I call the meeting to order.
Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 112 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as we continue our study on the legislative review of the Copyright Act.
If you've been following along, you've probably seen that we've already had quite a few witnesses. This is day four of our road trip, and it's been very successful. The questions that we're asking can be pretty tough sometimes, but we need to be able to get good answers so our wonderful analysts on this side here can make a fantastic report.
We are going to get started.
Today we have with us, as an individual, an author, Patricia Robertson.
From the Association of Manitoba Book Publishers, we have Annalee Greenberg, Editorial Director, Portage and Main Press.
We have, from the University of Manitoba, Naomi Andrew, Director and General Counsel.
Finally, from the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, we have Sherri Rollins, Chair of the Board of Trustees.
I will say that if you are not using your headpiece, keep it away from the microphone because it can go “pop” pretty loudly.
We have translators in the booth over there, some good supporters. It's not Quebec, so I can say “translators.” Everything that we're doing is being recorded and translated. It's all for the record, so take your time. Don't rush through your testimonies. You will each have up to seven minutes because we managed to add an extra couple of minutes. After all the presentations are done, we will go to our questions.
We're going to start with Patricia Robertson. You have up to seven minutes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to present in front of the committee.
My name is Patricia Robertson. I'm a writer of short fiction, novels, poetry, essays, and literary journalism. I've published two books and co-edited Writing North: An Anthology of Contemporary Yukon Writers. I hold an M.A. in creative writing and I've taught creative writing at the university level for over 30 years in Vancouver, B.C.; Whitehorse, Yukon; and now in Winnipeg. I've held writer-in-residence positions across the country in libraries and universities in B.C., Ontario, and Manitoba.
I'm also a professional editor, primarily in non-fiction and educational materials, and I've worked with a number of Canadian publishers and organizations. I've been a member of the Writers' Union of Canada, and I served two years on its governing council.
I'd like to sketch a brief portrait of my income as a writer—that is, writing-related income, excluding teaching and freelance editing.
Last year my writing-related income totalled $10,353. I was fortunate to receive $10,000 of that total from a Manitoba arts grant. I also received a grand total of $40 in book royalties and approximately $250 from the public lending right fund, administered by the Canada Council. Finally, I received $63 from Access Copyright, the agency that disburses funds received under the copyright tariffs.
A few years ago, before the educational sector decided on their own interpretation of “fair dealing” under the Copyright Act, I received about $500 a year, so you can see there's been a huge drop. I'm now receiving about 13% of what I used to receive per year.
My husband is also a writer. He is a poet with four published books. Together, we used to receive about $1,100 per year from Access Copyright. We now, together, receive about $100 per year as payment for the reproduction of our work. That's a drop of about 90%.
These amounts may sound very small to the committee. I can assure you that as two independent self-employed writers, my husband and I, for us $1,100 per year is a significant amount. The loss of that income is painful, and it's particularly painful to be exploited by a sector that ought to understand the need to fairly compensate Canadian writers who, after all, provide the content that the educational sector uses.
I work in the educational sector as a university instructor, and I want to be able to use a wide variety of materials in the courses I teach. I also want to be sure that the creators of those works are compensated for the use of their work in a course pack. Like many instructors, I rely on a company called Canadian Scholars to assemble the materials I select, verify their copyright status, and arrange for payment to the authors. I'm now told that Canadian Scholars is also more and more relying on the educational sector's interpretation of the Copyright Act and is therefore not compensating authors.
To be absolutely clear about what writers earn from their publishers and to clear up any misconceptions, most of us are not J.K. Rowling, or even Margaret Atwood, for that matter. A bestseller in Canada is about 2,000 copies. I'm talking about fiction now. The author's portion of that, assuming that the book is priced at $30, is 10% of net, or $1.80. That's a total of $3,600 for what may have been three or four years of work.
That's a best-case scenario. Most books are not bestsellers, and some of those 2,000 copies are promotional and author copies or damaged. Those 2,000 copies may take years to sell. Meanwhile, the author is working on the next book, subsidizing it through whatever freelance work or day job they can.
I'd like to finish by pointing out that large corporations, including universities, take all possible steps to protect their own intellectual property, yet apparently Canadian writers, who provide the imaginative and creative work that Canadian students read, are expected to essentially underwrite the educational sector for free.
When school boards are buying one copy of a book and photocopying a classroom set with no compensation to the writer whatsoever, there is something deeply wrong with the support of the cultural sector in this country.
I'm Annalee Greenberg. I am co-owner and Editorial Director of Portage and Main Press, and I am here today on behalf of the Association of Manitoba Book Publishers, or the AMBP. That is an organization that represents 14 publishers, producing a wide variety of books in English, French, and several indigenous languages. We want to acknowledge today that we are on Treaty No. 1 territory, home of the Métis nation.
Our primary concern is that the fair dealing section of the Copyright Act needs to be clarified. Adding education as a purpose for fair dealing has caused immense harm to Canadian and Manitoba publishers and has decimated the educational book sector. The changes affect both copyright royalties and book sales.
I know that you've heard from others in the publishing community, including the Association of Canadian Publishers, so I'll not repeat what you may have already heard, but I will provide some examples of how the changes have affected publishers here in Manitoba.
For instance, before 2012, Access Copyright royalty payments to Fernwood Publishing were enough to support a full-time employee. Now the payments might support a one-third-time worker. Several Manitoba publishers have reported drops in copyright revenues of between 75% and 90%. Creative sector jobs and Canadian content are both at risk of being lost.
When the education sector devised its own guidelines without consulting publishers, it ultimately led to litigation. The case of Access Copyright versus York University in the Federal Court in July 2017 illuminated the shortcomings of the education sector's interpretation of fair dealing.
In addition to the loss of copyright revenues, publishers are also seeing decreases in sales of books, as educators copy instead of purchase.
Within a year of the changes to the copyright law, Les Éditions des Plaines experienced a 35% decrease in overall sales because of copying, and sales of its educational material continued to decrease year after year. In 2016 it completely ceased publishing on the education side because it was unsustainable. This was a move that disappointed many educators, as Les Éditions des Plaines was one of the few publishers of French material outside Quebec. Translators, scholars, and K-to-12 educators who had been employed on the educational side were casualties of this decision.
Portage and Main Press, the company I am affiliated with, was also affected. With educators buying fewer books because of copying, author royalties have diminished. These diminished sales are not being balanced with K-to-12 copying tariffs, however, which at Portage and Main are down 88% from what they were in 2013. Our authors are facing a substantial drop in income as a result of those lost royalties, the means by which they are paid for their work. In some cases, they've taken other jobs, as writing no longer supports them.
We have reconsidered publishing textbooks and other curriculum materials, as revenues no longer cover the costs necessary to attain the quality standards expected by Canadian educators and that our company has become known for. I brought a few samples of textbooks that we and du Blé have published.
The educational component of Fernwood's publishing program has decreased from over 70% of its sales to about half. In time, there will be little or nothing produced by local writers and publishers that reflects regional and national narratives for schools and teachers to copy.
One publisher reported that it may now receive orders for a single copy of a textbook for an entire school or school division, which is clearly an unsustainable business model.
We do have some recommendations.
We recommend an immediate end to unfair copying, which in itself helps to clarify fair dealing. We'd also like to see clarity around fair dealing provisions that take into account purpose, character, amount of copying, alternatives, effect of the dealing, and nature of the work, as emphasized in the ruling on the Access Copyright versus York case.
We'd like to see educators and independent Canadian publishers work together to develop fair dealing regulations that are mutually beneficial. Manitoba publishers are ready to come to the table. We'd also like to see collective licensing reinstated in the education sector, as it is proven and affordable.
With publishers no longer developing high-quality, uniquely Canadian materials, teachers will have to find other resources for their classrooms. It may be a challenge to find such materials, because quality costs and expertise must be compensated. Ultimately, Canadian students are the losers.
I'd like to thank the chair and committee members for inviting me and my colleagues to appear today on behalf of the University of Manitoba and for granting us this opportunity to take part in this first Copyright Act review process.
We acknowledge that we are on the lands of Anishnaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota, and Dene peoples, and on the homeland of the Métis nation. We respect the treaties that were made on these territories. We acknowledge the harms and mistakes of the past, and we dedicate ourselves to moving forward in partnership with indigenous communities and in a spirit of reconciliation and collaboration.
The University of Manitoba will be submitting a written brief. However, we would like to highlight a few areas in our submission today. These are that the university is a content creator; it also supports the Canadian creative economy by being a content user, and it supports maintaining the fair dealing exemption. The university's library acquisitions have increased; however, there has been a corresponding shift toward acquiring more digital content.
As well, the copyright revisions need to support reconciliation and the mandate of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
The University of Manitoba is the largest university in the province, with a community of over 30,000 students and 9,000 faculty and staff. Our community members are both content creators and content users. As content creators we contribute significantly to the Manitoba creative economy through cultural productions, academic publications, and research projects. In 2017 over 3,000 publications included University of Manitoba affiliation.
In particular I'd like to point out that the University of Manitoba supports Canadian content, authors, and publishers through various initiatives, although sometimes through new acquisition models involving intermediaries. Also, our libraries have two long-standing programs for monograph acquisitions, focusing on Canadian literature and Canadian studies.
The University of Manitoba strongly supports maintaining education as a fair dealing purpose and stresses that this exemption is providing measured access to content for students and academics just as intended, as a reasonable complement to, not replacement for, purchased content. The perceived decline in profits attributed to the educational exemption may be more related to a change in our preference for licences and e-formats. Therefore, creators may see new revenue streams from these licences that reflect the dominant way in which we now acquire and make available scholarly content. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Over the past decade, university members have increasingly expected digital access to materials, and our acquisition trends reflect this. In speaking with my colleagues prior to this presentation, I noted that all my 11-year-old son's textbooks are online. That's the expectation as students move through the system.
The majority of our library acquisition expenditures now go toward subscriptions to license electronic academic journals, but I should also point out we continue to purchase and license scholarly monographs, both in electronic and in print formats. For example, from 2012 to 2018, our overall acquisitions expenditures that went toward e-subscriptions increased from 49% to 73%. During the same time period, e-books increased from 14% of annual monograph purchases to 77%. Thus, we are paying less in transactional fees and individual print copy purchases but significantly more to publishers for licences.
Universities are not in a position to acknowledge how publishers are compensating creators under the digital licences we are increasingly purchasing, but we urge caution that the Copyright Act should not be revised in a way that may inequitably shift the impact of the digital disruption from the publishing industry to the education sector.
I would like to end by speaking about copyright as it relates to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. The NCTR is hosted at the University of Manitoba and is home to approximately five million documents relating to the history of Indian residential schools. As with most archives, we do not own the copyright or the majority of archival documents and images.
The Copyright Act serves as a barrier when NCTR is contacted for permission to use archival images for purposes that clearly support reconciliation. Only the original creator of the photograph can permit its reuse if a copyright exemption does not apply. Because of the history of Indian residential schools, the requirement for an individual, such as a survivor, to have to contact a creator for permission is a very real barrier to youth and reconciliation. We propose that fair dealing be expanded to include an exemption permitting the use of full historical, archival, and museum content for reconciliation purposes.
While the University of Manitoba believes that the Canadian Copyright Act has strong provisions that benefit both creators and content users, we urge growth in terms of how reconciliation is treated under the Copyright Act. We will be elaborating on these issues further in our forthcoming brief.
On behalf of the Winnipeg School Division, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for the opportunity to provide feedback on the potential impact to student learning as a result of any revisions to the Copyright Act, specifically the requirements of section 29 on fair dealing.
It is my understanding that the framework for the review should include the educational needs and interests of indigenous peoples as part of reconciliation, as well as supporting Canada’s two official languages, French and English, in terms of access to materials in all forms, as identified in the Copyright Act. The Winnipeg School Division has some very key information to share to that end.
The members of the board of trustees are concerned that revisions to eliminate the fair dealing provisions would have a severe and negative impact on the ability of our teachers to provide our students with extensive and complete classroom resources, both digitally and in print, due to the inability to incur additional costs to access materials for—similar to the University of Manitoba—our 33,000 students throughout 78 schools.
Winnipeg School Division is one of the largest employers in the province, and the largest and oldest school division in Manitoba. The division provides educational programs and supports for more than 33,000 students, from nursery school to grade 12, including adult programming.
The demographics of the Winnipeg School Division are in exhibit A as provided. The division serves a significant number of families who live in poverty: over 50% of the families have incomes below the low-income cut-off. Indigenous families, such as my own, represent approximately 27% of all families with children in the division. Almost 50% of all immigrants who arrived in Winnipeg in the past five years live in the division's footprint, and 42% of elementary and 44% of secondary enrolment in the division experience high student migrancy levels.
We’re proud to offer educational programs and related services to students from nursery to grade 12 in regular elementary and secondary classes as well as alternative, advanced, and language programs. We have a wide variety of programming in place for students with special education and behavioural needs. We're committed to lifelong learning and offer programs that allow adults to continue to learn and enrich their lives and adolescent parents to succeed as parents and as learners. New Canadians and students and families from a variety of diverse cultures are also supported with programs in the Winnipeg School Division to help ensure success in our schools and our communities.
Student wellness and development is another priority that is evident in programming, such as school therapy and counselling services.
We've implemented a wide variety of initiatives to support indigenous education for both students and our staff. Indigenous programming and curriculum education initiatives are woven throughout nursery to grade 12, across curricula, across the Winnipeg School Division. Some examples include elders in schools, including our traditional knowledge-keeper and divisional elder; programs that include indigenous music, visual arts, dance; indigenous games, athletes, and role-model studies; star blanket math, and I could go on.
We also offer a number of language programs such as French immersion, but also bilingual Cree and Ojibwe programming, and bilingual Hebrew, Ukrainian, and Spanish. We also, of course, have English as an additional language to over 7,113 students.
The primary responsibility of our board of trustees is to ensure that all students receive the highest-quality education possible in our schools. As you can appreciate, in order to achieve these goals and foster academic, physical, social, and personal growth, teachers require access to a variety of educational materials to create engaged learners. For example, teachers need to incorporate current resources on human rights, poverty, equity, and sustainable development, including reconciliatory actions, and these resources might only be available online, in news media, or in digital formats.
Students need to be able to synthesize and present their discoveries using digital and video technologies and to express their viewpoints through creative arts and performances.
Students also need to be able to manipulate and reformat resources, as allowed within the Copyright Act, for educational purposes.
Along with this overarching responsibility, our board of trustees must provide responsible stewardship of the financial resources entrusted to it and must work in partnership with families, communities, and other organizations in ways that impact positively the overall well-being of children and youth. The federal government must be a partner, not a barrier, to this work.
As the division serves a very diverse and unique community in which education is critical for the success of youth, many programs and services are provided that are not currently funded by the Province of Manitoba. The costs for the various programs and services that our division is not required to provide within the Public Schools Act total over $14 million, and that is provided to you in exhibit C.
The division relies on the revenues raised from property taxation to offer unique programs and services for students. Of our funding, 60% is provincial government; the other 40% is raised through property taxation in Manitoba. In an urban indigenous city like Winnipeg, the Winnipeg School Division also has a story to tell this committee on the impact of the federal government's chronic underfunding on reserve, the pressures that this segregated system has had on our school, and the history of colonialism. Thanks to Murray Sinclair, our proud independent senator, there is an increasing public awareness of the deplorable living situations on reserve and a growing awareness of the impacts of poverty, poor housing, sanitation, and five generations of the Indian residential school, and we're only beginning to realize the costs on school systems, such as the one I represent in the Winnipeg School Division.
Many increased costs in school divisions' operations are beyond the control of school boards. Changes in student populations and enrolment due to immigration or refugee crises, for instance, changes in needs and expectations, as well as new provincial policy directions and legislation, arbitrated salary awards, and inflationary increases for services and commodities have significant financial impacts for school board budgets and implications for property tax levels.
The Winnipeg School Division recognizes and values the provisions of the Copyright Act, as expressed in federal law. Our commitment to honouring the rights of copyright holders is a priority for educators. We have done our part. We promote copyright provisions and invest funds annually through licences, ensuring copyright holders are compensated for use of work for SOCAN, the National Film Board of Canada, and Re:Sound, etc.
I am hopeful today that the information shared will demonstrate that substantial revisions to the Copyright Act and the principle of fair dealing would have a devastating impact on a school division like ours and the ability of our teachers to provide students with current extensive teaching resources, especially in digital and non-traditional formats.
It's because right now they are strictly looking at the amount,10% per book.
I have another statement here from someone who has had course packs developed. To me, a course pack is basically republishing. For example, another publisher contacted me about publishing an essay from this book. We found out where they were going to publish, the rights that they wanted, the geographic location, and the duration, and we came up with an amount for that permission.
What's happening at the university level is that universities are essentially creating their own publications, and I consider “publish” to mean “to make public for a number of people”. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but if indeed a student is doing an essay on the Delgamuukw case and wants to use that chapter in their private study in order to work on their paper or something like that, to me that is fair use, but republishing is not.
When I say the purpose, if it's not private study and it's not someone's own educational research, that's taking it into a different realm. I hope that answers it.
Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. It's great to be here in Winnipeg and to hear all your perspectives.
Ms. Greenberg, I'm going to pick up on a point you talked about by way of the recommendations you shared with us. You said that there needs to be clarification on fair dealing and the way it's interpreted and that you, as Manitoba publishers, would certainly be prepared to work with educators.
You didn't say it, but I guess I'll ask it. Would that also include the content creators and writers? The question actually is less for you than it is for the others. You put a proposition out there about an opportunity to perhaps provide some clarity on fair dealing and a way it could work that addresses some of the issues authors and content creators are seeing, which is a reduction in income, which we've certainly heard consistently, and to speak to educators about whether there is really an opportunity.
Based on what you said, is that something you, as an author or content creator, and you, as a university, would actually consider as an approach to help put some definition around the use of fair dealing that may be different from what it is today? This is to the authors and to the university. You suggested it as a recommendation. Would there even be interest in this?
Thank you very much, everybody, for coming to the second panel on the legislative review of copyright.
It's important to understand that part of the role of the committee is to ask really good questions. Sometimes they're not comfortable questions, but if we don't get good data into our report, then maybe we won't make good recommendations.
We're doing the statutory review and are on a five-day tour. This is day four. We're in Winnipeg. Our study will continue for about a year. We have divided things up into sections.
Today, the second panel focuses on indigenous concerns. I want to make sure that you understand that this is not the only time. When we go into phase two, there will be a focus on indigenous concerns as well, so whatever information you present to us today will be a good introduction that will help us when we are introducing more witnesses in phase two of the study.
Today we have, from the Winnipeg Arts Council, Alexis Kinloch, Public Art Project Manager, and Dominic Lloyd; from the Manitoba Metis Federation, Sharon Parenteau, General Manager, as well as Georgina Liberty; and we have, as an individual, Lynn Lavallee, Vice-Provost, Indigenous Engagement, University of Manitoba. We also somebody else coming who is late. We'll introduce her when she arrives.
We're going to start with the Winnipeg Arts Council. You have five minutes, or seven minutes if you need it.
Thanks to the clerk for accommodating us.
My name is Dominic Lloyd, and I have been managing arts funding programs with the Winnipeg Arts Council for eight years now, prior to which I worked in the Canadian music industry for almost a dozen years.
The importance of the arts to our quality of life, to the cultural, social, and economic well-being of Canada, cannot be overstated. However, even more important is the value of art itself. The creative ingenuity of people for its own purpose. Experiencing the arts provides us the capacity to perceive, to feel, to interpret the world, and to build empathy.
What is less often stated but should always be at the forefront of our discussions is the recognition of the individual artist as the primary source of creative activity in all artistic disciplines. Without artists, quite simply, there's no art. This is what drives the Winnipeg Arts Council, and we ask today that you too keep this in mind as you cross the country and develop legislation that will have a great impact on the entire Canadian cultural ecology.
Innovation is a word that's bandied about all the time as though it were a new concept, but by definition, artists are innovators. They've always been the ones looking for new ways to express our goals as a society and to interpret the world. It follows that where conversations around ownership and financial rights of creative material occur, they must involve artists, first and foremost, and their interests must remain paramount in your deliberations.
Here in Winnipeg, we know that the arts are a significant contributor to the economy. Independent research from PRA in 2014 showed that the arts employ over 26,000 people in our city, and contribute over a billion dollars to our GDP. It sound impressive until one considers Hill Strategies' research from the same year, which showed that artists in Canada are earning, on average, $33,000 a year, which is high when you consider the income of artists in the visual arts, music, and dance.
We know that artists in Canada do what they do with very little money, but the work they do is essential to building our community, our identity, and our economy, and their interests above all must be included in your discussion.
I am Alexis Kinloch, and I am an employee of the Winnipeg Arts Council.
I'd like to acknowledge that we're on the original lands of the Anishinaabek, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota, and Dene peoples, and on the homeland of the Métis Nation.
It's crucial that the government work closely with indigenous communities to make room in these laws for indigenous arts practices and knowledge-sharing to be recognized in a way that is decided by indigenous people and is respected and protected in the law. I urge you to make that a key priority throughout this review.
I've been a visual artist and writer for 14 years and I've worked in arts administration for eight years.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak about copyright and how it impacts artists. I would like to note, for the record, that I find it extremely problematic and scary that such an important public review was announced only two weeks before the event and that the invitation to speak came only two days before the engagement, leaving very little time to prepare.
Copyright is an important source of income for visual artists as they get paid when their works are exhibited, reproduced, or copied for classroom use. This becomes important because visual artists earn far less than the average Canadian, and three changes to the act could help improve their income potential.
For several years, CARFAC, the national association of visual artists, has been advocating for an artist's resale right, a royalty that artists receive when their work is resold publicly. They recommend that artists should receive 5% on future eligible sales. It is common for artists to sell their work cheaply early in their careers, and usually, if that work increases in value later and is resold, they are not paid. For example, Inuit artist Kenojuak Ashevak's famous print, The Enchanted Owl, originally sold for $24 and was later resold for over $58,000, for which she received nothing.
The resale right has been around for almost 100 years and it has been adopted by at least 93 countries.
Another change that artists are asking for relates to the exhibition right, which mandates that museums pay fees to artists when their work is exhibited publicly. Currently public museums and galleries are not legally required to pay fees to artists if their work was made before June 8, 1988, the date on which the right was enacted. It was argued that it minimized the financial impact that the new right could have, particularly for works in museum collections. However, this has led to discrimination against senior artists, as they are not always paid when their work is exhibited. This discrimination could be a charter issue. The exhibition right should apply to the normal term of copyright, the life of the artist and their estate, for 50 years after death.
The third request from artists is to place some limitations on the fair dealing changes that were made in 2012. Fair dealing has implications for all disciplines in the arts. Each year art works and publications are copied for use in schools, and visual artists are paid for those copies, but many universities are no longer renewing licences for that use, believing that they no longer have to because of fair dealing. The act doesn't specifically define what is fair, and while lawyers battle it out, artists' incomes are eroding. Between 2013 and 2017, payments to visual artists from Access Copyright declined by 66%. In 2012, we were told that changes to fair dealing would not have a significant effect on artists, but these numbers say otherwise.
We are not asking to get rid of fair dealing, but the education exception should not apply when it is possible to license work that is commercially available from a copyright collective or rights holder. This is how it works in the U.K., and we would like to see a similar model adopted in Canada.
Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Parenteau. I am the General Manager of Louis Riel Institute, the culture and education arm of the Manitoba Metis Federation. We would like to thank you for providing us with an opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as part of the five-year review of the Copyright Act.
We recommend that the committee consider an alternative approach to dealing with Métis cultural property and develop substantive changes to the Copyright Act to protect Métis cultural property.
The Métis nation has a proud heritage with a distinct culture. Property stemming from Métis culture can include traditional indigenous knowledge. Iconic images of the Métis, appropriating Métis artistic cultural expression, and representations of the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia are three key examples of Métis cultural property.
The use of Métis cultural symbols without the consent of the Métis nation and the abuse of Métis history, and identity theft, are key concerns in the protection and continuance of Métis culture for generations to come. The protection of Métis cultural property is complex and disparate, and will require expenditure of Métis resources to address. The Manitoba Metis Federation has developed the Manitoba Métis community research ethics protocol to protect the citizens of the Métis nation by ensuring that research involving the Manitoba Métis community is culturally appropriate and considers the distinction of the Métis nation. The MMCREP is an act of self-government to protect and promote the culture, history, values, collective rights, and interests of Métis citizens.
The MMCREP generates a centralized research protocol where the MMF home office is the first point of contact for external and internal researchers. Researchers work closely with the MMF to direct them to departments, affiliates, regions, and locals in the context of their projects, thus ensuring that the Manitoba Métis community's cultural, historical, and intellectual property is appropriately reflected and preserved.
Current copyright laws do not fully protect Métis cultural property rights. For example, fixation does not protect oral knowledge handed down from generation to generation. Works that have not been fixated in a tangible form of expression are not protected under the Copyright Act. Since fixation is one of the prerequisites of copyright protection, this limitation allows expropriation of traditional knowledge.
Advocacy through appropriate political channels is required to align Canada's intellectual property regime with the cultural property rights of the Métis nation. There are two ways through which this could be achieved: a self-government agreement affording the Métis nation the authority to legislate to protect its cultural property, and legislation to directly address one or more of the intellectual property issues specifically from a Métis perspective and context.
There are existing Métis nation protocols that have been established by the MMF that are based on traditional knowledge handed down from generation to generation. The MMF has taken this traditional knowledge, such as the traditional harvesting methods described in the MMF's Métis laws of the hunt, traditional land use teachings, which the MMF collects in its traditional land use knowledge studies, and the original Métis names for landmarks and historical communities. These and other protocols are documented in Louis Riel Institute publications.
We define traditional knowledge as the body of knowledge shared by indigenous people and held by and transmitted between indigenous representatives that supports traditional land use for the benefit and well-being of indigenous peoples. Similarly, people come to understand the ecology of their surrounding environment through years of first-hand experience and inherent cultural understandings of relationships between humans, animals, lands, and water. People also come to understand the ecology of their environment through teachings that have been passed down through relations or within a community. This type of knowledge is often referred to as traditional ecological knowledge.
Existing traditional knowledge is carried by the knowledge keepers of the community, through oral transmission. There are fewer knowledge keepers and citizens who can speak the traditional language of Michif, making it difficult to preserve and revitalize.
An alternative way to preserve the oral history and knowledge is to recreate it in different forms. While the MMF has made considerable efforts collecting and using traditional knowledge for ecological purposes, the artistic community has only begun to explore this issue. In the age of digitization, artistic cultural expression is often appropriated by others with no safeguards.
Changes to the Copyright Act need to give the Métis nation the authority to legislate and protect its Métis cultural property. Our traditional knowledge is usually transmitted orally, through storytelling. Using the Manitoba Métis community research ethics protocol ensures researchers are working with the Manitoba Métis community to gather and protect Métis cultural property. Research gathered is subsequently housed in the Métis knowledge base, and is protected by the Manitoba Métis Federation, which is the governing body for the Manitoba Métis community.
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Dr. Lynn Lavallée: That's okay. I typically don't put my title. I try to be humble, but I got lectured by an elder once to ensure that I use it.
[Witness speaks in Ojibwe]
My name is Dr. Lynn Lavallée. I'm currently the Vice-Provost for Indigenous Engagement at the University of Manitoba. I'm an associate professor with expertise in the area of indigenous research ethics.
While a faculty member at Ryerson University in Toronto, I served for over a decade on the university's research ethics board, the REB. In my final four years, I was its chair.
I'm coming to you as an Anishinaabe person who understands traditional knowledge and ceremony from my own limited perspective, while also understanding the importance of promoting creativity and innovation with respect to research and the Copyright Act.
I would like to speak to the tensions I have witnessed with respect to indigenous knowledges and ethical research with indigenous peoples. What I will share is not new and has been discussed for well over a decade. However, we are still having these conversations, which indicates we have not achieved an appropriate balance with respect to indigenous knowledges, intellectual property, and copyright. I hope my involvement here today is not to simply check a box so as to ensure consultation with indigenous peoples, but to achieve further progress in the area of protecting indigenous knowledges, particularly as it relates to research and copyright.
Marlene Brant Castellano has defined indigenous knowledge as traditional teachings being passed down through the generations, empirical research being gathered over time, for instance, observing how medicines can alleviate certain illnesses—and when she says “medicines”, she means traditional medicines—and spiritual knowledge gained through dreams and revelations. Marie Battiste talks about indigenous knowledge as not being a binary of western knowledge, and Willie Ermine speaks of the ethical space between indigenous knowledge and western knowledge, with this ethical space overlapping. This is the space in which we need to do more work to protect indigenous knowledge.
The Copyright Act not only allows for the appropriation of indigenous knowledge but, as Younging has stated, it also opens the door for the legalized theft of indigenous knowledge, because copyright gives copyright to the person who has collected the information. Even though intellectual property is defined as “creations of the mind”, when a researcher speaks to indigenous people, whether they're elders or traditional knowledge holders, the knowledge that is shared is ultimately the creation of the mind of the person sharing the knowledge, yet copyright goes to the collector of the information.
Complicating that even further, some of our indigenous knowledge is not seen as the creation of the mind of the individual. Oftentimes, the knowledge is passed down through the generations, as Sharon has stated. It is not the creation of one person's mind, so intellectual property does not translate for indigenous knowledge. We cannot own indigenous knowledge; it is not our intellectual property as an individual, so for me this is a foundational tension between indigenous knowledge and western knowledge, copyright, and intellectual property.
With respect to indigenous knowledge, copyright is contributing to the need to protect indigenous knowledge and not share it.
As you know, article 11 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that we need to “redress through effective mechanisms...cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without...free, prior and informed consent or in violation of...laws, traditions and customs.”
I want to add that, given the Copyright Act and that academic institutions defer to it, informed consent is not being obtained because of the conflict between what is stated in the Copyright Act and the federal guidelines used by research ethics boards to review research protocols involving people.
Academic institutions are required to have any research involving people undergo an ethical review via their respective research ethics board. REBs implement the federal guidelines, the tri-council policy statement on ethical conduct for research involving humans, otherwise known as the TCPS. The TCPS underwent major revisions in 2010, with chapter 9 focusing on ethical conduct in research with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.
The chapter discusses the importance of community engagement throughout the entire process of the research, from the inception of the research idea to dissemination of the findings. It articulates that the research practices should be guided by a respect for and accommodation of first nations, Inuit, and Métis priorities on joint ownership of the products of research, and maintaining access to data for a community. The TCPS also notes that we should defer to the applicable federal, provincial, and territorial legislation, namely the Copyright Act, which gives copyright to the collector of the information, not the creator or the keeper of that knowledge.
My name is Camille Callison and I am honoured to be here today presenting to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Thank you for the opportunity to join you today, and thank you to the committee members for the important work that you do on behalf of all Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples of Canada.
I also want to acknowledge the elders, my fellow panellists, and all the good people gathered here today.
I am honoured to be here today in this historic gathering place where the Red and Assiniboine rivers meet, currently known as The Forks, and to be a guest living here in Treaty 1 territory within the heart of the Red River Métis homeland known as Winnipeg.
My name is Camille Callison and I am from the Crow clan, the Tsesk iye, of the Tahltan Nation located in northern B.C., Yukon and Alaska. I'm presenting here today as an individual, so I wanted to introduce myself.
As my late grand uncle Robert Quock taught me, we belong to the land, so it's important for me no matter where I am to acknowledge where I come from. We are the people of the Stikine River, Canada's Grand Canyon, and the home of the sacred headwaters where the Stikine, Skeena and Nass headwaters flow from, creating northwest B.C.'s biggest salmon-producing rivers.
On October 18, 1910, also known to us as Tahltan Day, my great grandfather Grand Chief Nanok Quock, another chief, and 80 Tahltan witnesses delivered the Tahltan declaration signed and delivered to the representatives of the Canadian governments and the British crown, which states that we have never ceded or surrendered our land at the cost of our own blood from time immemorial. This is still true today, and we continue to rely on the wealth of our land for subsistence and what lies below it for economic opportunities and employment.
I hope to honour my heritage today by facilitating a better understanding of why the Copyright Act needs to respect, affirm, and recognize indigenous peoples' ownership of their traditional and living indigenous knowledge, thereby facilitating respectful relationships between indigenous people and Canada.
For the purposes of this presentation, “indigenous” refers to the first nations, Métis, and Inuit people of Canada.
Currently I am the indigenous services librarian and liaison librarian for anthropology, native studies and social work, and a Ph.D student in anthropology, at the University of Manitoba. I also am the vice-chair and indigenous representative on the board of the Canadian Federation of Library Associations, CFLA-FCAB, and in that capacity I chair the indigenous matters committee and I'm a member of the copyright committee.
I also sit on numerous other boards, including the indigenous matters section of the International Federation of Library Associations, the indigenous advisory circle of the National Film Board, and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, the Canada Memory of the World Register, and the Sectoral Commission, Culture, Communication and Information of UNESCO.
I'd like to begin today by talking about why it's important that indigenous knowledge be affirmed, respected, and protected under the Copyright Act. Indigenous knowledge is dynamic and has been sustained and transformed throughout time. Indigenous people continue to produce new knowledge in new media, including the music, theatre, dance, photographs, film, poetry, literary expressions, language applications, blogs, social media, and digital collections, etc.
Library and archives and other cultural memory institutions often hold indigenous knowledge and traditional cultural expressions in their collection as a result of research or appropriation or participation with indigenous communities and authors. In some cases, under the Canadian intellectual property regime, indigenous people from whom that knowledge originated and who are the traditional intellectual property holders have inappropriately lost their ownership rights. Who holds the legal copyright to the knowledge or cultural expressions under Canadian copyright is often contrary to indigenous notions of copyright ownership.
Parallel to western culture, indigenous people regard unauthorized use of their cultural expressions as theft. The indigenous world view includes the understanding that indigenous knowledge should only be transferred with the owner's permission from the originating people, and should be within that method of transmission.
As Canada works toward reconciliation, a fair and balanced intellectual property system works for everyone, including indigenous peoples.
In their knowledge systems, indigenous people have developed this wealth of indigenous knowledge that they rightly wish to protect under their constitutional rights as Canadians. They also wish to create their own knowledge protocols and have those protected under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Canada needs to acknowledge indigenous people to maintain, control, protect, and develop traditional knowledge and traditional knowledge expressions within our current intellectual property right regime in order to access, use, and protect indigenous knowledge by developing appropriate protocols with indigenous people. Essentially, reconciliation is about establishing respectful relationships with indigenous people.
I'm noticing the time, so I'm going to skip ahead in my speech and talk about the protection of indigenous knowledge and the truth and reconciliation committee that was formed in 2016 to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. I'll talk about our recommendation 8, which asked the Canadian government to affirm and protect indigenous knowledge under the existing Copyright Act.
I want to recommend that indigenous knowledge be respected in the public domain, and that we do that in keeping with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly article 31. I join with CFLA-FCAB and its indigenous knowledge and copyright statement that was released last week in asking that the copyright reform “respect, affirm, and recognize indigenous people's ownership of their traditional and living respective indigenous knowledge.” This would allow for Canada's diverse indigenous people to develop indigenous knowledge and cultural expression protocol agreements that reflect their diverse cultural heritage and traditions. One nation's protocol concerning the sharing of knowledge and cultural expression will be different from another's, so there needs to be room left for indigenous nations to work with their elders and knowledge keepers to develop these protocols.
Meduh—thank you, in English— for the opportunity to speak with you today. I ask that you join me and other Canadians on the path towards reconciliation. I ask that you walk, not in front of me or behind me, but that you walk beside indigenous people to create a new Canada where all people are treated equally and are respected fairly under the law. I welcome the opportunity to answer questions you may have.
Thank you very much to all our presenters. Of course, I would also reiterate what I reiterated the last time, to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories of the first nation people of this area, and also of the Métis.
This subject is very important to us as we are trying to review the copyright law. It has been said many times that it's not adequate to cover indigenous peoples' art, their culture, it's extremely important.
I'm not indigenous. My wife and children are Métis. Sault Ste. Marie, where I'm from, is a traditional area. People used to come from all over the Midwest and the Prairies to meet along St. Marys River because of the whitefish. It became an area to which everyone was coming to fish, to bring back to their communities as far away as here in Manitoba sometimes. It started to happen around that area, thousands and thousands of years before the Europeans came. There were, naturally, powwows in different forms. There would be culture, song, dance and, of course, the elders telling their stories. It became a really interesting area. Sault Ste. Marie and that area had a dark history as well. It was also home to a residential school. As part of the settlement, the survivors came together and there was a commitment to create an Anishinaabek discovery centre, which the government has funded and is well under way. That's going to house a chiefs' library and some very interesting things.
Your testimony is very important, because what we're trying to understand is that the copyright law has fundamental principles under British and European law, and that doesn't necessarily work for first nations. I think some of you have mentioned it. The first one is that a lot of times, copyright is attached to an individual, and on the indigenous side, it's the community, it's the people, that it's attached to.
If I get very specific about the Copyright Act, it affords exclusive rights to one or more specific persons over an original work, fixed in some way. These rights are affordable largely for commercial purposes. The rights holder can transfer these rights to another individual or entity, and the rights themselves are temporary. Once they expire, the work is freely available to the public. To what extent do these principles conflict with the ways in which indigenous communities understand their cultures and traditional knowledge?
I'll start with perhaps Dr. Lavallee.
Indigenous knowledge varies. It's really hard to answer that question because it depends on the type of indigenous knowledge you're talking about. I gave you Marlene Brant Castellano's definition of the traditional knowledge passed down to the generations, spiritual knowledge, and empirical knowledge—usually about our medicines.
I'm going to tell a story to try to get to that. I think when it comes to something like the medicine wheel, a lot of people understand the medicine wheel teachings. It's a circle with four quadrants. You might have white, red, black, and yellow. Black might be replaced with blue if you're in Cree territory, but not all indigenous peoples in Canada have medicine wheel teachings. Medicine wheel teachings are vast and they're thousands and thousands of years old. You cannot actually cite the original author of the medicine wheel teachings, like APA style. It's impossible.
I remember that years and years ago, they wanted me to review something. It was a health promotion focus. They used the principles of the medicine wheel to talk about health promotion. They had me review this, and nowhere did they acknowledge the medicine wheel teachings. They didn't say where they obtained them, how they obtained them. They might have Googled them. Then they copyrighted that framework based on the medicine wheel. Nobody can use that framework because it's based on our traditional teachings that are thousands and thousands of years old.
I don't know if that's answering your question. It really depends on the knowledge. As a researcher in an academic institution, I firmly believe that some knowledge should never enter the institution because it's too vulnerable. An example of that is our traditional medicines and our traditional healing practices. You don't learn about that in a 12-week program or a four-year degree. It's impossible. You go through, for lack of a better term, an “apprenticeship” for decades, and even then you're not going to have all the knowledge. You never get to the point where you have all the knowledge. You're always learning.
I think there is some knowledge that doesn't belong in copyright at all. You can't copyright our traditional teachings. Think about the sweat lodge ceremony. I've seen students do a dissertation. You have to copyright your dissertation. You're the sole author. That's the whole purpose of doing a dissertation, to advance knowledge. They reported on the sweat lodge ceremony. It happened to be somebody I went to the sweat lodge with. I said, “Do you know that somebody actually wrote about this in detail describing exactly what happens in this ceremony?” and the elder didn't know. This is a thesis document that's publicly available—not too publicly, because it's in the ivory tower.
I know I jumped around and maybe didn't focus on the answer.
I first want to talk a little bit about ownership. Some indigenous knowledge is owned by an individual, by a clan, by a family, or it can be owned by the nation. But it's not all communal ownership. It's actually kind of a fallacy for people to think about communal ownership in that way because that's not appropriate.
Part of what I didn't have enough time to discuss was indigenous legal and governance systems in our indigenous laws and the funding to be able to make these happen. One of the reasons why the recommendation was as it was, after we put our heads together, and after years of of my own research, is that I wanted to propose some kind of a solution rather than coming with problems all the time. I felt that a generic statement respecting, affirming, and acknowledging indigenous ownership would be appropriate.
One of the reasons is that we hold what we call a Tahtlan in my community, a knowledge agreement, when we're working with other communities or with government to share knowledge. It lays out whether knowledge is sacred, and what we need to do with certain types of knowledge. It's going to be different with every nation across Canada. Here, in Treaty 1 territory, they don't tell stories until the snow is on the ground. That wouldn't be what is happening in my community when we're telling stories around the campfire when the salmon is flowing in the river. We tell stories in our feast house all year round. It's not going to be the same thing for every community, and we're not going to be able to find a one-size-fits-all solution across Canada with the diversity of so many different nations across this great country that we live in. Part of it is that we would do Tahtlan knowledge agreements, and we see these traditional protocol agreements.... I believe in calling it indigenous knowledge because our knowledge is still living, it's dynamic, it's still breathing, and we still breathe life into it.
You see these protocols, and I remember signing them with mining companies because that's where, in our community, we benefited from that employment and economic opportunity, but we also shared traditional use with them so they could avoid our sacred areas. They would act like it was a gift, because indigenous or traditional knowledge wasn't covered under the Canadian Copyright Act.
The reason why I felt passionate about it is that we see this knowledge leaving our communities, and it's not being shared in a culturally appropriate way. It needs to be shared in the cultural context from that originating community. There is some knowledge that women can't see when they are on their moon. It's not because that's derogatory to women, but because we honour our women, and we think that they are more powerful at that time. There is also knowledge that can't be seen. I can't tell a Ch’ioyone or wolf story in my community. I can't tell a story that belongs to another family. That's where it becomes that cultural context, so it needs to be shared in that culturally appropriate way. The only way that I feel that that could happen is through a generic statement of respect, for affirmation, and that indigenous people own that knowledge, and then work with the indigenous communities to provide funding for their indigenous legal systems to create those protocols.
We're already doing this in universities. We're having informed consent. We're having libraries or archives or museums work with people. There are many examples across the country. There are reciprocal research agreements. There are things that we do at the University of Manitoba that we can take advantage of to be able to create those for communities. That's part of why I would say that. Some knowledge isn't appropriate to be shared. Even as a Tahtlan person, my uncle would say....
I come from the perspective that I'd like to see the exceptions for use still left in the Copyright Act and left as is. Part of that is because, even as an author, I expect people to be able to use 10% of a published work. A published work is different from when knowledge is taken without prior consent and approval. If you are publishing something, you fully expect libraries and the general public to be able to have fair use, so that 10% isn't an issue.
It's when things are taken without permission and used in the wrong context that I have an issue. As an indigenous person, I wouldn't publish sacred knowledge. I would say that, if you want more information on that.... My late great-uncle Pat said to me, “If you want the rest of that story, come back next year, and when I've fulfilled those cultural protocols, I might get the end of that story.” I wouldn't publish that.
I think that's where we need to be able to do the acknowledgement, but then also to work with communities. What works for the Anishinaabe, the Cree, and the Métis is not going to work for the Tahltan. It's going to be different. It's going to be different for the Mohawk. That's where we need to have that kind of openness where we do the general statement and then work with people.
As a published author, if something is published in the public domain and the appropriate safeguards have been put in place, then I don't see an issue with that. Some things—and I think I said that in my brief—that are in the public domain currently that have not followed those protocols need to be retracted from that domain. That's where we work with individual communities, and where there are examples of art pieces or cultural pieces being taken from museums, put into storage, and used in the proper cultural way, instead of being out on display all the time.
First of all, with any book published today in this era of reconciliation, or even in the last five to 10 years, the publishers should have ensured that they had permission from the community before they published it. If it has been taken and they have published it.... Even when I told a story to my adopted grandma, she would ask who told me that, and I would always have to cite the elder who had told me, so it could be cited properly and go back to the community.
That published material and fair use of it is the same as for any other published material, if they followed the same protocols. It's about following those protocols of obtaining informed consent from community members. And by informed I mean that they have to state.... If an elder speaks only in their language, then they need to have a translator who tells them what's going to happen when they publish that story, rather than taking that story. So appropriation of knowledge from any community, even if it's non-indigenous or indigenous, is obviously wrong; that's theft of cultural material. You need to have permission from that community, and hopefully those protocols are taken.
That's the reason we need to go back to the communities and enhance and give them the funding to be able to create those protocol arrangements.
One of the things we're hearing from all communities of artists and creators in print, television, and film, through a series of books and journals, is this disempowerment of the model that's emerged, especially in the digital age, when it's been even faster. It's to the point now that we're all used to the musician who throws up their song on YouTube and hopes it becomes a big hit so they can sell albums later. It's part of how they've become successful at selling ads on YouTube, but it's like a loss leader.
We heard testimony the other day is that we have academics publishing quite extensively in journals—everything from medical to social sciences, empirical research, and so forth—just to get or maintain their tenure, or to get into other publications that would affect their tenure. It's really a disempowered relationship for the creator.
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what can be done about that in general? An immense amount of wealth is being created through this transition to the digital age, but it's not reaching the creators. In fact, on the previous panel I noted that some major publishers internationally have been the major benefactors. We've heard testimony that universities, colleges, and school boards are spending more and more money, but the publishers or the creators are getting less from royalties.
Does anybody have any suggestions on that, because I think maybe copyright isn't the place to solve this, but what do we do in the meantime?
I think that our challenge is thinking about indigenous knowledge. We're emphasizing that this knowledge is different across all lands, because indigenous knowledge really comes from the land.
The other thing is the variation of indigenous knowledge. The storytelling is one aspect of indigenous knowledge. The medicines are another aspect of indigenous knowledge.
As Camille said, there are some stories that we just keep within our family. These are not meant to be shared more broadly. There are teachings within these stories. The reason we tell these stories is to provide teachings to that next generation.
There are some stories like the stories Joseph Boyden heard. He heard the story about the bear walker—and I'll say that because it's still daytime. That is a very specific story that has been reiterated in many different ways. It's something that someone shared with him, and there was no expectation that he was going to write a book about it.
There are these stories, and different prophetic stories, the seven generation teachings. They're almost pan-nation teachings. They are deeply embedded, old, traditional knowledge. Everybody will say it in a different way. Sky Woman is talked about in different cultures. These are stories that cross many different nations and take many different forms.
Then there is very specific indigenous knowledge with respect to healing ceremonies. I think that's one thing that's happening right now.
We're talking about different things.
First of all, I need to say that I'm not a lawyer. I'm not giving you legal advice. You can talk to my sister, who is a lawyer, for that. I can't solve all of the legal dilemmas in about five minutes, but I can give you a good try.
I think in every culture there's private and public information. I'm sure you have stories in your family that you don't necessarily tell in public, and when they do come out in public, it can be a little embarrassing. It's the same in indigenous communities. It's really wonderful that people are so interested in them and there's this curiosity about them, but there is private information in our families. I think we have to acknowledge that this is here, and it's always going to be present, no matter who it is.
I come from an anthropology background. We know that anthropologists were guilty of this. They went out and collected stories They were so concerned to write down the stories in the era of salvage anthropology, when they felt that indigenous people were dying in Canada and that they would die out, that they didn't worry about finding out whether they were private or family stories, or things that could be told in public, or when they could be told. There was an absence there of the protocols.
I always say to everybody that it's about relationships. Reconciliation is really about relationships, and what we're doing with communities. You have to go back to the communities and form a relationship with them, and then find out from those communities how to access that knowledge, how it's preserved, who owns that knowledge, how it's stored, and how you can share it, or if you have the right to share it.
That's part of the legal system in governance systems. Indigenous communities need the government's help to be able to establish those protocols. When you come and ask that question of an Anishinaabe person, they can say, “Well, we've gone back to our elders and our community, and this is how we deal with this knowledge.” There needs to be that work.
That's part of the reason I and many other people felt that a generic respect, affirming, and recognizing would be the way to go, and then allow the communities the time to be able to work with their communities on that knowledge.
I hope I answered your question. I don't think I can give you a whole lot.
Mr. Majid Jowhari: I appreciate it.
About visual artists on fair use, I don't have personal examples.
I'm sorry, I'm bad at thinking on the spot like this, but an example that you could potentially look at, which goes to your use of the terms “passion” versus “industry”, is that of an artist on the the east coast recently. You may be aware of this story, where the CRA is charging this artist over $30,000, I believe it is, in taxes because they have deemed his practice to be a hobby, and deemed him to be a hobby artist.
The Canada Council for the Arts and other arts funders have a definition of a professional artist. It is an industry of sorts. While these people are passionate about their work, I still think it's important to recognize the professionalism that goes into it, which is why we keep saying that you should defer to the artist, because they have had to become professionals in order to protect themselves. Also, they go to school, or even if they don't they spend their lives doing it and they deserve that recognition. The danger really is that they could also be disrespected in this way of being called a “hobby artist”, or saying it's a passion rather than a job or their life's work, which then allows a blurring of lines to give maybe less agency to the artist.