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 commercial practices that may or may not violate 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 closely as possible to their maximum willingness to pay (APP), may contravene anti-discrimination law. It analyses cases whereby APP could constitute prima facie discrimination, while acknowledging the difficulty to detect this commercial practice. We discuss 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, we argue that 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 and given its quasi-constitutional status. An additional contribution of this article is to bridge traditional anti-discrimination law with emerging AI governance regulation, resorting to the gaps identified in anti-discrimination law to show 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.

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.

Current plans for oversight of social and other online media platforms are a soft but important exercise. More should be done.

This in an introduction to the special Issue "Media and Communication Theory and the Regulation of the Networked Society" published by the international peer-review journal LAWS. The collection of articles builds on the interdisciplinary dialogue that took place at the University of Windsor (Canada) symposium on the regulation of digital platforms, new media and technologies in the fall of 2019. The articles of the collection explore the various effects of media and borders, networks, amidst pandemics and environmental crises, different understandings of regulation, and the particular challenges of interdisciplinarity as it connects to law and regulation. The collection gathers the works of several academics worldwide who reflect on some of the biggest questions and challenges of our time: how do transnational digital media platforms, algorithms and big data shape commerce, politics, speech and mobilization or resistance on pressing issues such as climate change, the pandemic, elections, racial discrimination or social justice? How do transnational digital platforms redefine the role of our governments, our everyday lives, the citizenry? How do governments, private undertakings, institutions and citizens resort to, or respond to, this ultra-mediatized networked environment? To what extent have national borders become obsolete in this networked global village? Building on the scholarship of Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan and others, as a point of departure to explore the regulation of new media, this Special Issue tackles several of these pressing questions in a post-colonialist, posttruth environment. Various theories about media, networks and borders at the intersection of law and regulation may better inform the goals that law and policy makers should pursue (or not). This is particularly timely as governments, private corporations and citizens around the world face unprecedented challenges with flows of (dis)information about the global pandemic, hate speech and environmental crises.

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 article examines the legal and normative foundations of media content regulation in the borderless networked society. We explore the extent to which internet undertakings should be subject to state regulation, in light of Canada’s ongoing debates and legislative reform. We bring a cross-disciplinary perspective (from the subject fields of law; communications studies, in particular McLuhan’s now classic probes; international relations; and technology studies) to enable both policy and language analysis. We apply the concept of sovereignty to states (national cultural and digital sovereignty), media platforms (transnational sovereignty), and citizens (autonomy and personal data sovereignty) to examine the competing dynamics and interests that need to be considered and mediated. While there is growing awareness of the tensions between state and transnational media platform powers, the relationship between media content regulation and the collection of viewers’ personal data is relatively less explored. We analyse how future media content regulation needs to fully account for personal data extraction practices by transnational platforms and other media content undertakings. We posit national cultural sovereignty—a constant unfinished process and framework connecting the local to the global—as the enduring force and justification of media content regulation in Canada. The exercise of state sovereignty may be applied not so much to secure strict territorial borders and centralized power over citizens but to act as a mediating power to promote and protect citizens’ individual and collective interests, locally and globally.

In York University v The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (2020), the Federal Court of Appeal was confronted with two issues at the heart of ongoing debates in Canadian copyright law. First, whether tariffs of copyright collective societies are mandatory. Second, and the main focus of this case comment, how should the fair dealing doctrine be interpreted with respect to the purpose of education. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court decision that York University Fair dealing Guidelines did not meet the fair dealing requirements in copyright law. This case comment highlights how the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal failed to consider important contextual elements of York University Guidelines that might have led to different conclusions. It provides some guidance on how fair dealing for the purpose of education should be interpreted. While fair dealing has been characterized as a “user right” by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) and subsequent decisions, this case comment points to some of the shortcomings of fair dealing as a vehicle to promote greater access to educational materials. It concludes by highlighting the challenges that lie ahead on the application of fair dealing to educational institutions, and by broadening the debate of access to educational materials beyond the fair dealing doctrine.

In her book Copyright and Collective Authorship — Locating the Authors of Collaborative Work, Dr. Daniela Simone identifies root causes of the deficiencies in the law’s treatment of (joint) authorship, and provides an admirable roadmap and analytical framework to orient the judiciary and all others concerned about ascertaining who should be the authors of collective works. Simone’s analytical framework and prescriptions rely on four case studies that involve large amounts of collaboration: Wikipedia, Australian indigenous art, scientific collaborations and film. Throughout the book, I was struck by Simone’s commitment to integrity, ethics and fairness in her treatment of contributors of creative processes, pointing to power imbalances, misguided practicality and efficiency rationales, and how those factors may have the law turn its back away from otherwise deserving authorial contributions.

"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

Price is an essential term at the heart of supplier-consumer transactions and relationships increasingly taking place in “micro-marketplace chambers,” where points of comparison with similar relevant products may be difficult to discern and time-consuming to make. This article critically reviews recent legal and economic academic literature, policy reports on algorithmic personalized pricing (i.e. setting prices according to consumers’ personal characteristics to target their willingness to pay), as well as recent developments in privacy regulation, competition law, and policy discourse, to derive the guiding norms that should inform the regulation of this practice, predominantly from a consumer protection perspective. Looking more closely at algorithmic personalized pricing through prevailing and conflicting norms of supplier freedom, competition, market efficiency, innovation, as well as equality, fairness, privacy, autonomy, and transparency, raises important concerns about certain forms of algorithmic personalized pricing. This article provides parameters to delineate when algorithmic personalized pricing should be banned as a form of unfair commercial practice. This ban would address the substantive issues that algorithmic personalized pricing raises. Resorting to mandatory disclosure requirements of algorithmic personalized pricing would address some of the concerns at a procedural level only, and for this reason is not the preferred regulatory approach. As such, our judgment on the (un)acceptability of algorithmic personalized pricing as a commercial practice is a litmus test for how we should regulate the indiscriminate extraction and use of consumer personal data in the future.

Graffiti is vilified, and at the same time is increasingly revered and celebrated. This ambivalence is reflected in the general legal landscape that surrounds graffiti and other forms of street art at the criminal, civil and municipal levels. Within this general legal framework, the application of copyright law to graffiti and street art reveals a complex web of interwoven issues about the protection of the graffiti artist’s economic and moral rights and questions of illegality and public policy, and about the rights of the property owner of the “wall” on which the art resides, and the public. This book chapter explores how the law mediates between the rights of graffiti and street artists, the rights of the property owner on which the art resides, and members of the public. The application of copyright law to graffiti and street art offers an opportunity to investigate where the balance should lie between various competing rights and interests relating to these types of works.

In a brief submitted to the standing committee on industry, science and technology, 11 Canadian intellectual property scholars urged Parliament to maintain a balanced, distinctly Canadian copyright system that guards against external...

In contemporary copyright law, there is an ongoing debate around the nature and scope of the rights users should have to copyright works, exacerbated by ongoing technological developments. Within that debate, this article queries the value of looking at the remedies users may have against copyright holders restricting their legitimate uses of works, as a means to further elucidate the nature and scope of user rights. While there is some value in looking at remedies to situate copyright user rights, an access to justice perspective to rights and remedies suggests that such approach may be too limiting with respect to the position of potential claimants in a legal system. On that basis, this paper identifies structural deficiencies of copyright user rights and proposes an analytical framework towards achieving greater “justice for users” both in the realm of public law and private law.

This is an introduction to selected articles published in vol. 35 of The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice (2018) further to the Symposium: "Copyright User Rights and Access to Justice" hosted by Windsor Law on May 18-19 2017. It gives a brief overview of the concept of copyright user rights and access to justice, as well as of the main themes discussed in the articles and at the Symposium, including access to knowledge and human rights.