Jack Knox in The Victoria Times-Colonist.
Veteran B.C. newspaper satirist Dan Murphy drew a funny editorial cartoon the other day. It looks like a $50 bill, except it’s for $90,000 and features a picture of Mike Duffy.
We would show it to you here, but Canadian law says that could land us in prison for six months, and we don’t want to get shanked in Wilkie.
Murphy’s cartoon, you see, caught the attention of the Bank of Canada, which on Thursday fired off a rocket of a letter demanding that the image be deleted from the website of his Edmonton-based representatives, Artizans.
You have to get permission before reproducing a bank note image, the letter said, and Murphy didn’t ask.
“Moreover,” it continued, “the bank will not approve requests where the reproduction tarnishes or diminishes the importance of currency to Canadians.”
Which brings four thoughts to mind:
A, I didn’t know I held bank notes in such high regard. I thought I just spent them.
B. Having successfully passed off Canadian Tire money in Seattle (“This is our first prime minister, Angus McDonald”) do you think I can get the Americans to bite on a $90,000 bill?
C. Whether it depicts Sir John A. hitting the bottle or Rob Ford hot-kniving hash, currency will always be important to Canadians, particularly when they don’t have any.
D. When did the Bank of Canada move its head office to Iran?
Murphy, who has been drawing political cartoons since the ’60s, was amused/dumbfounded by the letter, particularly the bit where the bank gets to muzzle those who “tarnish” our feelings toward cash.
“They’re talking censorship here,” he said, on the phone from Ladner. “It’s goofy, and at the same time it’s chilling. It’s goofy-chilling.”
Artizans sent the Bank of Canada a response saying the cartoon syndicate had temporarily pulled the image from its website because it appeared some elements may have been reproduced directly from a real $50 bill. “Please specify exactly what about this satirical bill contravenes your policy,” the reply continued. “If you’re suggesting that the artist cannot produce a satirical bill, then I think you may be on very thin ground. Satire is certainly allowed under any copyright act.”
That gets to the crux of the matter. Laws that fight counterfeiting are fine (though really, any forger gifted enough to back-engineer a single-sided cartoon of a $90,000 bill that bears the image of Mike Duffy and a hologram of Nigel Wright deserves a medal, not jail time) but the Bank of Canada has no business playing Thought Police.
Parodies of bank notes are nothing new. In 1819, British cartoonist George Cruikshank, angered after seeing a woman hanged for passing a forged note, drew a Bank of England note that featured 11 men and women dangling from nooses. During the currency panic of 1837, a series of “shin plasters” — typically five- and six-cent bills — poked fun at U.S. economic policy.
Cartoonists have been guarding their freedom of speech for just as long. In 1978, B.C. welfare minister Bill Vander Zalm sued after Victoria Times cartoonist Bob Bierman depicted him pulling the wings off flies; the Zalm lost, with the B.C. Court of Appeal ultimately upholding a cartoonist’s right to engage in satire and hyperbole. A group called Cartoonist Rights Network International recently honoured an anti-corruption cartoonist who was jailed for insulting India’s flag and parliament and a Syrian cartoonist whose hands were broken after he made fun of President Bashar Al-Assad.
“Parody and satire have cleared out their own space,” Murphy says.
Doesn’t stop The Man from throwing his weight around, though. In 2009, the Royal Canadian Mint ordered the Dogwood Initiative to stop layering one-dollar coins with black notanker.ca decals that made it look as though the loon was covered in oil.
Why? In a society where the courts defend our right to burn flags in protest, how can the law let the Bank of Canada, a state-backed institution, decide that a cartoon critical of the Senate, another state institution, diminishes the dignity of the dollar?
Wonder what they think of Murphy’s F-bomb punctuated animated version, in which a Bank of Canada governor points out the bill’s three security safeguards: The Nigel Wright hologram winks, the bank note smells like bacon and Duffy belches when you squeeze him. Search on YouTube under “$90,000 Duffy buck.”
From Ariel Katz's blog:
You would think that in a constitutional democracy such as Canada, people would feel free to comment on current events and criticize politicians and senior officials by referencing common symbols, such as images of bank notes, to drive home their message. You would think so, but apparently, the Bank of Canada does not. It turns out that the Bank of Canada has taken upon itself an extraordinary mission: to control what people think about the Canadian currency.
The Times Colonist reports that B.C. newspaper cartoonist had to pull down a cartoon after receiving a threatening letter from the Bank of Canada. According to the story, Dan Murphy created cartoon looking “like a $50 bill, except it’s for $90,000 and features a picture of Mike Duffy.” His syndicate then pulled it down as per the demand of the Bank of Canada, after the Bank insisted that permission was required before reproducing a bank-note image, and that “the bank will not approve requests where the reproduction tarnishes or diminishes the importance of currency to Canadians.”
Apparently, the Bank of Canada’s has a Policy on the Reproduction of Bank Note Images. The policy cites s. 457 of the Criminal Act, which I don’t think is relevant to this case at all, as well as the Copyright Act. The policy states that
Although the Bank is the copyright owner of the images used on Canadian bank notes, it recognizes that currency is an important symbol of value in Canada. Accordingly, people may wish to reproduce images for appropriate reasons. The Bank will ordinarily consent to such reproductions if
i. there is no risk that the reproduced image could be mistaken for a genuine note or misused by counterfeiters; and
ii. the proposed use does not tarnish the dignity and importance of currency to Canadians.
If the Bank relies on copyright law to censor Murphy’s cartoon, then its claim has very little merit. Even if a bank-note is a “work” for the purpose of copyright (conventional wisdom is that obviously it would be considered an “artistic work”, but it might not be that obvious), s. 29 of the Copyright Act permits fair dealing with a work for several purposes, which include “parody or satire”. Murphy’s cartoon is clearly a parody or satire, and his work would probably satisfy the factors of fairness quite easily. Therefore, no permission is required, and whether the Bank world grant one or not is irrelevant. Period.
Even if or when permission were required, the Bank of Canada surely has some obligation to respect freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed to all under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bank’s failure to recognize that is probably more damaging to Canada than any cartoon.
Nevertheless, it seems that an animated audio-visual version of the cartoon is (still?) available on YouTube. Watch it while you can, and then answer the following question:
Who has greater respect to the Canadian currency:
1) Mike Duffy
2) The Bank of Canada
3) Dan Murphy
4) Nigel Wright
And if this reminds you of similar outrageous claims by the Royal Canadian Mint, then, sigh, you’re right.
UPDATE
Here is an exchange of letters between Artizans and the Bank of Canada:
Date: Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Bank of Canada reproduction policy (bank note)
Dear Irene,
Thank you for your correspondence. You asked for us to specify what about Mr. Murphy’s satirical image contravenes the Bank’s Bank Note Reproduction Policy.
As referenced in our reproduction policy, Section 457 of the Criminal Code stipulates that anyone who publishes anything in the likeness of a current bank note is guilty of an offence. In the case of Mr. Murphy’s image, he took an image of an actual $50 note and altered the portrait, the image in the holographic stripe, and the numerals on the note, but left substantive elements of the design.
However, as we make clear in the policy, and why we would encourage advance discussion with the Bank, no one would ever be convicted of the an offence under Section 457 if the likeness was produced with the permission of the Bank. Had we been approached first, we would have been inclined to work with the originator to come up with a design that was mutually acceptable. For example, we might have suggested that the originator create a hand drawn image that bears some resemblance to a real bank note, but does not include an exact replication of the graphic elements found on a real $50 bank note. But since a request was not received, there was no opportunity to do so.
I’d also like to make it clear that the Bank of Canada does not have a blanket policy against satirical reproductions of its bank notes, and we do recognize that that fair dealing for the purpose of satire does not infringe copyright.
I want to underline that the Bank receives many requests each year to reproduce our bank note images. In order to treat all of these requests fairly, we must apply our policy consistently. As such, we do not approve a request that involves someone’s face being superimposed on the bank note’s portrait. As I hope you can appreciate, out of fairness, we cannot apply the policy or key elements of it in a discretionary way. If we have denied similar requests to superimpose another face on a bank note’s portrait, be they satirical in nature or not, we cannot then turn around and grant others.
The application of a consistent rationale is important so that the rules are clear and they are the same for everybody.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jeremy
Jeremy Harrison
Director | Directeur
Planning and Public Affairs | Planification et affaires publiques
Bank of Canada | Banque du Canada
Subject: Artizans.com to Jeremy - Re: Bank of Canada reproduction policy (Duffy Buck)
Dear Jeremy:
Thank you for your email note.
We deal in copyrights every day, so we can certainly understand your concerns. However your argument seems very weak when applied specifically to Dan Murphy’s satirical cartoon. Your policy cites section 457 or the Criminal Act, but we think it’s a big stretch to apply it to this particular case. And we’re not the only ones -- noted intellectual property law professor, Ariel Katz wrote:
Although the Bank is the copyright owner of the images used on Canadian bank notes, it recognizes that currency is an important symbol of value in Canada. Accordingly, people may wish to reproduce images for appropriate reasons. The Bank will ordinarily consent to such reproductions if
i. there is no risk that the reproduced image could be mistaken for a genuine note or misused by counterfeiters; and
ii. the proposed use does not tarnish the dignity and importance of currency to Canadians.
If the Bank relies on copyright law to censor Murphy’s cartoon, then its claim has very little merit. Even if a bank-note is a “work” for the purpose of copyright (conventional wisdom is that obviously it would be considered an “artistic work”, but it might not be that obvious), s. 29 of the Copyright Act permits fair dealing with a work for several purposes, which include “parody or satire”. Murphy’s cartoon is clearly a parody or satire, and his work would probably satisfy the factors of fairness quite easily. Therefore, no permission is required, and whether the Bank would grant one or not is irrelevant. Period.
Even if or when permission were required, the Bank of Canada surely has some obligation to respect freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed to all under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bank’s failure to recognize that is probably more damaging to Canada than any cartoon.We agree with his assessment which appears much more nuanced than yours. Your assessment ignores the fact that the bank note is a recognizable symbol of Canada, ignores the fact the that word “SPECIMEN” is clearly visible on the face of the bill, ignores the fact that Dan Murphy is a well-known satirist, glosses over the fact that Dan made very substantial changes to the original $50 bill and that no reasonable person could ever confuse the two. Section 29 of the Copyright Act permits parody or satire, so where is the problem here?
In her original email, your compliance officer, Sophie Jenkins wrote:
In this case, you did not request the Bank’s permission to reproduce our bank note image. Moreover, the Bank will not approve requests where the reproduction tarnishes or diminishes the importance of currency to Canadians.
It would appear that her intention was to stifle anything or anyone who would “tarnish or diminish the importance of the currency”. She also suggests that Dan Murphy would be unlikely to get approval. This is contrary to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is it Dan Murphy’s cartoon that’s out of line or is it your policy that needs a rethink?
In addition, your request for Dan Murphy (and satirists in general) to have “an advance discussion with the Bank” is laughable. Satirists work on hourly deadlines. Submitting a design to the Bank would take days or weeks. This appears to be another thinly disguised attempt to stifle anyone who would dare tarnish the currency.
In your email you state that the “Bank of Canada does not have a blanket policy against satirical reproductions of its bank notes”. Then in the next paragraph your write, “...the Bank receives many requests each year to reproduce our bank note images. In order to treat all of these requests fairly, we must apply our policy consistently.” These statements are diametrically opposed. In layman’s terms this is referred to sucking and blowing at the same time.
It appears to me the problem is not the satirical cartoon drawn by Dan Murphy, but rather your internal policy. Your policy is applied like a blanket and it appears that no one on your staff can distinguish between bonafide satire and inappropriate use of your bank note material. “Consistent rationale” is important, however, it’s meaningless if it is not applied with nuance and intelligence.
Rather than adopt a lost cause that will undoubtedly expose the Bank to much ridicule, I recommend that you contact the Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists and work with them to establish some sort of ‘satire’ policy. A policy that acknowledges satire and respects freedom of expression while recognizing the Bank’s legitimate need to manage reproductions of bank notes would benefit everyone.
If you have questions or concerns with our position, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Malcolm
Artizans.com
i. there is no risk that the reproduced image could be mistaken for a genuine note or misused by counterfeiters; and
ii. the proposed use does not tarnish the dignity and importance of currency to Canadians.
If the Bank relies on copyright law to censor Murphy’s cartoon, then its claim has very little merit. Even if a bank-note is a “work” for the purpose of copyright (conventional wisdom is that obviously it would be considered an “artistic work”, but it might not be that obvious), s. 29 of the Copyright Act permits fair dealing with a work for several purposes, which include “parody or satire”. Murphy’s cartoon is clearly a parody or satire, and his work would probably satisfy the factors of fairness quite easily. Therefore, no permission is required, and whether the Bank would grant one or not is irrelevant. Period.
Even if or when permission were required, the Bank of Canada surely has some obligation to respect freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed to all under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bank’s failure to recognize that is probably more damaging to Canada than any cartoon.We agree with his assessment which appears much more nuanced than yours. Your assessment ignores the fact that the bank note is a recognizable symbol of Canada, ignores the fact the that word “SPECIMEN” is clearly visible on the face of the bill, ignores the fact that Dan Murphy is a well-known satirist, glosses over the fact that Dan made very substantial changes to the original $50 bill and that no reasonable person could ever confuse the two. Section 29 of the Copyright Act permits parody or satire, so where is the problem here?
In her original email, your compliance officer, Sophie Jenkins wrote:
In addition, your request for Dan Murphy (and satirists in general) to have “an advance discussion with the Bank” is laughable. Satirists work on hourly deadlines. Submitting a design to the Bank would take days or weeks. This appears to be another thinly disguised attempt to stifle anyone who would dare tarnish the currency.
In your email you state that the “Bank of Canada does not have a blanket policy against satirical reproductions of its bank notes”. Then in the next paragraph your write, “...the Bank receives many requests each year to reproduce our bank note images. In order to treat all of these requests fairly, we must apply our policy consistently.” These statements are diametrically opposed. In layman’s terms this is referred to sucking and blowing at the same time.
It appears to me the problem is not the satirical cartoon drawn by Dan Murphy, but rather your internal policy. Your policy is applied like a blanket and it appears that no one on your staff can distinguish between bonafide satire and inappropriate use of your bank note material. “Consistent rationale” is important, however, it’s meaningless if it is not applied with nuance and intelligence.
Rather than adopt a lost cause that will undoubtedly expose the Bank to much ridicule, I recommend that you contact the Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists and work with them to establish some sort of ‘satire’ policy. A policy that acknowledges satire and respects freedom of expression while recognizing the Bank’s legitimate need to manage reproductions of bank notes would benefit everyone.
If you have questions or concerns with our position, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Malcolm
Artizans.com
Valuable info. Lucky me I found your web site by accident, and I am shocked why this accident didn’t happen earlier! I bookmarked it.animated video production
ReplyDelete