Your search

        As much attention is turned to regulating AI systems to minimize the risk of harm, including the one caused by discriminatory biased outputs, a better understanding of how commercial practices may contravene anti-discrimination law is critical. This article investigates the instances in which algorithmic price personalization, (i.e., setting prices based on consumers’ personal information with the objective of getting as close as possible to their maximum willingness to pay (APP)), may violate anti-discrimination law. It analyses cases whereby APP could constitute prima facie discrimination, while acknowledging the difficulty to detect this commercial practice. It discusses why certain commercial practice differentiations, even on prohibited grounds, do not necessarily lead to prima facie discrimination, offering a more nuanced account of the application of anti-discrimination law to APP. However once prima facie discrimination is established, APP will not be easily exempted under a bona fide requirement, given APP’s lack of a legitimate business purpose under the stringent test of anti-discrimination law, consistent with its quasi-constitutional status. This article bridges traditional anti-discrimination law with emerging AI governance regulation. Pointing to identified gaps in anti-discrimination law, it analyses how AI governance regulation could enhance anti-discrimination law and improve compliance.

Price is often the single most important term in consumer transactions. As the personalization of e-commerce continues to intensify, the law and policy implications of algorithmic personalized pricing i.e., to set prices based on consumers’ personal data with the objective of getting as closely as possible to their maximum willingness to pay (APP), should be top of mind for regulators. This article looks at the legality of APP from a personal data protection law perspective, by first presenting the general legal framework applicable to this commercial practice under competition and consumer law. There is value in analysing the legality of APP through how these bodies of law interact with one and the other. This article questions the legality of APP under personal data protection law, by its inability to effectively meet the substantive requirements of valid consent and reasonable purpose. Findings of illegality of APP under personal data protection law may in turn further inform the lawfulness of APP under competition and consumer law.

"10 Simone's approach is reminiscent of Jessica Silbey's work11 - having conducted an empirical study of various participants12 in creative and innovative industries, to situate creators' motivations in relation to the utilitarian objective of intellectual property to incentivize creation and innovation.13 Silbey, and to some extent Simone, apply the insights derived from their studies of creative communities to challenge the extent to which copyright (intellectual property) is necessary to incent authors to create.14 Silbey concludes that misalignments between intellectual property laws and the needs and aspirations of creators and innovators are desirable to some extent, but she also calls for some improvements of the law.15 Simone applies the insights derived from the case studies to rehabilitate the concept of (joint) authorship through an inclusive and contextual approach, sorting out what (often overlooked) contributions should count within the objectives of copyright law. The book focuses mainly on U.K. copyright law and how it addresses concepts of (joint) authorship, with an incursion in Australian law regarding its treatment of Australian indigenous art.16 As such, the analysis the book provides is relevant to Canadian copyright law, under which the basic conception of (joint) authorship bears similarity to U.K. copyright law.17 As recommendations are made in the context of Canada's ongoing copyright law reform to look into the adequate protection of indigenous traditional cultural expressions,18 the book is particularly relevant for its detailed discussion on the interaction between copyright law and indigenous traditional cultural expressions.19 On the law's exigencies surrounding authorship, despite uncertain contours, Simone identifies a "stable core" pointing to "the creator of the protected expression,"20 and argues that authorship requires more than de minimis contribution of creative choices or intellectual input to the protected expression.21 Taking a close look at the requirements of joint authorship,22 namely that contributors (i) act in pursuance of some collaboration or common design (ii) make a contribution that is not distinct, that is significant and that is of the right kind, Simone makes three important observations that highlight the strengths and deficiencies of the legal conception of joint authorship when applied to large groups of collaborators.23 First, the test is heavily fact-driven, which, in itself, is a strength that allows flexibility in the test's application to different creative processes and contexts.24 Second, Simone notices a restrictive approach in the application of the joint authorship test that limits the number of individuals qualifying as authors to one or a few dominant creators.25 Simone suggests that this restrictive trend to joint authorship leans toward imposing a higher standard of authorship for joint works than for single-author works. [...]higher standard for joint authorship is not justified by the CDPA.26 Simone attributes this tendency to a pragmatic instrumental approach adopted by courts where it is deemed more desirable to limit the number of authors in collaborative works.27 This pragmatic instrumental approach is disjointed from the core meaning of authorship in copyright law, i.e., contribution(s) of creative choices to the protected expression.28 Third, Simone notes a preoccupation of the judiciary to maintain aesthetic neutrality in its assessment of joint authorship.29 While some judicial restraint on the assessment of aesthetic merit is understandable given that copyright protection of a work does not depend on this criterion, it is difficult to ascertain (joint) authorship without some resort to aesthetic criteria, e.g, to determine what makes something literary, artistic, dramatic, etc? [...]Simone prescribes the adoption of a contextual approach to the joint authorship test by accounting for the social norms governing authorial groups to assess questions of facts in the test.39 This said, not all social norms are relevant to this exercise and resort thereto should be restricted to social norms based on their certainty, representativeness and policy implications.40 Resort to social norms is particularly important for the requirement of collaboration or common design, which should rely on the shared assumptions of the creators.41 Particularly relevant to Canada where case law diverges on the requirement of intention to be joint authors,42 Simone notes that while

In this article, the author investigates the nature of exceptions to copyright infringement or users' rights as they are laid out in Canada's Copyright Act and in copyright jurisprudence, as well as through their interaction with contracts and technological protection measures. The author begins his analysis with four exceptions to copyright infringement that were added to the Copyright Act in 2012 (i.e., the non-commercial user-generated content, the reproduction for private purposes, the later listening or viewing, and the backup copies exceptions to copyright infringement) with a particular focus on their relevance for consumers and their relation to pre-existing users' rights. The author investigates the nature of these exceptions, including through Hohfeld's theory of jural correlatives. He looks at the policy considerations behind these questions and conclude his article by reflecting on the damaging effects of the uncertain nature of users' rights on the coherence and, ultimately, the legitimacy of copyright law.

Copyright laws throughout the world are copyright holder centric and present a very fragmented source to comprehend the rights of users, and in particular of consumers owning copies of copyrighted works. Although in recent years, a growing number of commentators have worked towards defining the place of users in copyright law, little attention has been devoted to the nature and justifications of copy ownership of copyrighted works. This paper applies property and copyright theory to define and justify the existence of copy ownership of copyrighted works. Part One of this paper laid out the theoretical framework of property and copyright theory. Part Two applies the theoretical framework to define the nature of the copy of a copyrighted work, as well as its justifications. It explores the ramifications of copyright acting as a property-limitation rule to copy ownership, and how copy ownership can also act as a property-limitation rule of copyright.

Copyright laws throughout the world are copyright holder centric and present a very fragmented source to comprehend the rights of users, and in particular of consumers owning copies of copyrighted works. Although in recent years, a growing number of commentators have worked towards defining the place of users in copyright law, little attention has been devoted to the nature and justifications of copy ownership of copyrighted works. This paper applies property and copyright theory to define and justify the existence of copy ownership of copyrighted works. It seeks to carve out in clearer terms the place of copy ownership legally and normatively, to offer a counterbalance to a predominant copyright holder centric approach to copyright law. Part One of this paper lays the theoretical framework of property and copyright theory. Part Two applies the theoretical framework to define the nature of the copy of a copyrighted works, as well as its justifications. It explores the ramifications of copyright acting as a property limitation rule to copy ownership, and how copy ownership can also act as a property-limitation rule of copyright. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

THE issue of retroactive application of the ‘New York Convention of 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards'’1 has already been raised in a number of cases and articles. While the latter tend to agree that the Convention was meant to apply retroactively2 the former show somewhat less homogeneity on that question.3 Nevertheless, this issue remains very much alive with respect to the ever increasing number of states acceding to the Convention. In the last five years, 50 new states have become parties to the Convention, raising the total number to 83 member states.4The Convention contains no explicit reference to its retroactive application nor is its history conclusive on this issue.5 Some implementing statutes of the Convention deal expressly with its temporal application. Indeed, at least five of them state expressly a date from which the Convention is applicable.6 On the other hand, at least two others state expressly that the Convention applies without any restriction in time.7