The development of copyright law in Canada has never been quick to move but rather advances like a river carving its course, slow, persistent, and shaped by centuries of cultural and legal history. From the imperial statutes imported in the nineteenth century to the quiet but profound pronouncements of today’s Supreme Court, its progress has been less a leap than a measured accumulation of meaning across generations. Each judgment is a stone laid carefully in the stream, sometimes uneven, sometimes contested, yet together forming a path that reflects Canada’s patient effort to balance the rights of creators with the needs of users, tradition with innovation, and private reward with the public’s access to knowledge.

In March 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada released CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (“CCH”), a case that began as a dispute over library photocopying but grew into one of the most influential copyright rulings in Canadian history. In a single unanimous judgment, the Court redefined the purpose of copyright, reshaped its doctrinal foundations, and projected Canada’s legal voice onto the international stage. Twenty-one years later, on a bright, sunny weekend in , scholars, practitioners, professionals, and observers gathered at the Centre to reflect on the enduring legacy of CCH at home and abroad, asking: what did this ruling truly accomplish, and what did it set in motion?

The CCH ruling addressed four critical questions. First, the Court adopted the “” test for originality, rejecting the idea that mere industrious effort, what had been called the “sweat of the brow”, was enough to qualify for copyright protection. Originality required more: an intellectual contribution that reflected thought and decision.

Second, the Court narrowed intermediary liability. Simply providing the means for infringement, such as photocopiers in a library, would not make an institution liable unless it the infringing use.

Third, it clarified “,” a concept increasingly relevant in the digital age, limiting how far publishers could stretch their rights against libraries sharing works with their patrons.

And fourth, and most famously, the Court recognized fair dealing and other exceptions as “.” With this declaration, the Court placed access and fairness at the heart of copyright law, ensuring that copyright was not simply a monopoly for rightsholders but a balanced framework serving creators, users, and the public interest.

As with any turning point in law, CCH’s legacy is complex. Supporters celebrate it as the moment Canada broke from overly restrictive copyright models and embraced a fairer balance between access and control. Critics, however, argue that the decision distorted the legislation and accelerated the decline of Canadian educational publishing. While Quebec largely charted its own cultural path, much of English Canada embraced the Court’s expansive vision of user rights, leaving local publishers crying foul as they struggled to adapt and compete in the digital era.

Even within institutions, the embrace of user rights has been uneven. While fair dealing has flourished through subsequent cases in the Supreme Court’s “” and amendments to of the Copyright Act, other exceptions, such as disability rights under , remain under-utilized. Libraries and universities, wary of litigation, often adopt risk-averse policies that fail to reflect the spirit of CCH. It is a reminder that judicial doctrine alone cannot change practice; institutions (and the people who work for them) must also to carry the torch.

Though born of a Canadian library, the CCH decision quickly echoed abroad. In India, the Supreme Court adopted Canada’s “skill and judgment” test in (2008), and today Indian courts continue to revisit CCH as they grapple with generative AI disputes and the role of user rights in text and data mining. In South Africa, reform efforts to decolonize and modernize copyright law have built upon CCH, with the proposed seeking to expand exceptions and incorporate fair use principles that mirror Canada’s emphasis on balance. Across Africa’s music economy, the narrowing of intermediary liability established in CCH resonates strongly: while limiting liability can promote innovation, in regions with weak enforcement institutions, it risks enabling exploitation—highlighting the danger of transplanting doctrines from well-resourced systems into fragile infrastructures. Meanwhile, in Europe and Latin America, Canada’s approach has sparked reflection of another kind. European scholars contrast Canada’s robust recognition of user rights with the EU’s narrower framework, while in Brazil, cultural policy debates under Gilberto Gil in the early 2000s similarly sought to reframe copyright as more than just a market commodity. In each of these contexts, CCH has functioned as both compass and caution—proof that a single Canadian decision can shape global debates, but also a reminder that law must always be adapted to the realities of place and culture.

CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada stands as a milestone not just in Canadian copyright, but in the global story of how law adapts to new technologies and shifting cultural priorities. Its vision of user rights has shaped debates from Ottawa to Delhi, Cape Town to São Paulo.

Looking back, CCH reminds us of the slow dance of law in Canada. It did not arrive with fanfare but unfolded through a quiet dispute about photocopiers and fax machines, carried by careful words and judicial reflection. Yet over time, its influence spread like ripples on water—shaping institutions, and practices, inspiring courts and policymakers abroad, and offering copyright law a compass for navigating entirely new technological challenges.

Law evolves slowly, but its slowness is part of its strength. In a world of disruption, it anchors us to principles that endure: fairness, balance, and the recognition that the rights of users and the public are not afterthoughts but part of the very purpose of copyright. As Canada reflects on the case twenty-one years later, it is worth remembering the lesson woven through its legacy: law does not race to keep up with every innovation, but moves like water in a stream, guided by the memory of where we have been and the hope of where we might yet go.

Links to the recorded panel presentations, speakers' bios and paper abstracts are now available .

A lawyer and graduate of the Osgoode Professional , Shadi Nasseri's doctoral research addresses the profound legal and ethical concerns arising from neurotechnologies, including issues related to mental integrity, human dignity, personal identification, freedom of thought, accessibility, autonomy, and privacy.

The post Currents, Waves, and Ripple Effects – CCH’s Legacy at Home and Abroad appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Prof. Pina D'Agostino

Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, the President of the Intellectual Property Society of Osgoode (IPSO), and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

For fifty years, the Copyright Society of the USA (CSUSA) has invited numerous esteemed figures to present the annual . This past Monday, Osgoode’s very own Professor David Vaver delivered the 2021 Brace lecture on “User Rights: Fair Use and Beyond” as the series’ very first international speaker from outside the United States. Professor Vaver spoke on the origins of fair dealing in Canada and its differences and similarities in comparison to the American legal concept of “fair use”, its evolution throughout the history of Canadian common law jurisprudence, and its potentially far-reaching future beyond Canada and copyright law.��

Professor Vaver opened his lecture by introducing Jack McClenaghan’s novel Moving Target[1], a man-on-the-run thriller set in New Zealand during World War II that follows an army deserter as he is hunted by the military. Similarly, the boundary between copyright and user rights can also be likened to a “moving target” – elusive, ever-evolving, and always open to debate. And like McClenaghan’s fictional account of militant pursuit, the history of tension between copyright and user rights has been a tale of survival on the part of both.��

“Fair dealing” in Canada is a statutory exception to copyright infringement, and has been “as an integral part of the Copyright Act [and more] than simply a defence”. The Court refers to it more specifically as a “user’s right”. However, fair dealing’s designation as an “exception” inherently produces a negative implication: that copyright law is the “natural order” of things. That anyone’s use of a copyright-protected work infringes the copyright owner’s property. That any deviation from that rule must be an “exception”.��

However, the history of copyright law has always read quite differently. Up until the 20th century, , the public had relatively free reign and plenty of rights to use and to benefit from the circulation of works at the time. However, over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, the island of copyright law that once stood amidst a sea of user rights began to expand, and as the sea around it shrank, the two eventually seemed to switch in character altogether.��

It wasn’t until the late 1900s that courts in the UK began to recognize a problem with the tendency towards legal copyright. In , the Church of Scientology sued a former member for publishing a book criticizing Scientology that contained material copied from Scientology books and documents, as well as confidential information pertaining to Scientology courses. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the scope and content of the fair dealing defence should include works of criticism. Along a similar vein in the US, Professor L. Ray Patterson and Judge Stanley F. Birch argued in their 1996 article that “the subject matter of copyright is information and learning, which implicates the right of citizens to know. This right is protected by both the First Amendment and the copyright clause”.��

Over time, Canadian courts also began to increasingly recognize the need for a careful balancing act to weigh the rights of copyright owners against those of the public. In , the court noted that “[t]he Copyright Act is usually presented as a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator...In crassly economic terms it would be as inefficient to overcompensate artists and authors for the right of reproduction as it would be self-defeating to undercompensate them.” Professor Vaver also credited Chief Justice McLachlin (as she then was) and Justice Abella for influencing this trajectory in Canadian copyright jurisprudence, as reflected by their rulings in more recent copyright law cases such as , in which the Court unanimously held that the Law Society’s practice of providing photocopy services to researchers fell within the ambit of fair dealing, and , in which the use of previews of musical works on online music services was also considered to be fair dealing.��

In conclusion, Professor Vaver invited listeners to consider how the idea of user rights may extend beyond the concept of fair dealing as a legal defence, perhaps beyond copyright law, or even beyond Canadian borders. In quoting from his own 2013 article “[J]urisdictions that view copyright's primary purpose as - to quote Nimmer - ‘not to reward the author but rather to secure the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors’ may find user rights a concept worth considering for their copyright law. And, while one is at it, why not for all intellectual property laws?”

[1] Jack McClenaghan, Moving Target (Gollancz, 1966).

The post Donald C. Brace Memorial Lecture by Professor David Vaver – “User Rights: Fair Use and Beyond” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Photocopying classroom materials in a K-12 public school system may have seemed harmless and benign before the 2012 Supreme Court of Canada case, . The decision reframes traditional teaching pedagogies by considering the artist and owner rights under copyright law. In doing so, I saw an opportunity to compile a list of resources for educators to make informed decisions about how they use and distribute learning materials (located at the end of this article).

Countless teachers throughout my K-12 years printed and distributed excerpts from a short story or a news article outside of our textbooks that held the most evocative paragraphs for pre-reading and open discussion. Other times, we looked at diagrams from an older edition of a textbook that were “much better for the purposes of our class.” While working as a tutor, I often collected scans of creative math problems from various textbooks.

Despite its benefits, copying materials can present consequences for the content’s owners, artists, and publishers. As a copyright collective, made royalty agreements during the years of 1991-1997 with all Canadian provinces and territories, except Quebec (which has its own collective, ), permitting use of copyright-protected content in primary and secondary schools on a per-student basis. These agreements were slated for renewal in 2004, during which Access Copyright sought to restructure the royalty system to reflect the quantity and extent of photocopies made in schools. Four different categories of usage arose from an assessment of school photocopying habits. The one in this case, Category 4, comprised of photocopying instances where teachers would assign readings from materials outside the textbook.

Access Copyright argued that Category 4 circumstances were not covered under the fair dealing exceptions and thus subject to tariffs. The Copyright Board agreed, claiming that despite the permissible use of the photocopied materials for educational purposes, the use was not fair and so royalties needed to be paid. A series of appeals regarding the definition of fairness ultimately led the case to the Supreme Court.

What constitutes “fair” dealing? The landmark 2004 SCC case, [CCH] defined the tests for fair dealing. It is the potential copier’s responsibility to ensure that their use passes the tests. As Abella J. summarizes in , fairness is assessed considering the “purpose, character, and amount of dealing; the existence of any alternatives to the dealing; the nature of the work; and the effect of the dealing on the work.” According to the , copies made without a student’s request for access do not fall under the permissible “private study” purpose. Consequently, copies made by teachers for the purposes of in-class instruction, pre-readings, and supplementary materials may be considered infringements of copyright. Likewise, I probably also would need to pay royalties for my small collection of math problems and diagrams.

In a 5/4 split, the SCC ruled in favour of educational institutions. , Abella J. contended that a teacher’s goal of instruction—facilitating the education of their students—was necessarily “symbiotic” with students’ studying. She took issue with how the Copyright Board misapplied other factors of the CCH tests, which arbitrarily placed educator copying habits in competition with the textbook market. She also pointed out the possibility of schools being doubly charged by Access Copyright, first upon purchase of the original work, and again upon copying. Note, was a unanimous SCC decision that reaffirmed Justice Abella’s emphasis on end-user considerations in a post-secondary setting.

Where do these cases leave Canadian educators now? They may continue to teach using copyright-protected materials, and are not required to destroy any copies by shredding them en masse or, theatrically, igniting a large pyre.

Overall, Alberta (Education) v Access Copyright serves as a useful reminder in understanding the legal framework to use original works. Below are several accessible resources that may also inform one’s judgement of fairness and fair dealing, as well as some interesting “further reading”.

In particular, the is a fantastic Canadian resource that can guide educators’ decision-making and reflection processes for the materials in question. It also points out any citation requirements (e.g., author/artist/owner name, title) and/or digital safeguards necessary to limit access to the material.

Further Reading:

Dr. Meera Nair's interesting take on the importance of copyright education for educators in classrooms and the promotion of creative thought:

IPilogue’s Sabrina Macklai writes about the recent 2021 SCC decision regarding post-secondary fair dealing in �첥��Ƶ v Access Copyright:

Council of Ministers of Education Canada’s resources for teachers:

Fair Dealing Canada:

Access Copyright’s information and services tab for educators:

Canadian Association of Research Libraries’ Resource Library’s copyright open educational modules for university instructors and staff:

Osgoode Hall’s Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino’s comparative analysis of Canadian, UK, and American fair use/dealing:

The post Revisiting Alberta v Access Copyright: Resources for K-12 Educators in Canada appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The original Lynn Goldsmith photograph (left) and Andy Warhol's Prince portrait (right), as reproduced in court documents. Photo Credit:

��

Tianchu Gao is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

On March 26, 2021, the found that the famed artist Andy Warhol violated photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s copyright by using her photo of the singer Prince to create his “Prince Series.” The series was originally commissioned by Vanity Fair after it bought the license of the photo portrait from Goldsmith. until Tribute magazine featured the image, without crediting her, when Prince passed away in 2016.

The legal question at the center of the dispute is whether Warhol’s series is of Goldsmith’s original photograph. A permissible derivative creation, or fair use, requires transformative changes made to the original. The that Warhol’s works were fair because they transformed a “vulnerable, uncomfortable person” in Goldsmith’s original photograph into “an iconic, larger-than-life figure.” Judge Gerald Lynch overturned this analysis in the appellate court, claiming that Warhol’s changes—including shallower depth, brighter hues, and larger size—were mere visual flourishes. “It does not follow…that any secondary work that adds a new aesthetic or new expression to its source material is necessarily transformative,” .

This is not the first time Andy Warhol was sued for IP infringement. In fact, nearly all creations by Andy Warhol are derivatives of existing images—celebrity photos, advertisements, magazine illustrations, etc.—to the extent where one could argue that the essence of Warhol’s art is . As a pioneer of , Warhol was one of the first artists to appropriate low-brow commercial imagery to challenge the notion of art as the products of geniuses’ inspirations. Following Warhol’s footsteps, artists in the pop art movement, as a form of cultural critique, deliberately mimicked machines and performed mechanic labor in their creations. In this sense, the originality of Andy Warhol’s art largely lies in the concept of appropriation, rather than any aesthetic quality. Yet, this conceptual innovation is not part of the legal test for the transformative nature of visual art.

The appellate court’s decision partly considered Goldsmith’s weakened ability to license and profit from her work used by the Warhol series. As one of the world’s most commercially successful artists, Andy Warhol had amassed tremendous fortune by making simple and repetitive changes to existing images created by other less-known artists. A great imbalance in power and wealth exists between the two parties in this case. On the other hand, Warhol’s great commercial success was the choice of the market. After all, Vanity Fair commissioned an Andy Warhol print, his signature silkscreen, instead of a creative portrait of Prince.

The Warhol Foundation plans to appeal the ruling, according to an The implication of the result will be far-reaching. If Goldsmith wins, the Warhol Foundation will probably face floods of litigations after years of diligent copying and printing by Warhol. The decision may even change the practice of many contemporary artists.��

The post Copyright Infringement by Andy Warhol in his Celebrity Silkscreen Series appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The journey to Justice Schabas’ 2020 decision begins back in 2003, when the plaintiff Tommy Wiseau released The Room, widely acknowledged as one of the . The film’s unwatchability (it has been described as a “” that is “”), along with the mystery surrounding its creator, helped the Room to develop a cult fan base. The film has , and has lent inspiration to James Franco’s 2017 Hollywood release, The Disaster Artist, as well as a lesser-known documentary about The Room created by the Defendants and titled Room Full of Spoons.

In 2011, the defendants began work on their documentary titled Room Full of Spoons, with the project initially welcomed by Wiseau. As his support for the film waned, the defendants, who were already in the production process, proceeded with their plans for filming. What followed for the defendants were years of legal threats and egregious behaviour by the plaintiffs, and an eventual wrongful injunction preventing the release of their film, all of which is outlined in Justice Schabas’ decision and in his discussion of freedom of expression in Canada.

For documentarians in Canada, Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper has changed the game. Previously relying on interpretations of the and advice such as that contained in , Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper provides Canadian filmmakers with an authoritative statement defining documentaries as an allowable purpose under . In his reasons, Justice Schabas tells us that ��“”.[1]

Further rounding out this proclamation is the statement that many practices standard to documentary filmmaking can in themselves satisfy the second part of the fair dealing test regarding fair use. In looking at the purpose and character of the dealing, Justice Schabas points out that documentaries are rarely produced with the expectation of commercial profit, and that it is a common technique of documentary filmmaking to provide narration over the copyrighted work that is used, finding the use of clips from a copyrighted work for the purpose of commentary to be an example of fair dealing.[2] Regarding alternatives to the dealing, Justice Schabas notes that in a case such as this, when the documentary is about the copyright-protected work itself, there is “”.[3]

Justice Schabas’ decision drives home the notion that a core purpose of Canadian copyright law is to balance the rights of users with those of owners, and affirms fair dealing as a user’s right as opposed to a defence to copyright infringement. Justice Schabas points out that Fair Dealing exists as an important part of copyright law as it works to ensure that creators of critical works of public interest won’t be silenced by copyright owners whose original work they wish to critique, stating that Fair Dealing “”.[4]

The decision provides other practical guidance for documentarians in Canada, confirming that providing credit in the end roll will satisfy the attribution requirement for fair dealing[5], and providing insight into substantial takings (any justified taking must be very insubstantial).[6] The decision also provides guidance on technological protection measures, otherwise known as digital locks (), providing that any claim brought regarding digital locks must have an evidentiary basis.[7]

Beyond its colourful and at times incredibly frustrating facts, Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper provides members of the Canadian arts community, and documentarians in particular, with a wealth of practical and authoritative guidance on Fair Dealing as a user’s right. Schabas’ decision is a strong statement on the importance of works that report and criticize, and on freedom of expression in Canada.

Written by Meghan Carlin. Meghan is entering her second year of studies at Osgoode Hall Law School and is a summer law student with Taylor Oballa Murray Leyland LLP who acted as co-counsel for the defendants in this case. In addition to her work with the IPilogue, Meghan is a Fellow with the Innovation Clinic and is Co-President of the Osgoode Entertainment and Sports Law Association.

[1] Wiseau Studio, LLC et al. v. Harper et al., 2020 ONSC 2504 at para 183.

[2] Ibid at para 186.

[3] Ibid at para 190.

[4] Ibid at para 177.

[5] Ibid at para 170.

[6] Ibid at para 164.

[7] Ibid at 167.

The post Wiseau Studio, LLC v Harper: Good News for Canadian Filmmakers on Fair Dealing and Documentaries appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Socratic teaching method gained popularity in the early 1900s due to its pedagogical advantages of teaching students to apply their knowledge critically by thinking on their feet; however, during the mid to late twentieth century, the method began to plateau and fall out of popularity. While there are many reasons that can be cited for this occurrence, the one that seems to be consistent is that .

One may look to how law school has changed over the years for an explanation: attendance is not forced; grading has become anonymized; and lectures are recorded enabling students to forgo the long commute and listen after the fact. These changes, along with the ever-increasing pool of distractions associated with the Internet, among other things, have resulted in the Socratic method being all but .

REDISCOVERING ANCIENT RUINS BURIED IN COPYRIGHT

A resurrection is possible, however. The question must turn to how educators can stimulate class preparation. One of the ways this can be accomplished is to proliferate standardized derivative works for students to leverage in their studies such as textbook abridgements, summaries, and video tutorials. This would enable students to more easily digest the historical iterations of the law in less time, and now at home in the wake of COVID. Standardization would ensure that no student has an upper hand.

One of the main inhibitors however is copyright law. In Canada, a “fair dealing” defence for derivative educational works is recognized under section 21 of the , “for the purpose of…education”. The work must also be “fair”, defined as a question of fact determined by six non-exhaustive criteria laid out in the landmark case of , [2004] 1 SCR 339. What this means is that professors, educators, and students who wish to create, sell or distribute helpful educational works risk copyright infringement, which seems to have been enough to prevent proliferation altogether.

One solution could be to wait until the owners of the original works – namely publishers – step up and begin to create derivative works. In the wake of COVID-19, publishers may very well respond to the increase in demand for online education with derivative works that can be leveraged by educators. However, I believe the better answer would be an online platform that holds the rights of the original works on behalf of creators (via a licence from a publisher) and allows them to create content without having to seek a license themselves. While this concept is largely unexplored, I hypothesize that creators will seek out works most in demand and begin creating and selling derivatives on the platform.

THE NEED FOR PRESERVATION VIA MODERN TECHNOLOGY & THE WAY FORWARD

As the law continues to iterate over time and the distractions of technology increase, the need to leverage that technology to better distill information to students is at all an all time high. Derivative educational works are a part of the answer. And while copyright creates some unique barriers, a unified platform with a business licensing strategy may be all that it takes to create the education of the future that the present has been desperately waiting for.

Written by Joseph Simile, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Joseph is also the editor of the IP Law Journal.

The post What Happened to Socrates appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Through references to films like Titanic and The Clock, Professor Bently spoke about the importance of fair dealing and ensuring that courts are not interpreting these provisions in an unduly restrictive manner.

Fair Dealing Exception

One of the exemptions parties may be afforded in the case of infringement is the fair use (the similar doctrine in the United States) or fair dealing (the doctrine in Canada) exception. On the surface, both doctrines animate similar principles, such as “character of the dealing”, however that the fair dealing doctrine is far more amenable and expansive compared to fair use. Fair dealing is a statutory exception to a copyright infringement, whereby the user is able to exercise rights in respect to copyrighted material belonging to an owner. Many scholars in favor of fair use find the fair dealing doctrine to be too amenable, making greater expansion, as Professor Bently advocates for, all the more difficult.

This defence provides an opportunity for users to defend a prima facie infringement, provided it is deemed to fall into the purview of sections 29.1 or 29.2 of the . Simply put, an individual can copy from a copyright protected work, without permission, provided the copy is for one of the enumerated purposes. Among these enumerated grounds are allowances for research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review, and news reporting. Additionally, the dealing must be “fair”, as determined by the courts.

The Judicial and Legislative Expansion of Fair Dealing Under Canadian Law

Section 3(1) of the Copyright Act lists the rights of the copyright owner. Among other things, the Act, in the same section, defines a copyright as “the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof”.

In response to this, Professor Bently probed at what truly constitutes a “substantial part”. Does a two-second sample constitute a substantial part, as was discussed in c-476/17, ? The court held, “sampling without authorisation can infringe a phonogram producer’s rights. However, the use of a sound sample taken from a phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear does not infringe those rights, even without such authorization.” Focusing on Canadian courts, the decision in defends an expansive approach to fair dealing. The court quotes professor who states, “user rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.”

 The Quotation Right in the Berne Convention

Adopted in 1886, the is concerned with the protection of works and the rights of their authors. The Convention sets the minimum protections to be afforded to countries who are signatories - Canada is one of these countries.

Article 10(1) of the Berne Convention states, “It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose…”. Professor Bently argues that despite the clarity and strength of the language used (“shall be permissible”), Article 10 has been largely overlooked. Expanding the application of fair dealing in Canada will require a more literal interpretation of this provision. 

Implications: Global, Mandatory Fair Use

In closing, Professor Bently states that Canada should extend its fair dealing exceptions further to permit quotation of all works for any other purpose. Despite the likelihood of dissent from the international community, as the expansion of fair dealing could mean undermining copyright holders’ rights, expansion remains a necessary step forward to prevent artistic expression from being unduly restricted by law.

Written by Jason Clarke, a third year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Jason is also a Clinic Fellow at IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic.

The post The 2020 Fox Intellectual Property Lecture: Global, Mandatory Fair Use appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The mood of the event was decidedly celebratory, with friends, family, students, and colleagues alike partaking in food, beverages, and conversation in honour of Prof. Chapdelaine’s accomplishment. Bob Tarantino kicked the event off by contextualizing Prof. Chapdelaine’s work within the copyright user rights discussion, which has been of growing importance in the IP community since the Supreme Court of Canada’s pronouncement in – adopting the language of Prof. – that exceptions to copyright infringement are best understood as users’ rights. Mr. Tarantino noted that Prof. Chapdelaine’s book provides an answer to the question, what are user rights with respect to copyright, and thus Prof. Chapdelaine’s new book is a valuable resource for user rights critics, advocates, and fence-sitters alike.

Prof. Chapdelaine commenced her talk by thanking her friends, family, and colleagues for their support throughout her career. Prof. Chapdelaine also noted the influence her diverse background has had on her work; she having spent years in private practice in Montreal as well as in-house counsel for Bell Media and BCE Inc, and holding an LLB and BCL from McGill Universty, an LLM from KU Leuven Faculty of Law in Belgium, and a PhD from Osgoode Hall Law School.

In her book, Prof. Chapdelaine sets out to define what copyright user rights actually entail – particularly in a society where the modes of cultural consumption are increasingly dematerialized and digitized. In other words, Prof. Chapdelaine’s work examines how Western legal traditions can (and should) conceptualize and uphold copyright user rights as society’s modes of consumption move away from ownership of tangibles (e.g. books, CDs, etc.) and towards access to intangibles (e.g. streaming, e-books, etc.)?

In the Canadian legal context, the logical extension of the preceding question is: how can and should the legislature and judiciary give effect to the Supreme Court of Canada’s pronouncement in , whilst still upholding the balance between the public interest and the rights of authors expounded by the Supreme Court in ? Prof. Chapdelaine also sets out to answer the corollary question: if exceptions to copyright infringement are user rights, what obligations are imposed on copyright owners by the existence of such rights?

In answering all of the above questions, Prof. Chapdelaine adopts a theoretical framework grounded in copyright law but informed by property, contract, and consumer law, and applies it to practical situations, resulting in a comprehensive perspective on copyright user rights. In so doing, Prof. Chapdelaine problematizes the dichotomies of tangible/intangible works, and copyright owner/user in attempts to show how misunderstandings of such dichotomies influence the various arguments for and against copyright user rights.

If you find the above questions and conceptions intriguing than I suggest you get yourself a copy of Prof. Chapdelaine’s new book – I know I sure will!

Stephen Cooley is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post A Celebratory Book Launch for Professor Pascale Chapdelaine appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Supreme Court of Canada dealt a strong blow to the so-called promise doctrine and made international precedent when it ordered Google to de-index infringing websites across the global Internet. These and the other developments noted below pave the way for an IP-busy 2018 as we await the release of the National IP Strategy, which will hopefully set the stage for Canadian advancements and benefits from emerging technologies and business practices. Here at IP Osgoode, we are set to examine the promise and challenges associated with one of these important technology areas: artificial intelligence (AI). On February 2, 2018, our AI conference, “Bracing for Impact: The Artificial Intelligence Challenge”, will feature internationally renowned AI experts from Canada and abroad. For more information and registration, visit .

We hope you can take part in our AI conference as well as our regular suite of exciting activities and initiatives as 2018 gets further underway!

PATENTS

The patent law landscape experienced incremental changes and some profound shifts that seemed to mimic the changes of the seasons here in Canada during 2017.

It’s All About the Money

The year kicked off with a chilling warning to Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) seeking to protect patent rights through litigation. NPEs commencing patent infringement actions “without a clear theory of infringement” may be sanctioned with for disregarding the “serious cost consequences [following from] allegations shown to be unwarranted”. In , the Federal Court of Canada was satisfied that the defendant’s activities were non-infringing; and because the plaintiffs “should have known that Bell did not infringe”, they were ordered to pay solicitor-client costs.

The Federal Court of Appeal reminded us in February that in “an extremely complex patent case involving [...] 22 allegations of invalidity, 33 days of discovery, 32 days of trial, written submission exceeding 700 pages, and the closing argument lasting three days”.

The Federal Court of Appeal also decided on profit recovery for infringing activities. In , the Court highlighted that the differential profit approach of recovery is to “ensure that a patentee only receives that portion of the infringer’s profit that is causally attributable to the invention”. Accordingly, the Court asserted that it is as the actual value of the “patent lies in the ability of the patentee to exclude competitors and competition” .

The Season of New Life and Law

In the UK, the beginning of spring was marked with a UK Patent Court decision on the interplay between IP and Competition Law. In , the court tackled issues involving standard-essential patents (SEPs), as well as the (FRAND) principles applicable to licensing agreements between patentees and licensees. In particular, the UK Court explained that the requirement to commit to FRAND terms in a SEP licence serves the public interest insofar as it spurs “the best and most up-to-date technical” standards to be set and inventors to “obtain a fair reward for their invention”. While Canadian jurisprudence is yet to develop on what negotiations are FRAND and what are not, the guidelines forecast issues that industries might face on this matter.

Shortly after, the Federal Court of Canada released its , which aimed at developing efficient, expedient, and proportional use of court time. A rundown of the particularly noteworthy protocols to streamline trials and court’s resources is available .

The spring also ushered in a as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union received Royal Assent on the 16^th of May []. It is important to note that CETA listed the ICSID tribunal as the main recourse for disputes. on how this may affect the IP environment domestically suggests that the ICSID’s unappealable decisions could be a new problem for Canada, absent the requirement of certification in domestic courts. So, in addition to CETA’s implications toward patent term restoration, appeals under NOC regulations, and the potential end of dual litigation — see general outline and significance for pharmaceutical patent protection — further developments stemming from the tribunal jurisdiction are anticipated for the new year.

The last development of the season provided an important lesson from a business perspective regarding IP transfer agreements. In , poor management of IP rights and poorly conceived transfer agreements proved to be a hindrance to enforceability. The Federal Court also delivered an important lesson around patent infringement when it announced the Public Judgement and Reasons in , awarding Dow Chemical the largest patent infringement monetary award in Canadian history: $644,623,550 and pre-judgement interest.

Utility, Enforceability, and NOCs

Two hot-button issues from the Supreme Court of Canada heated up the start of the summer. One involved the decision that did away with the Promise Doctrine, and the other pertained to a global takedown order imposed on an online intermediary (Google) that may change the future of IP enforcement.

In the first, , the Court effectively abolished the Promise Doctrine on utility. , all explicit promises of utility made by a patentee had to be fulfilled for the patent to be valid. The Court nonetheless deemed this requirement “unsound” and “not good law”. For the Court, “depriv[ing] such an invention of patent protection if even one ‘promised’ use is not soundly predicted or demonstrated is punitive and has no basis in the Act”. So, in bringing the common-law more into accord with the requirements for patentability, the Court revamped , requiring that the patentees demonstrate, essentially, what the subject-matter of the invention is, and how it is useful in serving a practical purpose.

The second case, , played an important role in increasing IP enforcement outreach in the Internet era. It provides the courts with a more effective measure to protect IP rights. Specifically, the precedent allows an IP owner to obtain a court order against search engines — such as Google in this case — for the removal, on a global scale, of search results (websites) that facilitate infringement of IP rights. It will be interesting to observe whether or not this decision affecting online intermediaries such as Google will to address the problem of unreachable wrongdoers, or will conversely be deemed a to non-infringing actors that are a .

The end of summer featured the ’s proposed amendments to the Notice of Compliance (NOC) Regulations. The amendments seek to update the pharmaceutical patent litigation regime in Canada, enabling Canada to . A discussion of the most significant changes to Canada’s NOC Regulations can be found . The changes will apply to proceedings in which Notices of Allegation (NOAs) were served on or after September 21, 2017 — the date of the NOC Regulations.

Promptly after, the Federal Court released its for actions under the amended NOC Regulations to promote efficiency in light of the strict timelines — 24-month timeframe for a proceeding to be completed and a decision rendered — imposed by the . The guidelines set out procedural rules to be observed for proceedings under the amended NOC Regulations. Some key points worthwhile to look at were outlined .

A Not-So-Obvious Future

Lastly, the winter months saw an of the Canadian law of obviousness. In , the Federal Court of Appeal deemed the “inventive concept” set out in the case an “unnecessary satellite debate” in the analysis of obviousness. After being over the years — see , — the current test for obviousness seems to place emphasis on the as a , at least until a clearer definition of the “inventive concept” is developed by the Supreme Court.

TRADEMARKS

2017 saw a number of notable Canadian court decisions in the realm of trademark law. Outside of the courts, other developments will also shape the IP landscape going forward.

Consumer Criticism Gets a Bit Riskier

In a case dealing with consumer criticism of a brand - - the Federal Court returned a decision favourable to brand-owners. The plaintiff, United Airlines, sued the defendant, Jeremy Cooperstock, for trademark and copyright infringement, depreciation of goodwill, and passing off, over his “gripe site” . The court characterized the website as a “consumer criticism website where visitors can find information on the Plaintiff, submit complaints about the Plaintiff, and read complaints about the Plaintiff dating back to 1998 in the database of complaints.” The website included an .

Justice Phelan held that Cooperstock provided “services” through the website and that the marks were “being used or displayed in the advertising or performance of services pursuant to s 4(2) of the Trade-marks Act.” He also found that there was a likelihood of confusion. As a result, the defendant was found to have infringed s. 20(1)(a).

The defendant was also found liable for passing off: the court found significant goodwill attached to the United marks, that there was confusion and the likelihood of confusion, and that the plaintiff�� suffered damages or was likely to suffer potential damages.

The court held that Cooperstock “intentionally attempted to attract the Plaintiff’s online consumers to his own website for notoriety” and therefore depreciated the goodwill associated with the United marks, contrary to s. 22. Of note, the Defendant was also found to have infringed copyright in the marks and Justice Phelan dismissed the fair dealing defence of parody.

Whereas previous decisions such as Michelin v. Canadian Auto Workers and��BCAA et al. v. Office and Professional Employees’ Int. Union et al., had held that trademark owners’ rights to control the use of their mark in the context of criticism were limited, the United case demonstrates that brand critics must be careful in their use of brands’ logos and trademarks. While , “[i]n this case, the Defendant sailed too close to the wind – and he was put up on the rocks.”

Why Seek an Injunction Anywhere Else?

In , the plaintiff Sleep Country was successful in its motion for an interlocutory injunction. Sleep Country sought to restrain Sears from using the slogan “THERE IS NO REASON TO BUY A MATTRESS ANYWHERE ELSE”, which it argued was confusing with its own slogan “WHY BUY A MATTRESS ANYWHERE ELSE?” Sleep Country alleged that Sears’ use of the slogan was causing harm to Sleep Country as “a result of confusion between the two slogans, as well as depreciation of the goodwill and loss of distinctiveness of Sleep Country's registered trade-marks.”

The court considered the tripartite RJR-MacDonald test for issuing such an injunction: a serious issue has been raised, the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and the balance of convenience favours the seeking party. The key issue on the motion was irreparable harm, which the court found was established by Sleep Country’s “concrete and non-speculative evidence.” Justice Kane held that lost sales, loss of distinctiveness, and depreciation of value of the slogan would lead to irreparable harm, and that the harm could not easily be quantified. The balance of convenience was also found to favour Sleep Country.

It has traditionally been quite difficult for trademark owners to obtain interlocutory injunctions. The Sleep Country case indicates that the courts may be relaxing the onus on trademark owners to prove irreparable harm, particularly in cases where confusion is quite apparent.

Notably, the Quebec Superior Court in denied the plaintiff a similar injunction because “the Court cannot come to the conclusion that it is clear that the use by Cascades new Fluff trademark will cause confusion with the Royale trademarks.” Irving dealt with the allegation that Cascades’ fluffy bunny was confusing with Irving’s furry Royale kittens. The court concluded that “the use of white furry animals is not unique to the packaging for living's products” and that any harm would be quantifiable. Contrasted with Sleep Country, in which it was held that any harm would be too difficult to quantify, Irving shows that it may still be difficult for trademark owners to obtain interlocutory injunctions.

Injunctions Go Global

In a case that dealt with trade secrets and passing off, , the Supreme Court affirmed the effectiveness of an extra-territorial injunction granted by the lower courts. The issue on appeal was “whether Google can be ordered, pending a trial, to globally de-index the websites of a company which, in breach of several court orders, is using those websites to unlawfully sell the intellectual property of another company.”

The court concluded that the injunction was the only way to mitigate the harm to Equustek pending the resolution of the underlying litigation. The case therefore stands for the availability of an extra-territorial injunction as an equitable remedy in Canadian courts: “Where it is necessary to ensure the injunction’s effectiveness, a court can grant an injunction enjoining conduct anywhere in the world.”

Among the other trademark cases decided by Canadian courts this year, and are of particular interest.�� In Travelway, the Federal Court of Appeal held that owning a registered mark is not a complete defence to infringement – the respondent’s registered mark was held to infringe that of the applicant’s. In Diageo, the Federal Court held that Heaven Hill’s Admiral Nelson rum products infringed Diageo’s registered Captain Morgan marks. The court considered the plaintiff and defendant’s trade dress and found the Captain Morgan trade dress to be a distinguishing guise and therefore enforceable under the Trade-marks Act. The court also found that the goodwill associated with the Captain Morgan mark had been depreciated.

Other Changes to Trademark Law

Canada’s updated Trademarks Act is set to come into force in early 2019. In June 2017, the the first draft of the new Trademark Regulations. Comments were accepted until July 21, 2017 and will be taken into consideration when revising the draft regulations. Among the notable changes coming in 2019 are Canada’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, and the Nice Agreement and its classification system. Also significant will be the removal of the use requirement at the time of registration.

COPYRIGHT

2017 continued many of the debates and cases started from the previous year. While some decisions received accolades, others received outright criticism. As was the case in 2016, fair dealing questions came to the fore and hit close to home at �첥��Ƶ.

Fear Dealing and Post-Secondary Education

In a much anticipated decision, the Federal Court ruled against �첥��Ƶ in and directed the university to pay an interim tariff to Access Copyright. In 2011, �첥��Ƶ opted out of the Access Copyright licence due to increasing tariffs and implemented its own copyright guidelines. Crucially, the �첥��Ƶ guidelines allowed students enrolled in a class or course to receive a single copy through a coursepack or via a posting on an online learning management system if the copying was done in accordance with “fair dealing”. However, the Federal Court held that �첥��Ƶ did not have any right to opt-out of tariffs and that the university’s guidelines were arbitrary and not compliant with section 29 of the . Among other things, the guidelines operated under the assumption that the use of 10% of a copyright-protected work was “fair dealing” but did not provide an explanation. Quantitatively, this threshold might seem to restrict copying of an entire text. But, as , qualitatively, the parts copied may constitute the “core” of the work, making such use “unfair,” and conceivably allow for the reproduction of the entirety of a work if multiple sections are used across courses and faculties. Further, the court emphasised the school’s failure to comply with the guidelines and therefore, enforced the interim tariff. the inclusion of “education” as a fair dealing purpose played little role in this decision. While much attention on the case framed the important issues with respect to fair dealing, note that the case was not about copyright infringement, but rather whether tariffs imposed by the Copyright Board of Canada are mandatory for post-secondary institutions that use copyright-protected material licensed by Access Copyright. �첥��Ƶ indicates it will the decision so these questions will continue in 2018 and beyond.

Anti-Circumvention and Technological Protection Measures

Setting precedent in 2017, in the Federal Court applied substantive rules on the anti-circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs), which were introduced in the Copyright Act 2012. The Federal Court expressed its willingness to enforce the TPMs and protect against circumvention in the digital age. The case involved a corporation named Go Cyber shopping (2005) Ltd., which sold and installed circumventing devices enabling users to play potentially hundreds The Federal Court in the suit filed by Nintendo, awarded $12.7 Million as damages and held that Go Cyber “authorized” copying by providing instructions to download header data without the consent of Nintendo constituting infringement. suggests that by adopting “a broad interpretation of a technological protection measure”, the court confirmed Canadian copyright law’s tough stance on copyright piracy.

Obligations of Internet Service Providers

The ongoing conflict between reached the Supreme Court after the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in 2017. Rogers filed before the Supreme Court to consider the scope of the Internet service provider’s (ISP) obligations under the notice and notice system. The FCA ruled that ISPs can disclose the alleged offender’s identity for free. The decision surprised the industry because it would be easier for copyright holders to that they come to financial settlements.

Data protections

Affirming the trial court’s ruling on the copyright protection of seismic data, the appeal in the Alberta case of was dismissed and appeal by GSI to the Supreme Court was denied. On Appeal, GSI argued that Section 101 of should be interpreted properly. , “The correct interpretation of "disclose" also confers on these Boards the legal right to grant to others both access and opportunity to copy and re-copy all materials acquired from GSI and collected under the Regulatory Regime”.

This decision will ensure copyright protection of seismic data by simultaneously providing a framework to access it.

Canadian content and Copyright-related Reviews

In 2017, the Federal Government also adopted initiatives to protect Canadian creators and introduced a policy framework to extend Canadian content worldwide. On September 28, Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced Later in the year, on December 13, the Government officially announced the Parliamentary Review of the Copyright Act, as mandated by the 2012 Copyright Modernization Act.�� The government also to reform Copyright Board of Canada in August.

U.S. Developments

In the U.S., perhaps the biggest copyright case of 2017 was The case dealt with the issue of whether copyright could subsist in the “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features” of a “design of a useful article” – in this case, cheerleading uniforms. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such design features as the arrangement of lines and shapes on cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright protection, so long as they were separable from the useful article in question. In other words, if the impugned designs were imagined in abstraction – say for example if they appeared on a canvass – and thus eligible for copyright protection, then they would be equally eligible for copyright protection as part of a useful article. Therefore, while copyright cannot protect the shape, cut, or dimensions of cheerleading uniform, those design features that are separable from the functional object may be eligible for copyright protection. And while such a holding is not entirely novel, the Star Athletica decision likely sets a valuable precedent for lower courts that have struggled with the extent to which copyright protects the design features of a functional object.

Fair use was also a hot topic in U.S. courts in 2017, with a variety of interesting outcomes in cases across creative media. In , a raunchy parody of the Dr. Seuss classic “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” was held to be the kind of transformative work that qualifies as fair use. Meanwhile, in , a U.S. district court judge held that unauthorized children’s versions – or “KinderGuides” – of classic books by Hemmingway, Kerouac, and the like did not constitute fair use, but rather infringing use. In music, Drake’s use of a spoken word sample from jazz artist James Oscar Smith was held to be fair use in , and in film, a Star Trek fan-fiction movie was held to be a derivative work and not fair use in .

Copyright Around the World

Internationally, toymaker Lego was successful for the first time in a against manufacturers in China of some near-identical toys. 2017 also saw China clearly establish its growing importance on the international copyright stage, with deals in the book industry and increasing pressure on to meet international standards with respect to copyright licensing. Meanwhile in the E.U., courts held that if they perform an essential role in facilitating piracy of copyright-protected material, and that the may constitute copyright infringement.

IP OSGOODE

In 2017, IP Osgoode celebrated one of our very own, , who has been a guiding force in the Canadian intellectual property (IP) landscape for the past 40 years.�� IP Osgoode and Osgoode Hall Law School hosted a special symposium entitled, “” in celebration of Prof. Vaver’s in recognition of “his leadership in intellectual property law as a scholar and mentor”.

The symposium included a distinguished set of participants drawn from Prof. Vaver’s network of former students, colleagues and research collaborators, and highlighted four main themes of Prof. Vaver’s extensive scholarship: overlap and redundancy in the IP system, legislation and reform, users’ rights, and the importance of history. The luncheon keynote speaker, The , CC,QC (Supreme Court of Canada, 2006 to 2015),�� who was introduced by The , QC (Federal Court of Canada, 2001 to 2016), provided a heartwarming speech that gave the audience a glimpse into Prof. Vaver’s early life and career.

To mark the year��Prof. Vaver��received the��Order of Canada, IP Osgoode medal. The medal will be awarded yearly to an Osgoode student in the graduating class who merits special recognition for outstanding achievements in the area of intellectual property law. The student’s achievements extend beyond academic excellence, and can include significant contributions to research in intellectual property and related areas or exceptional commitment and enthusiasm through their participation in intellectual property-related extra-curricular activities.

Following the previous year’s successful partnership with Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic continued to grow in 2017. On behalf of IP Osgoode, Professor D’Agostino entered into an exciting with the International Law Research Program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) to support the Innovation Clinic. The IP Osgoode-CIGI partnership stems from a mutual desire to facilitate the discovery, dissemination and application of new knowledge concerning practical IP law training of law students and the desire the to facilitate the provision of basic IP legal services to early stage innovators and start-ups. IP Osgoode hired Dr. as the first full-time Innovation Clinic Coordinator. The addition of a full time coordinator has allowed for a substantial increase of the Clinic’s carriage of client files and expanded the Innovation Clinic’s outreach beyond the �첥��Ƶ and Osgoode Hall communities as well as the Toronto and York Regions into the Waterloo Region and throughout Ontario.

The partnership also supports Prof. D’Agostino’s research project, which consists of a critical evaluation of the Innovation Clinic model as well as clinic models elsewhere, and identifying potential opportunities for developing a sustainable network of clinics in Canada and beyond. The research and report will further dialogues between industry, law schools, law societies, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), levels of government, and other relevant stakeholders regarding the creation of a network of IP law clinics across Canada. This work will be published in 2018 and help inform and support CIPO and federal government initiatives to increase IP awareness, accessibility, and education in Canada.

Top 10 most read 2017 IPilogue articles

Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder & Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program, and the Innovation Clinic, the Editor-in-Chief for the IPilogue and the Intellectual Property Journal, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

With contributions from Stephen Cooley (IPilogue Editor & Osgoode JD Candidate) and Haramrit Kaur (IPilogue Editor and Osgoode Professional Development LLM (Canadian Common Law) Candidate) on Copyright, Sebastian Beck-Watt (IPilogue Senior Editor & Osgoode Graduate) on Trademarks, and Bruna Kalinoski (IPilogue Editor & Osgoode LLM Graduate) on Patents.

The post IP Year in Review 2017 - A Year of Promises Made, Kept, and Abandoned appeared first on IPOsgoode.

TORONTO, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017 – For nearly 40 years, has been a guiding force in the Canadian intellectual property (IP) landscape. On Monday, Nov. 20, IP Osgoode and Osgoode Hall Law School at �첥��Ƶ will host a special symposium in honour of Vaver –

Vaver’s scholarly outputs have been cited with approval in rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and other court and tribunal opinions. His teaching, at universities on three continents, has influenced generations of students who have gone on to practise, research and teach IP law. On May 10, 2017, the Governor of General of Canada in recognition of “his leadership in intellectual property law as a scholar and mentor”.

The symposium will include a distinguished set of participants drawn from Vaver’s network of former students, colleagues and research collaborators. It will take place from 9am to 4:15pm in Room 1014, Osgoode Hall Law School, Ignat Kaneff Building, Keele campus.

The event will highlight four main themes of Vaver’s extensive scholarship: overlap and redundancy in the IP system, legislation and reform, users’ rights, and the importance of history. IP Osgoode founder and director , who will chair the day’s events, describes her former law professor and now colleague as

Following the symposium, the conversation will continue on IP Osgoode’s blog (), the IPilogue, which will feature blogs and commentary about each panel session. The event will be audio-recorded and a podcast of each panel session, the keynote speech and Vaver’s closing remarks will be made available for those who could not attend. A video of highlights from the day’s events and special messages from some of the participants will be posted on IP Osgoode’s website. In addition, a special edition of the Intellectual Property Journal will be convened with articles and commentaries contributed by the guest speakers and participants.

The , CC,QC (Supreme Court of Canada, 2006 to 2015) will provide a luncheon keynote and will be introduced by The , QC (Federal Court of Canada, 2001 to 2016).

The first session, “Too Much of the Same: Overlap & Redundancy on the IP System,” will feature Hughes, , Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law, University of Oxford, and , Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. D’Agostino will chair the session.

“Towards a Coherent Moral Centre: Legislation & Reform,” will be chaired by IP Osgoode faculty member , Associate Dean, Research & Institutional Relations, and Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, and feature , Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, and , Assistant Professor, Peter A. Allard School of Law, The University of British Columbia.

The newest IP Osgoode faculty member, , Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, will chair the session on “User Rights,” an area where Vaver has made a formative contribution. The panel includes , Visiting Professor of Law, National Law School, Bangalore, and Honorary Research Chair Professor of IP Law, Nirma University, , QC, Founding Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP, and , William Fairfield Warren, Distinguished Professor, School of Law, Boston University.

, IP Osgoode faculty member and Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, will chair the day’s final event on “The Importance of History.” The panel features , Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, and , Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. A cocktail reception will close the day’s events.

Support for the event is provided by IP Osgoode, Osgoode Hall Law School and .

To attend the symposium, RSVP at (event code: Vaver). For the agenda and participant biographies, click .

About IP Osgoode

Conceptualized & founded in 2008 by Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino, , the Intellectual Property (IP) Law and Technology Program at Osgoode Hall Law School, is an independent and authoritative voice which explores legal governance issues at the intersection of intellectual property and technology. IP Osgoode cultivates interdisciplinary, comparative and transnational research, collaboration, policy-thinking and practice on the basis of a tight connection between teaching, research and clinical action. IP Osgoode has put Osgoode and �첥��Ƶ on the map in the global IP debate. We aim to influence the IP debate in Canada and internationally by educating our students and collaborating with the IP community in Canada and worldwide. Together, we have built an innovative program that is cutting-edge and completely unique to Osgoode.

About Osgoode Hall Law School

of �첥��Ƶ has a proud history of 128 years of leadership and innovation in legal education and legal scholarship. A total of about 900 students are enrolled in Osgoode’s three-year Juris Doctor (JD) Program as well as joint and combined programs. The school's Graduate Program in Law is also the largest in the country and one of the most highly regarded in North America. In addition, Osgoode Professional Development, which operates out of Osgoode’s facility in downtown Toronto, offers both degree and non-degree programming for Canadian and international lawyers, non-law professionals, firms and organizations. Osgoode has an internationally renowned faculty of 60 full-time professors, and more than 100 adjunct professors. Our respected community of more than 18,000 alumni are leaders in the legal profession and in many other fields in Canada and across the globe.

About �첥��Ƶ

is known for championing new ways of thinking that drive teaching and research excellence. Our students receive the education they need to create big ideas that make an impact on the world. Meaningful and sometimes unexpected careers result from cross-discipline programming, innovative course design and diverse experiential learning opportunities. York students and graduates push limits, achieve goals and find solutions to the world’s most pressing social challenges, empowered by a strong community that opens minds. �첥��Ƶ is an internationally recognized research university – our 11 faculties and 26 research centres have partnerships with 200+ leading universities worldwide. Located in Toronto, York is the third largest university in Canada, with a strong community of 53,000 students, 7,000 faculty and administrative staff, and more than 295,000 alumni. �첥��Ƶ's fully bilingual Glendon campus is home to Southern Ontario's Centre of Excellence for French Language and Bilingual Postsecondary Education.

Media Contacts:

Virginia Corner, Communications Manager, Osgoode Hall Law School of �첥��Ƶ, 416-736-5820, vcorner@osgoode.yorku.ca

Sandra McLean, �첥��Ƶ Media Relations, 416-736-2100 ext. 22097, sandramc@yorku.ca

The post IP Osgoode and Osgoode Hall Law School host intellectual property symposium in honour of Osgoode Prof. David Vaver, "Intellectual Property: Fuel for the Fire of Genius or Shelf Life of a Banana?" appeared first on IPOsgoode.