AER claiming public hearng is its intellectual property by Alex McCuaig, Dec 5, 2024, Community TV
The Alberta Energy Regulator is claiming the presentations at a public hearing by dozens of Albertans showing support and opposition to a coal mine project constitutes its intellectual property.
The claim comes by way of a complaint by the AER to Facebook and has resulted in the social media provider removing the content broadcast by Community TV of the public hearings – at least temporarily.
Under Facebook’s terms of service regarding intellectual property, a breach occurs when an organization claims copyright or trademark over material broadcast by a third party.
The broadcast in question featured the voices of Albertans heard over two days in Pincher Creek who either opposed or supported the development of the Grassy Mountain coal mine.
Community TV continues to broadcast the hearings on its YouTube page.
(UPDATE: The broadcast on Community TV’s YouTube page has since been removed due to AER’s claim of copyright over the public hearings)
In its response to Facebook, Community TV states the AER is a public body which cannot claim copyright or trademark over a public hearing which it broadcast live.
Community TV also claims testimony from Indigenous participants can’t be fully appreciated strictly through the transcript which AER may or may not also claim a copyright or trademark on. Several Indigenous participants spoke in the Blackfoot language which its standardized written form is less than 50 years old and a transcript may not be accessible for those who solely practice its oral form.
Community TV is also submitting that AER officials may have breached record retention regulations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as a spokesperson stated the regulator, “made a statement at the opening that the material is not an official record and that we delete it after the hearing closes.”
In its response to AER’s claims of copyright and trademark over the voices of Albertans Community TV concludes that, “the AER’s attempts to restrict public access to information are not only legally indefensible but also morally unjustifiable. As a public body, the AER has a duty to uphold transparency and accountability, not suppress it. Community TV will not waver in its commitment to public service journalism, and we will pursue every legal avenue to ensure that public hearings remain accessible to all.”
Community TV’s full response to Facebook:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing on behalf of Community TV, a respected and independent news organization dedicated to amplifying public discourse, ensuring transparency, and representing underrepresented voices. Recent actions by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to report our coverage of the public hearing in Pincher Creek as a copyright infringement are both baseless and deeply concerning. This letter aims to address the AER’s claims, highlight their lack of legal standing, and assert the fundamental rights of press freedom and public access to information.
- The Public Nature of AER Hearings
The AER explicitly states on its website that its hearings are “formal court-like processes” designed to gather information on energy projects in a transparent manner. Section 25(1) of the AER Rules of Practice confirms that oral and electronic hearings are open to the public. The broadcast of these hearings on the AER’s website supports this claim, making the proceedings accessible to all.
Given this, the notion that Community TV’s retransmission of this public event infringes on intellectual property is absurd. The webcast, created using public funds, exists to serve the public interest. Denying the press the ability to further disseminate these records directly undermines the principle of accessibility and transparency that underpins the AER’s own mission.
- Misguided Privacy Concerns
The AER has claimed that their measures to restrict video distribution are intended to protect the privacy of individuals involved in hearings. This claim is unfounded for several reasons:
Public Accessibility: By broadcasting hearings on an open-access website, the AER has already consented to the public sharing of these proceedings. Any individual who appears in these broadcasts does so with the understanding that their participation is publicly viewable.
Lack of Privacy Expectation: Participants in public hearings inherently forgo certain privacy expectations. Canadian law recognizes that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, especially in public proceedings.
Engagement and Trust: Contrary to the AER’s assertions, restricting the dissemination of public hearing footage discourages public engagement and erodes trust in the transparency of regulatory processes.
- Copyright Claims by a Public Body
The AER, as a publicly funded regulatory body, is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Section 64 of FOIP explicitly mandates the responsible creation, handling, preservation, and accessibility of public records. The AER’s claim of copyright over these materials contradicts its status as a public body and undermines FOIP’s transparency objectives.
Further, Section 92 of FOIP establishes penalties for the destruction or concealment of public records. Graham White’s admission that AER deletes webcast materials after hearings suggests a violation of this provision, raising concerns about the long-term preservation of records crucial to public and historical accountability.
- Indigenous Representation and Cultural Sensitivity
Indigenous participants at AER hearings often convey critical cultural and emotional expressions that transcripts alone cannot capture. By failing to maintain video records, the AER disregards the need for a comprehensive and accurate historical record of these hearings, which disproportionately disadvantages Indigenous communities.
- The Role of Community TV
Community TV serves as a vital bridge between public proceedings and broader community awareness. By retransmitting AER’s public hearings, we fulfill the same function the AER claims to prioritize—ensuring accessibility for those unable to attend in person. The AER’s actions to suppress this coverage are antithetical to their stated goals and reflect poorly on their commitment to transparency.
Our Demands
We demand the following actions:
Immediate Withdrawal of Copyright Claims: The AER must retract its baseless claims against Community TV and acknowledge our right to share publicly accessible content.
Commitment to Record Preservation: The AER must commit to archiving and making available all webcast materials, in compliance with FOIP and the public interest.
Public Apology: The AER must issue an apology for undermining press freedom and threatening an independent news organization for fulfilling its journalistic duty.
Conclusion
The AER’s attempts to restrict public access to information are not only legally indefensible but also morally unjustifiable. As a public body, the AER has a duty to uphold transparency and accountability, not suppress it. Community TV will not waver in its commitment to public service journalism, and we will pursue every legal avenue to ensure that public hearings remain accessible to all.
To Facebook: Your platform plays a crucial role in enabling the free flow of information. We urge you to reinstate the removed content immediately and review the validity of copyright claims more critically in the future.
To the Public: This is a fight for more than just one video. It’s a fight for transparency, accountability, and the right to know. Join us in demanding that public institutions remain open to public scrutiny.
Opinion – AER can regulate energy but not the Internet by Alex McCuaig, Dec 5, 2024, Community TV
If a public organization is broadcasting a public event in a space open to the public on a publicly available transmission medium, it is material in the public realm by any reasonable interpretation of the concept.
In a democracy, and in such circumstances, regulating what’s in the public realm is not generally tolerated by news media.
At least that use to be the case.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Alberta Energy Regulator broadcast public hearings on the Grassy Mountain coal mine.
AER broadcast the hearings, held in Pincher Creek, to anyone in the world with an Internet connection.
The hearings heard passionate submissions from Crowsnest Pass business and homeowners, area ranchers and farmers as well as the Indigenous community about the potential impacts of the mine – both positive and negative.
This mine debate has raised concerns from southern Albertans who rely on the potentially impacted headwaters of the South Saskatchewan River. It has stirred debate on the whole issue of coal mining provincially.
Part of the legislation governing the AER hearing process found in the Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice.
Unlike a court proceeding that requires a signed undertaking to view a hearing online which includes a promise expressly stating not to record or broadcast, no conditions were required by AER to access the live footage.
According to the Sec. 25 of the Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice, “all oral hearings and electronic hearings are open to the public.” The section also outlines the conditions where it can restrict full public access or seek an undertaking by interested parties. Neither of those sub-sections were invoked during the Grassy Mountain hearings.
Community TV broadcast that public hearing footage and it’s viewable on the organization’s Facebook page at anyone’s leisure.
Following extensive scrutiny of the provincial energy regulator’s website in search of any authorities which would allow restrictions on third-party broadcasts, none could be found.
Placing restrictions on media coverage of an event taking place in an actual public town square or virtual one – without any justified reasons – should not be tolerated.
Even if AER had such authority, that would only be applicable to AER’s jurisdiction of Alberta and practically – if not legally – unenforceable across the World Wide Web – which was the global public transmission system the regulator freely used to broadcast these hearings.
Hearing chair Parand Meysami stated that broadcasts were “strictly prohibited.” The regulator placed a watermark on the live broadcast stating that, “recording of AER webcasts are prohibited.” Community has received the correspondence requesting the removal of broadcast material AER has labeled “prohibited.”
The simple question Community TV has asked is what gives AER the right to prevent recording and rebroadcast of public material which the regulator themselves have openly posted on the Internet?
So far, AER has yet to cite one legislative authority that would prevent Community TV’s actions.
AER has only stated rebroadcast and recording can’t be done.
That’s not good enough to meet the minimum standards of a free press or the thousands of Albertans who have an interest in this topic or to subvert the Chater rights to freedom of expression.
Commitment to Public Access: Standing Firm Against AER TRICKS by Community TV, Dec 5, 2024
At Community TV, we take our role in preserving public access to matters of public interest very seriously. Whether it’s local protests, cultural events, or public hearings, our mission is to amplify voices, foster transparency, and document history. This commitment sometimes ruffles feathers, particularly when institutions like the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) step beyond their “quasi-judicial” comfort zone and stumble headfirst into the ever-expanding digital archive we call the internet.
Recently, the AER took issue with our broadcasts of their public hearings in Pincher Creek, Alberta. Let us be clear: public hearings are public, and any suggestion that they hold intellectual property rights over such material is both legally dubious and laughably overreaching. The AER claims they broadcast these hearings “for the convenience of those who could not attend.” That’s a noble sentiment, but when they delete these recordings after the hearings, who’s really being served? (Spoiler: It’s certainly not the public.)
Why This Matters
The stakes here are high. These hearings often involve Indigenous voices, cultural expressions, and critical testimony that cannot be reduced to sterile transcripts. When the AER deletes videos and attempts to suppress independent archiving, they undermine public accountability.
For the AER to claim copyright on these videos is absurd for several reasons:
- Public Body, Public Interest: The AER, as a public body, is subject to Alberta’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act. Public records, including video broadcasts, are inherently in the public domain. If the AER destroys these records, they risk violating FOIP regulations, specifically Section 92, which imposes penalties for willful destruction of records intended to evade public access.
- No Expectation of Privacy in a Public Forum: Public hearings are, by definition, open to the public. The AER’s claim of protecting attendees’ privacy while broadcasting their images and voices on an openly accessible website is the kind of circular logic that would make even Kafka proud.
- Lack of Transparency: The AER’s own admission that they delete these videos after hearings suggests a troubling disregard for maintaining an accurate and accessible public record. This practice deserves scrutiny, not deference.
Killing Them with Kindness (and Facts)
We understand that the AER may have been caught off-guard by the ferocious diligence of an independent news outlet like ours. But we are here to remind them—and the public—that public access to public information is non-negotiable. Our broadcasts serve to enhance accessibility, not undermine it.
Furthermore, if the AER is concerned about control over their records, they should focus on improving their archival practices rather than stifling independent journalism. After all, once something is on the internet, it’s out there for good. We wouldn’t be surprised if a few Russian and Chinese data-scraping bots already have the footage in question neatly catalogued alongside everything else ever streamed on Canadian public body websites.
Our Commitment
Community TV will not bow to baseless accusations or attempts to censor our work. We will continue to uphold the principles of public access and freedom of the press, regardless of how inconvenient that may be for those in positions of power.
We call on the AER to clarify their policies, archive public records responsibly, and embrace the transparency that a “quasi-judicial” body should embody. Until then, we’ll be here, cameras rolling, pens scribbling, and keyboards clicking.
If the AER wishes to challenge us again, we’re ready. But in the words of a wise raccoon defending its dumpster pizza: This is ours now, and we’re not letting go.
Stay tuned. Stay informed. Stay free.
– Community TV
To: Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Facebook, and the Public
Subject: Response to AER’s Copyright Claim and Removal of Community TV Content
Date: [Insert Date]
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing on behalf of Community TV, a respected and independent news organization dedicated to amplifying public discourse, ensuring transparency, and representing underrepresented voices. Recent actions by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to report our coverage of the public hearing in Pincher Creek as a copyright infringement are both baseless and deeply concerning. This letter aims to address the AER’s claims, highlight their lack of legal standing, and assert the fundamental rights of press freedom and public access to information.
1. The Public Nature of AER Hearings
The AER explicitly states on its website that its hearings are “formal court-like processes” designed to gather information on energy projects in a transparent manner. Section 25(1) of the AER Rules of Practice confirms that oral and electronic hearings are open to the public. The broadcast of these hearings on the AER’s website supports this claim, making the proceedings accessible to all.
Given this, the notion that Community TV’s retransmission of this public event infringes on intellectual property is absurd. The webcast, created using public funds, exists to serve the public interest. Denying the press the ability to further disseminate these records directly undermines the principle of accessibility and transparency that underpins the AER’s own mission.
2. Misguided Privacy Concerns
The AER has claimed that their measures to restrict video distribution are intended to protect the privacy of individuals involved in hearings. This claim is unfounded for several reasons:
- Public Accessibility: By broadcasting hearings on an open-access website, the AER has already consented to the public sharing of these proceedings. Any individual who appears in these broadcasts does so with the understanding that their participation is publicly viewable.
- Lack of Privacy Expectation: Participants in public hearings inherently forgo certain privacy expectations. Canadian law recognizes that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, especially in public proceedings.
- Engagement and Trust: Contrary to the AER’s assertions, restricting the dissemination of public hearing footage discourages public engagement and erodes trust in the transparency of regulatory processes.
3. Copyright Claims by a Public Body
The AER, as a publicly funded regulatory body, is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). Section 64 of FOIP explicitly mandates the responsible creation, handling, preservation, and accessibility of public records. The AER’s claim of copyright over these materials contradicts its status as a public body and undermines FOIP’s transparency objectives.
Further, Section 92 of FOIP establishes penalties for the destruction or concealment of public records. Graham White’s admission that AER deletes webcast materials after hearings suggests a violation of this provision, raising concerns about the long-term preservation of records crucial to public and historical accountability.
4. Indigenous Representation and Cultural Sensitivity
Indigenous participants at AER hearings often convey critical cultural and emotional expressions that transcripts alone cannot capture. By failing to maintain video records, the AER disregards the need for a comprehensive and accurate historical record of these hearings, which disproportionately disadvantages Indigenous communities.
5. The Role of Community TV
Community TV serves as a vital bridge between public proceedings and broader community awareness. By retransmitting AER’s public hearings, we fulfill the same function the AER claims to prioritize—ensuring accessibility for those unable to attend in person. The AER’s actions to suppress this coverage are antithetical to their stated goals and reflect poorly on their commitment to transparency.
Our Demands
We demand the following actions:
- Immediate Withdrawal of Copyright Claims: The AER must retract its baseless claims against Community TV and acknowledge our right to share publicly accessible content.
- Commitment to Record Preservation: The AER must commit to archiving and making available all webcast materials, in compliance with FOIP and the public interest.
- Public Apology: The AER must issue an apology for undermining press freedom and threatening an independent news organization for fulfilling its journalistic duty.
Conclusion
The AER’s attempts to restrict public access to information are not only legally indefensible but also morally unjustifiable. As a public body, the AER has a duty to uphold transparency and accountability, not suppress it. Community TV will not waver in its commitment to public service journalism, and we will pursue every legal avenue to ensure that public hearings remain accessible to all.
To Facebook: Your platform plays a crucial role in enabling the free flow of information. We urge you to reinstate the removed content immediately and review the validity of copyright claims more critically in the future.
To the Public: This is a fight for more than just one video. It’s a fight for transparency, accountability, and the right to know. Join us in demanding that public institutions remain open to public scrutiny.
HA HA FUCKING HA! THIS IS TOO FUNNY! YOUR BULLYING FAILED AER.
AER backs down from claim public hearings are its intellectual property by Alex McCuaig, Dec 6, 2024, Community TV
The Alberta Energy Regulator has withdrawn its copyright claims against Community TV’s broadcast of the Grassy Mountain coal mine hearings.
Those claims resulted in Community TV’s broadcast of the public hearings being removed from its broadcast platforms.
The hearings featured dozens of Albertans testifying both in support and opposition of development of the Grassy Mountain mine and was held on Tuesday and Wednesday in Pincher Creek.
The public hearings were openly broadcast live on the Internet.
The hearing committee chair stated recording and broadcast of those proceedings was “strictly prohibited” and a watermark on the live and publicly available feed read, “recording of AER webcasts are prohibited.”
Community TV’s position is the AER does not have the legal authority to place restrictions on a public hearing broadcast live on a public transmission medium. Nor would such restrictions be practicably enforceable by the AER since the public body has no jurisdiction outside the boundaries of Alberta.
Late Thursday, AER filed claims to Facebook and YouTube that Community TV’s broadcast of the coal mine hearings constituted a breach of its intellectual property.Roaring laughter! AER Douches have no intellect, they are damp squibs, thoughtless fucks with no imagination and no creativity, always bent over serving the corporations they self regulate. No room for intellect.
The AER reversed that position on Friday with YouTube reinstating Community TV’s broadcast with indications Facebook will follow suit.
The Grassy Mountain coal mine development has been a hotly debated topic in the Crowsnest Pass, southern Alberta and across the province.
Community TV is seeking a public apology from AER for interrupting its freedom of expression Charter rights in providing information about that debate.Bravo! AER owe me a shit load of apologies too, notably for lying, defaming me in their 2012 court filing naming me a terrorist — without any evidence, no Affidavit, nadda.
2007 Cartoon of then EUB, now AER, joined by industry fucking public trapped by (grossly unfair and unjust) rules and procedures.