberge argued that the gallery’s actions created a new version of his artwork and interfered with his economic interests by competing with his original works. He contended that copyright protection should extend to prevent such transformations.

The gallery argued that no additional copy was created, as the image was merely moved from one surface to another. It maintained that once a lawful copy is sold, the copyright owner cannot control how that physical copy is used or resold, provided no new reproduction occurs.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of the gallery and held that no copyright infringement had occurred. The Court clarified that reproduction requires the creation of an additional copy, not merely the alteration of an existing one. It emphasized that copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the physical object itself.

The Court also highlighted the importance of balancing authors’ rights with users’ rights. It warned against expanding copyright protection in ways that would restrict lawful ownership and use of physical copies, noting that such expansion could hinder creativity and commerce.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This judgment confirms the doctrine of exhaustion of rights: once a copyrighted work is lawfully sold, the copyright owner cannot control subsequent uses of that physical copy unless a new reproduction is made. Artists and copyright holders should rely on clear contractual restrictions rather than attempting to extend copyright beyond its intended scope.

JUDGMENT

Year : 2002

The Supreme Court of Canada held that transferring an image from paper to canvas without creating an additional copy does not amount to copyright infringement.