What is fair dealing in Canada?

Creators making reaction, review, commentary and parody content, and startups using screenshots, quotes and clips in marketing, all eventually ask whether fair dealing covers them.

Which purposes qualify?

Purpose	Section	Extra requirement
Research, private study, education	s. 29	None
Parody or satire	s. 29	None
Criticism or review	s. 29.1	Mention the source, and the author or creator if given
News reporting	s. 29.2	Mention the source, and the author or creator if given

If the use isn’t for one of these purposes, fair dealing doesn’t apply, however small the use. Advertising and general promotion aren’t listed purposes.

How do courts decide whether it’s fair?

The Supreme Court of Canada set out factors in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, and has applied them since:

1. Purpose: the real purpose of the dealing, looked at objectively.
2. Character: how the work was used, for example a single copy or wide distribution.
3. Amount: how much was taken, and how important that part is.
4. Alternatives: whether a non-copyrighted alternative was available, or the work wasn’t needed.
5. Nature of the work: for example, whether it was published or confidential.
6. Effect: whether the use competes with or harms the market for the original.

No single factor decides it. Commercial use doesn’t automatically rule out fair dealing, but it weighs in the analysis.

How is it different from US fair use?

US fair use is open-ended: any purpose can qualify if the use is fair. Canada’s list of purposes is closed. Courts read the listed purposes generously (in SOCAN v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36, song previews used by consumers choosing music counted as research), but a use outside them, such as using a clip purely to entertain, won’t qualify in Canada even if it might in the US. If your audience and platform are global, the stricter rule is the safer guide.

How does it apply to common creator content?

Content	Fair dealing likely?
A review that shows short clips to support specific commentary, crediting the source	Possibly, if the amount is proportionate
A reaction video that plays most of the original with little commentary	Unlikely
A parody that mocks the original or comments on something through it	Possibly
Background music in a sponsored post	No. See using music in your content
A screenshot of a competitor’s site in a comparison ad	Unlikely, since advertising isn’t a listed purpose; comparative advertising rules also apply

Separately, section 29.21 allows some non-commercial user-generated content, such as mashups, that wouldn’t otherwise qualify. It doesn’t cover monetized brand work.

What about trademarks and people in the content?

Fair dealing is a copyright exception only. Using a brand’s logo or a person’s likeness raises separate issues. See do I need permission to use someone’s image.

What to do next

We review brand deal contracts and prepare content licensing agreements, at fixed fees on our fees page.

This guide is general information about Canadian law, not legal advice for your situation. If you’ve received a takedown or claim, book a free 15-minute consult.