Your search

In response to the Canadian government consultation process on the modernization of the copyright framework launched in the summer 2021, we hereby present our analysis and recommendations concerning the interaction between copyright and the Internet of Things (IoT). The recommendations herein reflect the shared opinion of the intellectual property scholars who are signatories to this brief. They are informed by many combined decades of study, teaching, and practice in Canadian, US, and international intellectual property law.In what follows, we explain:•The importance of approaching the questions raised in the consultation with a firm commitment to maintaining the appropriate balance of rights and interests in Canada’s copyright system, within the broader framework of the Constitution;•That the modernization of the Copyright Act requires a careful examination of the copyright framework within larger observable trends of dominant positions in the marketplace and anti-competitive practices, of the extraction of big (personal) data, and of market and legal infrastructures’ heavy reliance on non-negotiated standard form contracts;-That the growing prevalence of the IoT shows more clearly than ever before why Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) need to be recalibrated in keeping with the objectives of copyright, the Constitution, property rights, and of promoting competitive markets.As such, we recommend: -To narrow the scope of the TPM prohibitions under the Copyright Act, whereby the circumvention of access controls or copy controls for non-copyright-infringing purposes would be lawful, with a non-exhaustive list of such purposes to provide greater legal certainty. The same treatment would apply to the dealing in TPM circumvention technology enabling the exercise of non-copyright-infringing purposes.In the alternative, the Copyright Act should be amended to:-Introduce a new exception that would confirm that the TPM provisions (and other relevant exclusive rights in the Copyright Act) do not apply to the right to repair, including for maintenance and diagnostics purposes. -Introduce a new exception to encourage follow-on innovation. -Additionally, just as copyright holders should not be allowed to contract out of exceptions to copyright infringement through non-negotiated standard form agreements, neither should they be allowed to opt out of exceptions to TPM prohibitions by contract.

In response to the Canadian government consultation process on the modernization of the copyright framework launched in the summer 2021, we hereby present our analysis and recommendations concerning the interaction between copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The recommendations herein reflect the shared opinion of the intellectual property scholars who are signatories to this brief. They are informed by many combined decades of study, teaching, and practice in Canadian and international intellectual property law. In what follows, we explain:- The importance of approaching the questions raised in the consultation with a firm commitment to maintaining the appropriate balance of rights and interests in Canada’s copyright system, consistent with a robust principle of technological neutrality.- The importance of ensuring that text and data mining (TDM) activity can be undertaken in Canada without the threat of potential copyright liability. We therefore propose both an opening up of Canada’s fair dealing doctrine to better accommodate TDM activities, and the enactment of a specific statutory provision to confirm that uses of copyright works and other subject matter for TDM (whether commercial or non-commercial) do not infringe copyright. - The importance of resisting calls to extend copyright protection to AI-generated outputs. We therefore propose maintaining and confirming the existing principled requirements of human authorship and original expression as preconditions of copyright protection, and we caution against any move to establish new neighbouring or sui generis rights in respect of AI outputs. Works generated by AI should remain in the public domain. As such, we recommend:- Enacting a broad statutory provision confirming that use of a work or other subject matter for TDM does not infringe copyright. This specific exception should be available to all users, apply to commercial and noncommercial uses, permit the retention and sharing of copies, and be protected from contractual override. - Amending section 29 of the Copyright Act to make the list of purposes an illustrative list (“for purposes such as”) and adding TDM or data/informational analysis as an enumerated purpose therein.- Confirming in section 2 of the Copyright Act that “author” means a human being/natural person; and confirming in section 5 of the Copyright Act that copyright shall not subsist in a work created without a human author.

This paper tests the assumptions upon which the Federal Court of Appeal based its decision in Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information Inc. Specifically, the author challenges the argument raised by the court that Article 1705 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, dealing with copyright protection for compilations of data, obliged Canada to adopt a "creativity" standard of originality for copyright works akin to the U.S. position in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Finally, the author canvasses the relevant copyright decisions rendered subsequent to Tele-Direct, including the controversial Federal Court trial decision in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, in order to demonstrate the distortions created by the application of this tenuous NAFTA argument to the question of the appropriate standard of "originality" for factual compilations.

This paper assesses the Supreme Court of Canada's elaboration of 'user rights' in two significant copyright law decisions rendered after its landmark ruling in CCH v. Law Society of Upper Canada.

Immigrants face significant challenges that impair their ability to access resources that can develop their entrepreneurial potential. Using an action research and case-based approach, we highlight the challenges experienced by immigrant entrepreneurs and in turn discuss practical measures to resolve these challenges through mentoring programmes for nascent entrepreneurs. We profile a unique multi-disciplinary programme involving both business and law students who coordinate and deliver workshops for course credit. Established entrepreneurs and professionals also volunteer their time as mentors. We develop a balanced scorecard to assess and improve the programme. Study results provide a model to enable universities and others to reach out to nascent immigrant entrepreneurs.

We synthesize knowledge about the policy and practices and infrastructure available for technology transfer of student inventions. Our joint consideration of intellectual property protection and business and legal support services has tried to overcome some of the traditional functional and knowledge silos.