Snow V Eaton

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1
1982 CarswellOnt 1336, 70 C.P.R. (2d) 105
Snow v. Eaton Centre Ltd.
Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. et al.
Ontario High Court of Justice
O'Brien J.
Judgment: December 8, 1982

© Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its Licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights re-
served.
Counsel: J.H. Porter, Q.C., and D.A. Potts, for plaintiff.
W.J. Miller, for defendants.
Subject: Intellectual Property; Property; Property
Copyright --- Nature of copyright — Moral rights
Distortion, mutilation or modification of work -- Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, s. 12(7).
Sculpture of flying geese sold to defendant for public display -- Defendant attaching ribbons to necks of
geese -- Interlocutory injunction granted for removal of ribbons -- Plaintiff's concern for prejudice to reputa-
tion being reasonable -- Modification being contrary to s. 12(7) of Act.
Copyright --- Nature of copyright — Moral rights
Distortion, mutilation or modification of work -- Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, s. 12(7).
Sculpture of flying geese sold to defendant for public display -- Defendant attaching ribbons to necks of
geese -- Interlocutory injunction granted for removal of ribbons -- Plaintiff's concern for prejudice to reputa-
tion being reasonable -- Modification being contrary to s. 12(7) of Act.
O'Brien J.:
1 The application in this motion relies solely on s. 12(7) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, and
in particular that part which gives the author the right to restrain any distortion, mutilation or other modific-
ation of his work that would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.
2 The distortion or modification complained of is that of attaching ribbons to the necks of the 60 geese
forming a sculpture known as "flight stop", a work of the plaintiff sold to the defendants and paid for by
them and a Wintario grant.
3 The geese were be-ribboned by the defendants without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff, an artist of international reputation takes the position that the work as presently displayed is preju-
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2
dicial to his honour and reputation. Counsel advise there are no cases which interpret s. 12(7) of the Copy-
right Act.
4 The defendants argue that the plaintiff's complaint is not one which comes within s. 12(7) but if it
does, that section is unconstitutional. The Attorneys-General of Canada and Ontario have been notified of
this application and hearing but are not intervening at this stage of the proceedings. The defendants further
submit s. 12(7) should be looked at in a manner similar to a libel or slander action. I am not persuaded the
section of the Act is unconstitutional. In my view the use of the word "independently" in s. 12(7) merely in-
dicates the rights conferred by that section are in addition to the author's right of copyright. I reject the argu-
ment that I interpret s. 12(7) as suggested, in my view, the section gives rights greater than those based on li-
bel or slander.
5 It is conceded that the sculpture is a "work" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. I believe the
words "prejudicial to his honour or reputation" in s. 12(7) involve a certain subjective element or judgment
on the part of the author so long as it is reasonably arrived at.
6 The plaintiff is adamant in his belief that his naturalistic composition has been made to look ridicu-
lous by the addition of ribbons and suggests it is not unlike dangling earrings from the Venus de Milo.
While the matter is not undisputed, the plaintiff's opinion is shared by a number of other well respected
artists and people knowledgeable in his field.
7 The plaintiff does not seek to interfere with the Christmas advertising campaign of the defendants oth-
er than to have the ribbons removed from the necks of the geese.
8 I am satisfied the ribbons do distort or modify the plaintiff's work and the plaintiff's concern this will
be prejudicial to his honour or reputation is reasonable under the circumstances.
9 Application granted. Ribbons to be removed by Monday, December 6, 1982 at 9 a.m. If the matter
goes no further costs to the plaintiff in any event. If the matter proceeds, costs at discretion of trial judge.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

Snow V Eaton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Snow V Eaton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Snow V Eaton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1

1982 CarswellOnt 1336, 70 C.P.R. (2d) 105

1982 CarswellOnt 1336, 70 C.P.R. (2d) 105

Snow v. Eaton Centre Ltd.

Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. et al.

Ontario High Court of Justice

Judgment: December 8, 1982

Counsel: J.H. Porter, Q.C., and D.A. Potts, for plaintiff.

W.J. Miller, for defendants.

Subject: Intellectual Property; Property; Property

Copyright --- Nature of copyright — Moral rights

Copyright --- Nature of copyright — Moral rights

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

You might also like