journalism – MediaPolicy.ca

Catching Up on MediaPolicy – The Dhanraj Show – Go away Paul Wells, you’re not a journalist – The OpenAI problem – Grand Theft Anna

March 14, 2026

Last September MPs on the Parliamentary Heritage committee (CHPC) voted unanimously to hold hearings on “the state of Canadian journalism.”

This happened after, or perhaps because, the Conservatives called for a Parliamentary inquiry into the dramatic departure of Canada Tonight host Travis Dhanraj from CBC Radio-Canada. At the time, MediaPolicy wrote about that dispute here, here and here.

On Tuesday, the curtain was drawn back for the first of five days of CHPC hearings and as the opening guest Dhanraj told his story. For a detached review of the blow by blow, here is Karyn Pugliese’s Substack post.

Dhanraj’s narrative is (a) the CBC is a toxic workplace that management tolerates, (b) he was tokenized as a brown skinned journalist and rebuffed in efforts to make his evening show more edgy and interesting, and (c) he was on the short end of a power struggle with the Rosemary Barton of the National and David Cochrane of Power & Politics, preventing him from booking Conservative MPs on his show.

The side of the story he doesn’t tell is CBC’s management view that so long as the CPC was boycotting those two flagship news shows, they weren’t getting on Canada Tonight. Bruce Arthur’s column in the Toronto Star delves into this. So far, the CBC isn’t saying much and is keeping its litigation powder dry (Dhanraj has filed a human rights complaint).

A thread pulled on during the hearing is a list of 45 “do not book” guests that Dhanraj says he got from CBC management. Depending on what the list is for, and who is on it, there could be fireworks.

It’s fair to say that CPC Heritage critic Rachael Thomas is getting as much mileage out of the Dhanraj affair as possible and going after the CBC with gusto. Dhanraj, whose lawyer Kathryn Marshall is well connected in Conservative circles (she’s married to CPC insider Hamish Marshall), says he’s not bearding for the Conservatives.

MP Thomas is building on a theme over the five days of hearings by calling witnesses such as Honest Reporting (critical of CBC reporting on Gaza and an on-air anti-Semitic rant by Radio-Canada’s Washington corro) and inviting the Canadian Ethnic Media Association to amplify its dissatisfaction with the CBC’s reporting on mass protests in Canada against the Iranian government.

Still to come, compulsory Committee appearances by both the Heritage Minister Marc Miller and CBC CEO Marie-Philippe Bouchard.

***

That pesky issue of defining a journalist never goes away.

Last week Blacklock’s Reporter broke a story, picked up on by The Hub, of communication staff in two federal government departments appearing to require reporters seeking information or comment to be employed by news businesses certified by the Canada Revenue Agency as a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization. The purpose of QCJO certification is to vet news outlets for labour tax credits, i.e. subsidizing 35% of journalist salaries.

I say “appear” to require QCJO certification, because the federal websites for Immigration and Global Affairs said comms staff would only speak to journalists employed by news organizations that are QCJO certified or abide by “similar” standards of journalism.

“Similar” is an important caveat. The key standards of QCJO certification are first hand reporting (“original news’) and adherence to an editorial code of accountability: picking up on those rules, the private journalism consortium that disburses $100M in Google news money every year under the Online News Act also requires news outlets to meet standards of news gathering and editorial accountability. Hence, the departmental caveat “similar to.”

Still, the federal department websites repeatedly refer to “QCJO” and quote word for word from the QCJO tax guidance on original news reporting and other program red lines. And when this happens in two different federal departments, you have to wonder about the group think behind it.

Of course two federal bureaucrats can get the same thing wrong at the same time out of ignorance: for example, maybe the light didn’t go on that the QCJO program is not available to thousands of broadcast journalists, freelancers, or reporters employed by magazines and community weeklies. It seems doubtful the government departments won’t talk to CTV, Global, TVA or CBC Radio-Canada reporters.

It gets worse. The QCJO rules quoted by the two departments reiterate the “two employed journalist” threshold that sets a minimum size of a newsroom that is eligible for QCJO subsidies. Following such a rule, it appears the departments won’t speak to any freelance journalists, no matter who they are. Paul Wells and Linda McQuaig need not apply.

Who defines a journalist anyway? Canadian journalists are not government regulated, nor self governing except to the extent that their news organizations voluntarily participate in Press Councils or the Press Galleries in Ottawa and provincial capitals.

Even then, the peskiness of hair-splitting definitions arises. Recently in Washington state, a federal judge upheld the legislature’s exclusion of three right-wing media personalities from enjoying the full run of the state building granted to professional journalists on the grounds that their primary identity was in the role of political actors.

In Canada, the Supreme Court already acknowledges the unregulated status of journalists by expanding the libel defense of “responsible communication” to include anyone, not just professional journalists.

On the other hand, in 2017 Parliament needed a legal definition of a journalist in order to create a whistleblower law that shields confidential sources. Under that statute, a journalist is defined as “a person whose main occupation is to contribute directly, either regularly or occasionally, for consideration, to the collection, writing or production of information for dissemination by the media.”

It took a few days, but Immigration reacted to the bad publicity and the intervention of the Canadian Association of Journalists. It says it’s reviewing its definition of journalist.

***

The tragic role that OpenAI played in the Tumbler Ridge mass school shooting, by flagging but not reporting the killer’s homicidal ideation, has policy experts thinking hard about what kind of regulation we need to see in an online harms bill.

Taylor Owen has an important LinkedIn post, worth the two minutes of reading time. Here’s an excerpt:

Here’s the thing that doesn’t get said enough: your conversations with ChatGPT or Claude or Grok are not private. Employees, and AI, can read what you type. OpenAI is about to start selling ads against those interactions. While, the product is designed to feel intimate, simulating patience, attentiveness, understanding, it is ultimately a content serving product. But it is a product that many open up to in ways they would to a person. It is a psychological bait and switch that capitalizes on a disconnect in norms. But because we have an illusion of privacy with these products, mandatory reporting to law enforcement, if not designed carefully, risks layering a surveillance obligation on top of what is already, fundamentally, a surveillance product.

What could actually help? I have been arguing for a Digital Safety Commission with real enforcement powers, mandatory risk assessments, transparency over safety protocols and age-appropriate design standards. Upstream regulation that changes how these products are built, not downstream surveillance that monitors how people use them.

If I understand Professor Owen correctly, he thinks that if AI and tech companies are compelled to adopt robust and transparent safety design of what their bots will give advice on, the less we will have to worry about the surveillance and reporting of private activity on the web.

***

Because I have decided your weekend reading list is still incomplete, if you care about books you must read yesterday’s Substack post from Sutherland Books publisher Ken Whyte. It’s about book publishers’ court challenge to the industrial-scale theft of copyrighted content by Anna’s Archive, an unauthorized aggregator of digital content.

***

If you would like regular notifications of future posts from MediaPolicy.ca you can follow this site by signing up under the Follow button in the bottom right corner of the home page;

or sign up for a free subscription to MediaPolicy.ca on Substack;

or follow @howardalaw on X or Howard Law on LinkedIn.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – “we the people:” influencers, activists and journalists – is this microdrama’s punk rock moment ?

February 22, 2026

Prior to last year’s federal election campaign, a cadre of protesters gathered on my block in a highly successful effort to disrupt Chrystia Freeland’s nomination meeting. The image that stuck in my mind was the young man in the thick of it who was wearing a “Press” ball cap.

I was reminded of that last week when reading Stephanie Taylor’s analysis and profile in the National Post of three high-profile conservative “influencers”: ‘The Pleb Reporter’ (Nick Belanger), Mario Zelaya, and Jasmin Laine. The Post article charts their informal relationships with Pierre Poilievre’s campaign team and their own ambitions.

At the most recent Conservative convention in Calgary, the Party granted influencers “content creator” status, waiving the $1000 observer fee and putting them on par (or with better access) than mainstream media journalists covering the same event.

The right wing influencers —-don’t worry, they have plenty of counterparts across the partisan aisle—- offer no apologies for their boostership of Poilievre or the CPC. They’ll point to their likes and ‘Ks of followers.

If you got it, flaunt it.

What sometimes galls the old schoolers is when influencers and activist reporters mooch off of the credibility and trust of capital-J journalism, hard earned by thousands of serious journalists over decades.

Or perhaps it’s the nihilism that’s most disturbing: “everyone lies, mine are true if they get lots of clicks.”

It’s discouraging of course, but journalism is a profession (or a craft, or a vocation, whatever) that holds no entrance examinations.

On this point, I commend a second piece of reading to you —Peter Klein’s op-ed in the weekend Globe & Mail—-that probes these questions. He begins with the well known case of award-winning photographer Amber Bracken being arrested by the RCMP for her presence (or extra-professional participation, according to the cops) in an injunction-defying land protest.

Then Klein observes that “today as a journalism professor, I’ve watched a generational shift: More students arrive without a clear sense of where reporting ends and advocacy begins, and some have no interest in drawing that line.”

If you meet or listen to journalists from war torn countries or despotic regimes, you will often hear a clear message: ‘we are for the people, we are of the people.’ You would be pitiless to deny them.

Here in a liberal democracy, there are also those who reject journalistic detachment and take sides, convinced of their moral certainty.

There is a line, says Klein, but the question is where and who gets to decide. The contempt charges against photojournalist Bracken (for allegedly violating the court’s injunction) were dropped, but she is suing the RCMP for damages. Legal arguments are scheduled for April.

***

If there’s a buzz in the world of entertainment programming, it’s the rise of short-form video and micro-dramas, often shot in portrait mode for better “vertical” viewing on phones.

Platformed by YouTube and newly powered by AI tools, short form is changing video production before our eyes.

It’s disruptive. But is it premium entertainment?

Premium, schmemium. As media guru Doug Shapiro likes to say about this phenomenon, quality is what the audience consumes.

How viral will short-form go? Is it just a punk rock wave of a new entertainment niche or is it something bigger?

The other guru Shapiro, Evan, just posted this:

***

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – Europe indicts TikTok – Age verification bill S-209 clears Senate committee – Bezos and the WAPO layoffs – CPC frenzy over “the Canadian media summit”

February 8, 2026

The European Commission has fired a shot across the bow of TikTok, and by implication other social media, by finding the social media giant culpable of addictive algorithm design and inadequate safety measures.

The Commission explained its preliminary ruling, which TikTok can either appeal or fix, as follows:

TikTok seems to fail to implement reasonable, proportionate and effective measures to mitigate risks stemming from its addictive design.

For example, the current measures on TikTok, particularly the screentime management tools and parental control tools, do not seem to effectively reduce the risks stemming from TikTok’s addictive design. The time management tools do not seem to be effective in enabling users to reduce and control their use of TikTok because they are easy to dismiss and introduce limited friction. Similarly, parental controls may not be effective because they require additional time and skills from parents to introduce the controls.

At this stage, the Commission considers that TikTok needs to change the basic design of its service. For instance, by disabling key addictive features such as ‘infinite scroll’ over time, implementing effective ‘screen time breaks’, including during the night, and adapting its recommender system.

The EU finding is made against the Chinese-owned app in the European market, not the American-owned TikTok across the Atlantic. But it will heat up the tension between the US and the EU over the regulation of online harms impacting US-owned apps operating in Europe.

The momentum of regulatory intervention around the globe picked up more steam when Spain indicated its intention to follow Australia and France in banning underage social media accounts.

As for Canada, Heritage Minister Marc Miller isn’t saying yet if a ban on underage access is part of the online harms bill he is preparing.

Last Monday, the influential Taylor Owen and his McGill colleague Helen Hayes called for a moratorium on underage access to social media while online harms legislation gets tabled, works its way through Parliament, and gets implemented.

Judging from Canada’s last two pieces of media legislation, the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act, the length of the entire process might be measured in years.

What might advance the timetable at the front end is Senate Bill S-209 that would require age verification for porn sites and possibly any social media site that permits porn. The bill passed committee last week and will likely get approved by the full Senate in the next few weeks, putting the governing Liberals on the spot.

Last week Senatrice Julie Miville-Dechêne, the bill’s sponsor, obtained committee approval for a series of technical amendments as well as a change that defined porn more narrowly to get at “X-rated” content and scope out the nudity and implied sexual activity common in mainstream drama. The new definition requires the exhibition of explicit sexual activity and exposed genitalia for the purpose of sexual excitement.

As drafted, S-209 still leaves the decision on whether to scope in porn-permissive social media apps to the federal government, either in a House vote on the bill or afterwards.

***

Last weekend MediaPolicy noted the diverging fortunes of the New York Times and the Washington Post with the Times getting the Trump-bump in digital views and the Post sagging in the other direction.

Then on Tuesday the Washington Post announced a breathtaking round of newsroom layoffs, 300 of 800 staff. By Saturday, publisher Will Lewis had resigned.

The public reaction was what you might expect: a mix of shock and anger. Former Post Editor-in-Chief Marty Baron posted his condemnation of the layoffs and put at least part of the blame on multi-billionaire proprietor Jeff Bezos’ decision to ingratiate himself to Donald Trump. That included Bezos killing a planned editorial board endorsement of Kamala Harris’ presidential candidacy, which reputedly cost the Post 200,000 subscriptions, as well as vocal support for Trump’s demolition of the White House east wing and making a donation to the ballroom project to be built on its foundations. Recently, Bezos’ Amazon Prime reputedly overpaid the Trump family for the streaming rights to the documentary Melania.

Then American anti-monopoly advocate Matt Stoller published a long Substack post where he suggested that Bezos bought the Post in 2013 as political insurance against the Obama administration taking anti-trust action against his Amazon e-commerce business. The insurance policy, Stoller suggested, has become unnecessary or overpriced as Bezos literally put his money on Trump.

One piece of context is that while the Post’s declining audience numbers may be attributable to anti-Trump readers voting with their feet, the conservative and pro-Trump Wall Street Journal is experiencing the same decline, although not as steep as the Post.

There were also layoffs in Canadian journalism, suitably smaller in number. Bell Media CTV laid off 60, including 11 television journalists.

***

The gong show otherwise known as the right-wing frenzy over mainstream media went viral last week when a video clip surfaced of Reynolds Mastin publicly thanking Prime Minister Mark Carney for “having our backs” and gushing that “we have your back too.”

There it was, proof of the blood pact between the federal Liberal Party and the mainstream news media.

But who the heck is Reynolds Mastin?

Mastin is the President of the Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA), the industry group representing independent Canadian production companies that make entertainment programming. He was chairing the CMPA’s annual Prime Time conference in Ottawa when he made the remarks.

Readers may know, Mastin is not a journalist and he (and the CMPA) has nothing to do with news journalism. He was encouraging Carney to resist American trade pressure on the Online Streaming Act which requires US streamers to contribute to the Canada Media Fund.

Independent movie and television producers draw CanCon subsidies from the Canada Media Fund to make dramas and comedies. The CMF doesn’t spend a dime on news, although some make the mistake of thinking it does.

Nevertheless, the timing was was perfect for frenzy: the Conservative Party was in the midst of its annual convention in Calgary.

Here is Conservative Heritage critic Rachael Thomas MP describing “the Canadian media summit” as a news journalism event:

Thomas’ falsehoods then found their way into Conservative fund raising e-mails.

At that point, some conservative pundits urged Conservatives to do a fact check. The managing editor of The Hub, Harrison Lowman, was as brave as he was blunt:

Now speaking of Mr. Lowman and The Hub, I can recommend an excellent podcast he did in January with ex-New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet.

In June 2020, Bennet (whose brother is a Democratic Senator) cleared for publication an opinion column from Republican Senator Tom Cotton arguing that Donald Trump ought to deploy the military if necessary to deal with rioting and looting that flared in the aftermath of the police murder of George Floyd.

Bennet’s employment did not survive the newsroom uprising that followed.

A similar newsroom conflagration occurred the same month at Canada’s National Post when columnist Rex Murphy opined that Canada “is not a racist country.”

In any event, I found myself gripped by the full 35 minutes of Lowman’s interview of Bennet and you may find it worth the time as well.

***

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – YouTube’s fake AI Journalists – Go west, CBC – DM@X 2026

AI image by Perplexity

January 19, 2026

You like to think you’ll never fall for a digital fishing scam. You like to think you’ll never fall for a deep fake news video.

Ahem, I fell for a deep fake news video.

YouTube, in its algorithmic omniscience, pushed to me as its top daily recommendation a video of the famous Washington Post political corro George Will. As the NeverTrump Reaganite we know him to be, Will delivered a withering critique of US tariffs by pointing to Toyota’s investment of $40 billion in Canada. Later, after I searched for a news announcement and found none, I wised up. (My friend in the auto industry kindly reminded me that $40 billion equals eight new car plants).

But for a good ten minutes, I was all in. The AI-video had George Will on the screen, live and in the flesh, saying exactly what George Will would say and how he would say it, but strangely looking twenty years younger than his 85 years. Then checking the meta-data, the video creators claimed to be a George Will fan site. I very much doubt they were licensed to impersonate George. A week later, YouTube had taken it down.

A few days later YouTube pushed me a similar fake, this time tech journalist Kara Swisher. Fool me once, etc.

Digital deception is now a daily event, according to a Canadian poll. Fifty-two per cent of us are “very concerned” about it; a full 88% are concerned.

Canadians generally want action against digital deception and hold a mix of views on who ought to do the acting:

Meanwhile, news publishers are soaking their heads in an icy bucket of water.

The Oxford Reuters Institute posted a new year’s survey of 280 CEOs, executives and editors in 51 countries expressing, guess what, their deepening pessimism about the future prospects for journalism.

The collective wisdom was that news journalism is getting squeezed for audience attention (and ultimately revenue) on either side by AI and social media influencers. Thanks to AI-generated videos and Chat summaries, the latter published with or without links to digital news sites, publishers are expecting referral traffic to keep declining and more or less crash and burn.

If there’s a silver lining, twenty per cent of publishers believe they will make deals for significant licensing revenues, another 49% see a minor stream of revenue, and another 20% expect none. The latter group are concentrated in local media, public broadcasting and smaller countries.

A cause for optimism is that a lot of publishers are innovating by hiring digital creators to work with their journalists to compete in the influencer /video/ social media world.

Watch that space: I am waiting for someone to come up with a licensed AI-generated celebrity journalist/influencer who gets content up on the ‘net tout de suite in the news cycle. Someone like George Will.

***

As I’ve been griping about for some time now, the CBC has been slow out of the blocks to put its five year plan into action and earn that $150M raise in the Parliamentary grant.

We may be getting somewhere.

Editor in chief Brodie Fenlon just announced that CBC “will add 33 local journalists and create 11 new bureaus, increasing [our] Canadian footprint from 66 to 77 locations. This “boots-on-the-ground” investment is in addition to last year’s local service expansion of 30 journalists hired in 22 communities across Canada. Many of the new positions are based in Central and Western Canada.”

Now for context, CBC has about 3600 news journalists in television, radio and online. It’s long been underweighted in western Canada, likely because of where the television and radio stations were located decades ago when our demography was a lot more central Canadian. In British Columbia, for example, the private television broadcasters collectively outspend CBC television 7:1.

The CBC has also hired a new head of English language services to replace the retiring Barb Williams. The new EVP is Doug Smith. He’s arriving from Paramount Canada and his CV stretches back to ViacomCBS, Rogers, and Alliance Atlantis.

A streaming guy. Let’s give him a couple of years and see what he can conjure up at CBC Gem.

Maybe we’ll see a shift to buzzy blockbusters that emulate the recent success of Crave’s Heated Rivalry in Canada and abroad.

Making hit Canadiana television that is validated by successful export is not new: Canadian broadcasters have done it repeatedly with Transplant, Flashpoint, DaVinci’s Inquest, Degrassi, etc.

At home, Bell Media can take credit for a hitting streak of popular and authentic Canadian shows, smacking doubles like Shorsey, LetterKenny and Late Bloomer, and now Heated Rivalry, a centre-field blast worthy of Bo Bichette (sorry, too soon?).

There’s no reason CBC can’t do the same. It can and has (Sort Of was genius). But as a paid subscriber to Gem (how many of us is a secret), my personal request is to pour money into the functionality of the high friction, algorithmically anemic streaming site.

(Correction: An earlier version of this post identified the number of CBC newsroom employees at 3400.)

***

This year’s annual coven of Media Policy conspirators is scheduled in Toronto in the first weekend of February.

Digital Media at the Crossroads will be held at the Faculty of Music building, University of Toronto, on Friday 6th- Saturday 7th. Here’s the program. See you there.

***

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Australia does Canadian style news aid – Californian news subsidy flounders – Hollywood merger fight continues

West Wing‘s C.J. Cregg is doling out the cash in California

January 10, 2026

Australia is close to cutting cheques to news outlets under its News Media Assistance Program (“News MAP”), similar to Canada’s QCJO federal aid to journalism.

The highlights to News MAP are:

$99 million ($92M CDN) over a three year period.
$67 million is targeted for news outlets delivered as salary subsidies of $13,000 AUS ($12,000 CDN).
$33 million to the Australian Associated Press, similar in staff complement to our Canadian Press.
In addition to the $99 million, it’s anticipated that a one time $30M “innovation fund” will be announced in the next two months.

There are other, less headline grabbing, features:

$3M of government advertising committed to news outlets for the next two years, a symbolic rather than substantial sum, but the kind of program that has been touted in other countries (including Canada, where Ontario has committed $50M annually).
$10.5 million over 4 years, backdated to 2023, to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to implement a Media Diversity Measurement Framework. The ACMA has already released its first biennial report, a thoughtful document worth reading. It describes and analyses the state of news journalism in Australia.
A three-year study of media literacy, possibly leading to a national media literacy policy in Australia.

Per journalist, the Australian News MAP is worth to news outlets about half of the dollar value of the Canadian QCJO program.

The News MAP program is being launched under the uncertainty shadowing Australia’s flagship public policy for news journalism, the News Media Bargaining Code. The NMBC was the policy template for Canada’s Online News Act.

In 2024 Meta refused to renew its payments to Australian publishers and broadcasters (reputed to be a third of the $200M AUS contributed by Meta and Google). Presumably Google is considering its options.

That $200M AUS was about twice the value of the $100M CDN Google payment in Canada, for a country two-thirds our size, so you get the picture of how the combined Canadian and Australian programs for government subsidy and Big Tech payments are comparable, if asymmetric.

The Australian government is signalling that News MAP is truly a time limited three-year program. The Albanese government, strengthened by its majority-election victory in 2025, is moving forward with public consultations on proposed legislation that would strengthen its NMBC by assessing financial charges on Google and Meta, regardless of whether the tech companies escalate by banning news links on their platforms.

***

In 2024 MediaPolicy posted about the state of California’s attempt at imitating Canada’s Online News Act and Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code that compel Google and Meta to make mandatory licensing payments to news outlets.

The initial Californian scheme that earned the support of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom was valued at $250M over five years, combining matching contributions form the state budget (akin to Canada’s QCJO program), Google dollars, existing philanthropic projects, and the possibility of a $62 billion tech fund to support AI tools in the newsroom.

Then California faced a budget crisis, whittling down its matching contribution to $10M annually. Google obliged by cutting its own. The AI innovation fund is grounded too.

The Californian bill can now be officially designated a debacle. Politico has a story on how that happened, here.

One of the key problems, still unresolved, is that even the $20M in matching state and Google funds remains undistributed to Californian news outlets. The University of Berkeley was initially contemplated as the gatekeeper but withdrew after the state rejected the journalism school’s plan for bespoke allocations to favoured projects and news outlets.

Then the program distribution landed with the state librarian. Then it was moved to the Governor’s office of development, headed by former Bill Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers (the real-life C.J. Cregg of West Wing). Now Myers is trying to set up a third party to distribute the funds, however her office will retain the final say on allocating the $20M.

News outlets haven’t seen any of the money and Governor Newsom’s final term in office ends in 2027.

***

Here’s an update on the battle between Netflix and Paramount to buy Warner Brothers’ studio and streaming businesses.

The board of Warner Brothers Discovery (WBD) has rejected a second Paramount bid, insisting that the Netflix offer is still better.

If the WBD board stays the course, there will not be any shareholder vote on the Paramount bid.

For WBD to go forward with the tentative deal with Netflix, Netflix must first get regulator approval of its bid document, send it to WBD shareholders, and then a special shareholder meeting will vote on the Netflix offer. Nothing is scheduled yet.

Paramount is focussing on persuading the WBD board, and shareholders, that WBD’s television assets that aren’t in the Netflix bid are worthless and Paramount’s offer is better because it takes those channels off the hands of shareholders.

If WBD and Netflix consummate their deal, the federal Department of Justice could consider an anti-trust court challenge.

***

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – Online harms bill is coming back – Canadians are alienated – Manitoba action on local media

(AI image)

December 23, 2025

The Online Harms bill is coming back to the House of Commons.

The Liberal Bill C-63 that died on the order table when the April 2025 federal election was called was initially a three-in-one omnibus.

It was an anti-hate bill that increased prison terms for existing Criminal Code hate speech offences and hate-motivated crimes as well as codifying the judge-made law on defining hate.

It also reinstated the abolished right of individuals to bring human rights complaints against hate speech.

And it charged social media companies with the responsibility of developing and enforcing safety practices to mitigate online harms, particularly to kids. This was the long expected policy piece that was born of lengthy public consultations, taking aim at Facebook and Instagram.

Michael Geist was right (he is, occasionally) in condemning C-63 as three controversial bills wedged into one. Others agreed and the Justice Minister Arif Virani split the legislation into two bills. But the election call killed them anyway and when the government reformed the new Justice Minister Sean Fraser messaged he wasn’t committed to C-63 as it stood.

Since then, Fraser has tabled bills that are policy-cousins to C-63. Bill C-9 takes up the supercharging of prison terms for hate-motivated offences, permits the police to charge hate offences without waiting for the green light from the Attorney-General, and picks up the judge-made law on defining hate (detestation or vilification is hate, but disdain or dislike is not.)

As part of a broader criminal justice reform, Fraser also introduced Bill C-16 to make it easier to prosecute blackmail threats of online sexual humiliation and deem the posting of deep fake sex videos a criminal act.

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne’s Bill S-209, a proposal to use age verification technology to keep kids away from online porn, is paused in Senate committee but will probably re-emerge in February.

Now the Hill Times is reporting that Fraser will return some time in the new year with an online harms bill that may offer an organized government policy on online hate, harms and safety.

***

There are the standard ways that we like to take the temperature of public opinion on media.

The go to is whether one “trusts” media. Asked that simply, the polling outcomes reflect likes and dislikes of news outlets as much as reliability or manipulation.

I like this news outlet; I trust it. I hate this news outlet; I don’t trust it.

Occasionally pollsters try to dig a little deeper. The latest poll from Innovative Research doesn’t probe trust-in-media per se but rather the thing that drives trust and mistrust of public institutions: “cultural alienation,” a state of disengagement from the other, where the other is believed to be harmfully powerful.

The Innovative poll reports shocking levels of popular alienation from Canadian “elites” (another piece of terminology, like “trust,” that can barely shoulder the weight it is asked to bear).

As for the pollster, it describes “culturally alienated” thus: “A full-spectrum pessimistic bloc that believes Canada’s institutions are broken, elites are disconnected, our shared identity is lost, and the country is headed toward crisis. Their worldview is consistently bleak.”

According to the poll, there is a large pool of culturally alienated Canadians, about 28%.

The culturally alienated are joined in their disaffection by “anti-elite populists” who are “Canadians who feel strongly that the system is rigged and elites don’t care about ordinary people. They are less concerned with institutions or national identity collapsing.” That’s another 29%. I know a lot of people matching the description and I am guessing so do you.

Added together, the numbers look dire.

Now if that puts you into too dark a mood, keep in mind the poll was taken from a standing opinion panel of opted-in respondents, not a random sample of Canadians, so it is disproportionately asking questions of opinionated Canadians.

Also, the results might be skewed pessimistic by the questions. Many of the mood-testing questions are necessarily binary, asking respondents to answer yes or no to questions like “Canadian institutions are broken” and “Canadian elites don’t care about ordinary Canadians.”

Ask an emotional question, get an emotional answer.

I keep telling myself, it isn’t as bad as it looks. That makes me a moderate pessimist, apparently.

***

An all-party committee of the Manitoban legislature is recommending Premier Wab Kinew’s NDP government follow the lead of provincial governments in Ontario and Québec to financially support local media.

If the NDP acts on the recommendation, it will copy the Ontario procurement practice of reserving 25% of $200 million in government ad spends for placement with local media.

Also, the MLAs propose that Manitoba offer a journalist salary subsidy similar to Québec which provides a 35% salary subsidy (up to $26,250 annually) that stacks on top of the federal 35% salary subsidy (up to $29,000).

***

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching up on MediaPolicy – CUSMA snooker – CRTC copyright ruling appealed – shareholder vote on Netflix v Paramount – the Oscars on YouTube

December 20, 2025

This week the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told US Congress what American stakeholders want from CUSMA trade talks with Mexico and Canada in 2026.

Greer’s report was an opportunity to be performative about US interests. As a member of President Trump’s cabinet, he wasn’t offering a blueprint for trade negotiations or even hinting at what’s the most important to his boss.

Only Donald Trump knows what he really wants. Does he want to run the table and steamroll Canada and Mexico?

Well, imagine a snooker game with a full rack of balls on the felt. What strikes you immediately upon reading Greer’s report is how many meaty issues there are in a long list of industrial sectors.

For those concerned about Trump’s cultural hit list, you would be surprised how brief and perfunctory Greer’s comments were.

As we’ve known for some time, the US streamers hate our Online Streaming Act. Google and Meta hate our Online News Act. Prime Minister Mark Carney already gave away our digital services tax, the thing the US companies hated the most.

On the other hand, the American companies canvassed by Greer like the Digital Trade chapter in the CUSMA trade agreement just fine.

As a very permissive set of trade rules, it may be up to Canadian negotiators to carve out of the Digital Trade provisions a wider scope to exercise our sovereign right to set the terms of AI services.

***

In case you missed it, read my rant about the CRTC’s ruling on copyright and intellectual property in Canadian video content.

Sounds like a snoozer when I describe it that way, but Canadian ownership of CanCon copyright is central to whether the federal government’s Bill C-11 the Online Streaming Act accomplishes what it was meant to do.

My rant was that the CRTC effed it up. The Canadian Media Producers Association appears to agree: it just filed a court appeal against the ruling.

The CMPA’s legal filing, asking the federal court to hear its appeal, argues one of the things I wrote about in the blog post: Bill C-11 was written to ensure that Canadian TV and film producers reap the fruits of their labour, what industry insiders call the “long-term commercial exploitation of intellectual property.”

Mere copyright “in the title” of a show isn’t that, says the CMPA.

In the words of the statute, the Commission is supposed to consider whether Canadian producers enjoy “a right or interest in relation to a program, including copyright, that allows them to control and benefit in a significant and equitable manner from the exploitation of the program.”

That means revenue, in other words a stake in the profit earned by Canadian shows from distribution and other monetization opportunities until the lemon is squeezed dry.

***

This week the board of Warner Brothers Discovery rejected Paramount’s hostile takeover bid. That leaves the winning suitor Netflix as Hollywood Rex for now, but WBD shareholders vote on Netflix’s $82 billion offer in January.

Paramount isn’t rushing out an improved bid: CEO David Ellison is making the case to WBD shareholders for his all-cash bid, arguably better chances than Netflix of clearing anti-trust hurdles, and the fact that Netflix’s offer for the WBD studio and streaming assets doesn’t include taking WBD’s lagging television assets off the hands of shareholders.

In the meantime, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner withdrew from Paramount’s financing consortium. Then business analysts questioned whether Larry Ellison’s money was good: his participation in his son David’s takeover bid is through a revocable trust, subject to change by Ellison senior. (Update, 22/12/25 – Ellison Sr. responds with personal guarantee).

Almost unnoticed in all of this, Pa Ellison is now officially a part-owner of TikTok-USA after the Chinese company ByteDance completed the sale of its American operations to a consortium of US interests, including Ellison.

***

Netflix may be the undisputed king of streaming. But YouTube is the lord of video consumption.

YouTube’s market dominance is a reflection on the growing popularity of short-form video of course. Yet not long ago I posted about YouTube’s plan to go all out into bidding for the rights to big events in premium, long-form video.

Last week YouTube scooped the exclusive global rights to the Oscar awards, beginning in 2029. That seems like a big deal for boomers raised on Hollywood glamour, although we could remind ourselves that at 20 million viewers, the Oscars trail the Super Bowl (130 million) and Game 7 of the World Series (50 million).

No word yet on the consequences for Bell Media’s CTV network which has held the Canadian distribution rights for the Oscars since 2003.

***

There’s a new American opinion poll published by Pew Research which rattled my optimism about the future of news journalism.

According to the poll, young people are more likely than older Americans to trust news influencers, concede a wide definition of who they recognize as a journalist, and are more likely to find it acceptable for journalists to be advocates for a cause and sport their ideological colours brightly.

***

The Washington Post’s newest AI widget (proprietor Jeff Bezos holds a minority interest in the AI app Perplexity) is in Beta. It has a long, long way to go.

A six minute daily podcast features two AI agents summarizing WAPO’s top three stories of the day. You can customize your topics or WAPO’s algorithm will figure you out.

Other than saving on two journalist salaries, the added value of this AI widget is a mystery. It’s a downmarket product offering from an upmarket news outlet.

Real life podcasters at the NYT Daily, fear not.

***

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. But be advised they are public once I hit the “approve” button, so mark them private if you don’t want them approved.

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching Up on MediaPolicy – Ranting about CanCon – Danish news subsidies – Meta lobbies Feds on age verification – the NFB’s gripping sailing documentary

November 29, 2025

I’ve fallen behind on catching you up on media policy news because I felt compelled to write a series of three posts commenting on the CRTC’s ruling on Canadian content. The last one, the rant I promised, was published this week in Cartt.ca.

While I was ranting, one of the things I let slide was telling you about a new report out of Denmark proposing to refashion its policy design for government aid to news journalism.

The Danes are serious about news subsidies: they spend 540 million krone ($120M CDN) every year on private media in nation of six million people (Canada spends about $200 million in country of 42 million).

According to the Reuters Oxford Digital News Report, Denmark’s “public trust in media” score is 56% and it ranks sixth out of 180 in the Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index at 86.93. By comparison, Canada’s trust score is 39% with a press freedom index of 78.5, 21st in the world.

The Danes also have something we don’t: a 2018 Media Liability law that established an independent national press council and conferred the force of law on editorial independence from ownership.

The Danish subsidy report was commissioned by government and written by a committee led by Rasmus Nielsen, the former chief of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Despite the ocean separating us, there are strong parallels between the Danish system of news subsidy and Canada’s jigsaw of federal programs: we have the QCJO subsidy of journalist salaries, the Local Journalism Initiative that funds 700 full time reporters in under-serviced regions across the country, and the Canadian Periodical Fund which supports editorial expenditures by community weeklies.

The untranslated 144-page Danish report covers a lot of ground, but Nielsen’s own English language summary of it captures the essence: a weighted emphasis on supporting news outlets that are regional, local or “independent” (owners of single-titles) rather than mere incumbency as a news organization.

***

The Senate deliberations of Senatrice Julie Miville-Dechêne’s Bill S-209, that would require age verification for online pornography is on hold until February while the Senate justice committee deals with other matters.

During the pause, the Canadian Press reports that Meta has joined the fray by lobbying the federal Liberals to step in with their own bill that would shift the age verification responsibility from pornography websites and social media platforms to app stores.

Meta obviously doesn’t run an App Store, as do Google and Apple, and the latter two Big Tech companies are cheesed about what Meta is up to.

Meanwhile, Canadian children continue to be exposed to online pornography featuring choking and slapping. The CP story is well done and informative.

Meta is having a good month of course. It won the anti-trust trial brought by the US Justice Department that claimed Meta was running a monopoly in personal social networking. In the interim five year period between filing and judgment, TikTok greatly improved its market share.

Matt Stoller has a very good analysis of the lawsuit, the trial, the judge, and why he thinks Big Tech will never be slowed down by anti-trust litigation: he says it takes public policy and legislatures to change things.

A test of his theory may happen soon: the trial judge in the Google Ad Tech case will be handing down her decision on whether to dismantle that illegal monopoly in the new year.

Meanwhile a consortium of US school boards just filed a new lawsuit against Meta and several other Tech companies.

Their allegation against Meta in particular is that company documents reveal CEO Mark Zuckerberg squelched evidence of harm to teenage girls while Meta designed lax safety features, including ineffective measures to expel sex traffickers from the platform. Of course, the allegations must be proven in court, probably over several years.

This does raise the question of whether Americans (and Canadians) should count on US courts to adjudicate Big Tech’s excesses by giving full due process and demanding conclusive evidence of the allegations, or whether governments should just cut to the chase, stop litigating whether the harms to kids persist, and legislate a solution.

In related stories, Australia’s social media ban on under 16s comes into force in December. The EU Parliament just passed a non-binding resolution to do the same.

***

The National Film Board’s website is recommending “Ghosts of the Sea,” a riveting documentary about the ill-fated Norwegian father-and-son sailors, Peter and Thomas Tangvald.

The filmmaker is Thomas’ half sister Virginia, who settled in her mother’s hometown of Montreal. The father Peter was married seven times and two of his wives died at sea.

I’ll say this: the film offers a visceral take on “intergenerational trauma.”

I think you will enjoy the one hour and 37 minute film and I absolutely guarantee you’ll have strong opinions afterwards.

***

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching Up on MediaPolicy – the new season of Stursberg’s CBC – the federal budget – Le Devoir’s Meta work around – Australia will regulate Netflix

Image by OpenAI

Are you not entertained? Richard Stursberg wants CBC audiences to say yes

November 8, 2025

This week MediaPolicy posted a guest column from Richard Stursberg, the former Vice President of CBC’s English language service, reflecting on the public broadcaster’s recently announced Five Year Plan.

You won’t be sorry you spent five minutes with it. It’s a compelling read. Stursberg is one of the few commentators who puts as much emphasis on CBC’s entertainment programming as he does the news service.

Stursberg sets a simple performance bar for the CBC: is it good television? And then he offers a hypothetical new season(s) of great shows that could meet that standard and bring a real buzz to the CBC’s CanCon offerings, while satisfying our Canadian cultural cravings.

The CBC just got its $150 million booster shot in the federal budget. That money fulfilled an election promise. The 11% increase to the $1.4 billion Parliamentary grant (70% of CBC’s overall $2 billion revenue) won’t necessarily go into a bigger budget for entertainment programming: the Five Year Plan prioritizes local and regional news reporting. But it does give the public broadcaster more options.

The CBC’s new money was the Carney government’s sole increase to cultural funding in this week’s budget. Culture and Identity minister Steven Guilbeault told the Globe and Mail that the public broadcaster had also been spared from the “15% savings” spending review announced by the government several months ago.

Budget announcements for the Canada Media Fund, the Canada Music Fund, TV5MondePlus, Telefilm, the National Film Board and Special Measures for Journalism (community weeklies) are all multi-year extensions of supplemental funding previously put in place by the Justin Trudeau government.

On the other hand, the budget document includes projected cuts to Canadian Heritage expenditures which might be either civil servant salaries or “recalibrated” program spending. Guilbeault pointed out to the Globe that the $93 million savings figure was 5%, not 15% of expenditures.

The numbers on recalibrated programs might include the scheduled reduction of the federal labour tax credit from 35% to 25% of journalist salaries on January 1, 2027. As well, Guilbeault told the Globe the government was exploring a merger of the Canada Media Fund, Telefilm and the National Film Board.

The budget document included a brief note that changes are in the works for the Canadian Periodical Fund that subsidizes weeklies and magazines (the government only told me that the details would be communicated at a later date).

The status quo on cultural funding shouldn’t be surprising, given other priorities in 2025.

Still, TV and radio news outlets were miffed that the government didn’t end its arbitrary exclusion of broadcasting companies from accessing federal aid for their online news websites that —-but for the television and radio properties operated by their parent companies—- would be eligible for the $75 million pool of journalist salary subsidy available to all online news outlets.

***

There’s a useful explainer posted in Paula Clark’s Substack about the Blacklock’s Reporter litigation with the federal government over Parks Canada’s sharing of a paywall password obtained from an individual subscription, giving unlimited access to every article in the Reporter’s database.

The watchdog news website was in court last month, appealing a controversial trial ruling in favour of the government which appeared to bless the government’s actions and give short shrift to copyright protection.

Among the many legal frailties of the trial judge’s decision is that it appears to expand the public right of “fair use” sharing of quotations or text snippets to authorize redistribution of full articles and, thanks to the password sharing, Blacklock’s entire news archive.

It’s a legally complicated appeal, which is why’s Clark’s piece is helpful.

***

As you know, in 2023 Meta responded to Parliament passing the Online News Act by banning most news content from Facebook and Instagram in Canada (a news outlet can pay Meta to post content as an advertisement).

The ban hit the many Canadian news outlets relying heavily upon Meta platforms for content distribution. While the news blackout probably impacted free sites harder, paywalled sites were affected too.

The marketing director at Le Devoir is claiming a measurable success in making up for the lost distribution by working a lot harder at its direct engagement with readers, especially demonstrating the value of content to new subscribers.

Meta hasn’t entirely given up on Canadian news journalism of course. Just last week The Hub published a well argued commentary advocating against the federal government pursuing a digital sovereignty strategy. Meta sponsored the article.

***

The Australian government has moved the yardsticks on implementing something like Canada’s Online Streaming Act for Netflix and the other foreign video streamers, a move it has been mulling over since early 2023.

The legislation hasn’t been tabled with details yet, but the announcement suggests the streamers will have to spend 7.5% of their Australian revenues on local entertainment programming. Australian-owned television companies are already required to meet spending quotas for local content and they see the new law as a measure to “level the playing field.”

The news coverage of the announcement is unclear as to the impact of the legislation, as Netflix already invests in video production shot in Australia. It may depend upon the definition of local Australian content.

Significantly for Canadian observers, Australia is not proposing that the foreign streamers make financial contributions to Australian programming through contributions to third party production funds.

A report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation speculates on whether the announcement will provoke a reaction from the Trump administration.

***

If you have the twenty minutes, I recommend Natalia Antelava’s incendiary interview of Google’s Richard Gingras in Coda, just for sheer entertainment if not enlightenment. Gingras is Google’s former VP of News and is currently the board chair of Canada’s Village Media.

Antelava goes after Gingras for some of Google’s controversial decisions in foreign autocracies, like agreeing to Vladimir Putin’s demand to spike a voting app set up for the Russian 2021 elections by the dissident, Alexei Navalny, who later died, possibly poisoned, in a Putin prison.

However on the main interview topic of the power asymmetry between Google and the news industry, Gingras sticks to his story that Google’s relationship with publishers is collaborative, not exploitive, which requires him to engage in some grimace-inducing denialism about Google’s abuse of market power over news outlets in Search and digital advertising, both of which have been ruled illegal monopolies by US courts.

Another tidbit: Gingras claims that Google CEO Sundar Pichai was embarrassed by the now famous line-up of tech CEOs attending the Trump inauguration and suggests the photo op was “cleverly staged” by the White House.

“That’s the last photo Sundar ever wanted taken,” says Gingras. “We don’t support this administration.”

Only the ballroom.

Associated Press photo of Tech CEOs Zuckerberg, Bezos, Pichai and Musk.

***

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Catching Up on MediaPolicy – CBC President unveils a new vision – Anti-porn bill is back in the Senate – did C-18 give Google a get-out-of-jail card on content scraping?

October 18, 2025

Last fall, when the CBC seemed destined to fall at the hands of an incoming Conservative government, MediaPolicy published a number of posts on “what is to be done” if the CBC received a stay of execution.

One post (MediaPolicy’s most popular ever) was a guest column from ex-CBC VP Richard Stursberg welcoming the new CBC President Marie-Philippe Bouchard with some advice for a re-engineered public broadcaster.

One federal election later and we are now getting a clearer picture of what a rethought CBC might look like.

This week Bouchard disclosed an advance copy of her five year plan to Canadian Press which published reports in English and French. The latter story is more in-depth, based on an interview with Bouchard.

Combing through the obligatory recitals for something new, Bouchard’s vision has some promising ideas.

The Plan document makes the familiar aspirational points about connecting Canadians with each other and fostering dialogue.

More concretely, her Plan commits to increasing CBC’s presence in local communities, “aiming to fund additional overage and hire sufficient journalists to cover 15-20 communities with a population greater than 50,000, that currently have no or little local CBC/Radio-Canada presence.”

Keeping that promise no doubt depends on the Carney government following through on its election promise for $150 million in additional funding.

Then there is the CBC’s platform problem. There are too many of them. But the CBC needs to be on them if it’s going to reach the nation’s audience —-multi regional, multi generational, multi lingual and so on. That’s a resource challenge for Bouchard.

Bouchard says CBC has to follow that national audience, youth in particular on digital platforms. The public broadcaster’s analog-to-digital transformation has been underway for years now —over time, television and radio funding has been cannibalized to support digital, especially the CBC News website. Its YouTube audience has grown quickly and TikTok is a must-do opportunity. Bouchard says the logic of the transition necessarily means cutting costs on other platforms, “stopping or transforming certain activities,” though she doesn’t say where or how much.

As for the CBC’s uneasy relationship with private sector media, always frayed because of CBC’s competition for advertising dollars on television and digital, Bouchard wants to focus on where the CBC can collaborate with local media and independent journalists, but also with the content creators and influencers who are popular with youth.

Bouchard also says the CBC should be “a pollinator, a helper to the [journalism] industry.” She told CP that “when we have services to share or offer, we should offer them on terms that are affordable for these media outlets. We have premises, we have space. We can consider facilitating access to [our] assets at zero cost or at a reduced cost that promotes budgetary balance for our colleagues.”

Finally, she grabs hold of the elephant’s leash: the widespread perception that the CBC isn’t ideologically ecumenical in its editorial curation; that it’s insufficiently conservative by content and temperament.

There will be no pleasing the CBC’s harshest critics, but Bouchard says the CBC wants to make a big effort to win over those who don’t tune in or else “undervalue” (what a euphemism!) the public broadcaster’s content. A step in the right direction is devoting more resources to the West and in rural Canada.

But that doesn’t just require money, it requires a migration of corporate culture.

The five-year Plan is officially unveiled on October 28th.

***

There is no sign of the federal government retabling its online harms bill in Parliament. It died on the order table at the last election.

Instead, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne’s has revived her Bill S-209 which zeroes in on harmful pornography being made available to kids. The debate rages in the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee and MediaPolicy reported on it this week.

***

The much-slagged Online News Act Bill C-18 took another hit this week from The Hub publisher Rudyard Griffiths who told the Parliamentary Heritage Committee that C-18 protects Google from potential copyright lawsuits for ingesting and repurposing Canadian news content in its AI tools, Overview and Mode, embedded in its search engine.

The bill, Griffiths told MPs, “requires all news organizations [accepting money under C-18] must make all of their content available to Google. If you are a recipient of funding through the Online News Act, you are unable to prevent Google from scraping behind your paywall, scraping subscriber-only content to serve up in their [large language model]”

Sections 2 and 26 of the Act grant a copyright waiver for news content that Google “makes available” on Search by “ranking and indexing” so long as Google reaches a compensation agreement with news publishers.

The Conservatives’ slagger-in-chief of the Online News Act, MP Rachel Thomas, jumped on Griffiths’ claim and posed it as rhetorical question to subsequent witnesses appearing before the Heritage’s committee that is investigating the impact of AI on Canadian media and cultural industries.

As Canadian news outlets have yet to sue Google for ingesting their news content and repurposing it in Overview and Mode, this remains a hypothetical issue for now. If it got before a judge, the court would have to decide if “ranking and indexing” is what an AI tool does, as opposed to ingesting, summarizing and rewriting from multiple sources. The fact that Mode and Overview are embedded in Search, as opposed to a separate AI app, could be important too.

This idea that that Google might have snagged a windfall immunity from copyright challenges to its content-scraping for AI tools arose previously when Google struck its agreement in June 2024 with the Canadian Journalism Collective for the distribution of Google’s $100 million compensation for Canadian news content, a year after the Overview prototype was launched in the United States.

Taking its cue from section 26 of the Act, Google inserted a clause into its agreement with CJC:

7(h) The Collective will not initiate or participate in, and will include a similar requirement of the Members in the Members Agreement, from initiating or participating in, (i) any bargaining process or (ii) proceeding before the Commission, a mediator, an arbitration panel, or a court of competent jurisdiction, in each case related to (A) any bargaining process in connection with Google, any of its Affiliates, or any Intermediaries pursuant to the Act or the Regulations, or (B) infringement of copyright in relation to making available news content of Members by Intermediaries in the manner permitted by the Act. The Collective will enforce such provision in the Members Agreements to the fullest extent and in a timely manner.

When the Google-CJC agreement was submitted to the CRTC for approval, the Commission appeared to say that the copyright waiver didn’t apply to AI tools so there was no need for action “at this time”:

Some interveners, including the CP group, Village Media, The Logic, and Unifor, raised issues with clause 7(h) in the Agreement, which forbids news businesses from pursuing Google for “infringement of copyright in relation to making available news content of Members by Intermediaries in the manner permitted by the Act.” The interventions raised concerns that this would limit their ability to enforce their copyright against Google for uses beyond making news content available on Google Search. In particular, interveners were concerned about potential use on DNIs other than Google Search, or used to train artificial intelligence (AI) models. Google argues that the provision is drafted specifically to reflect the use considered under the Act, namely the making available of news content on the DNI covered by the Agreement.

Section 26 of the Act protects an operator from copyright liability in certain circumstances where its DNI makes news content available. Clause 7(h) of the Agreement extends a similar protection to Google in respect of the making available by Google Search of the news content of news businesses in the collective. (Original Footnote: Clause 7(h) refers to news content made available by “Intermediaries” of Google. Under the Agreement “Intermediaries” is defined as DNIs operated by Google to which the Act applies, which is only Google Search). To the extent that this clause reflects protections from liability set out in the Act, the Commission notes that there is no need for any further action at this time. As a result, the Commission makes no order with respect to clause 7(h) of the Agreement.

So far there’s no copyright lawsuit, so there’s no issue. That might change.

While you’re thinking about news organizations and AI scraping, you might find interesting copyright expert Hugh Stephens’ latest post about the debate that is unfolding at the Heritage committee.

***

I can be reached by e-mail at howard.law@bell.net.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: