Francesca’s actions, while performed by an individual, fall under the guidelines set out for institutional copying. As described in Hofman’s Introducing Copyright, there are such things as individual licences, general licences and blanket licences. 

While Francesca’s school is under-funded in comparison to the more prosperous institutions a blanket licence for her school would be its best option, because a flat fee can be paid by the school for its staffs’ reproduction charges. Unfortunately this is not feasible; therefore Francesca’s is forced to reproduce, by-hand, her lesson material for her students’ use. 

The guidelines of the Copyright Board of Canada state that the agreed upon tariffs according to the notice statement amounts to about ‘$1.73 per calendar year per pre-school, elementary and secondary FTE (full-time equivalent) student’ (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-homologues/2007/20070217-e-b.pdf). Hardly a workable solution for an under-funded school, because they tend to have the higher student populations. 

In conclusion, provided that Francesca’s copying fell within the 10% fair-dealing provision she would be allowed to make hard-copies for school purposes. The limitations can be extended by the conditions stated in Section 3, subsection 3 of the Canada Gazette, for instance (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-homologues/2009/20090626-b.pdf). Many countries would follow these same provisions, so we don’t believe Francesca has violated copyright by reproducing them in overhead form.

(Editor’s Note: We’ve gone for something of a combined answer this week for the scenario’s two questions. Hope that is acceptable, thank you.)